Civ 2 versus Civ 3: Bring It!!!!!!!!

[eyeball]

I like Civ2 better. I played Civ3 a few times but never got into it as much as Civ2. I might play again...

 

[Jon Shafer]

The bit about destroying the top unit on a stack the whole stack disappearing really turned me off to Civ 2... especially in the Civil War scenario (). The North could destroy the Army of Northern Virginia in the first turn, and the whole scenario was a wash after that (did anyone playtest that scenario? ). That's one of the reasons I decided to do a Civil War scenario first instead of anything else... a lack of any good Civ-game CW scenarios.

 

[one_man_assault]

If only Civ3 could have the multiplayer of Civ2 and the openess of SMAC it would become the ultimate incarnation of a game +nod+


....I know this is gona set off a wave of hate mail

---B_R_A_C_I_N_G---

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by one_man_assault
If only Civ3 could have the multiplayer of Civ2 and the openess of SMAC it would become the ultimate incarnation of a game +nod+


....I know this is gona set off a wave of hate mail

---B_R_A_C_I_N_G---

I hate to disapoint you but people have said manythings worse here about Civ3 and most of those didn't set of a wave of hate mail.
Besides its hard to hatemail constructive critisisim.

 

[one_man_assault]

I wasnt literally serious...or I wouldnt have been stupid enough to post it

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Trip
The bit about destroying the top unit on a stack the whole stack disappearing really turned me off to Civ 2... especially in the Civil War scenario (). The North could destroy the Army of Northern Virginia in the first turn, and the whole scenario was a wash after that (did anyone playtest that scenario? ). That's one of the reasons I decided to do a Civil War scenario first instead of anything else... a lack of any good Civ-game CW scenarios.

That was the main problem with Civ 2 - top unit destroyed equals the ENTIRE stack destroyed. I had hoped Civ 3 would give us STACK combat with realtime tactics; instead we got tedious individual unit versus individual unit battles, but at least it's a slight improvement over this aspect of Civ 2.

The published CW scenario sucked for a number of reasons, including supply issues, use of railroads, and pathetic naval warfare specifically blockade runners and amphibious invasions.

At least Civ 2 had a cheat mode - unlike Civ 3.

 

[Portuguese]

People seem to like civ2 cheats very much...

 

[Sha-Feer]

Its the borders that won CIVIII over to me, but there is a few things I miss about CIVII, like the power rating.

 

[Mad Bomber]

I thought that CIV 2 was better than CIV 3...

Until I played CIV 2 for nastalgia about a month ago, & now I know CIV 3 is better than CIV 2. I could not finish the game! It just seemed so cheap, & the diplomatic features of CIV 2 suck compared to CIV 3. The only thing that CIV 3 really needs is an editor so that we don't have to mod the game in order to make slight changes to the game ( in CIV 2, for example I gave Mech Inf. & Armor the ability to move as on roads, to increase mobility without them having 5 or 6 attacks per turn, Battleships ignored city walls. ranges for para;s bombers, fighters, were increased & made more potent. (Air has always been weak in CIV games), helicopters & bombers were allowed to see subs, ect.) Slight changes are needed in order to tweak any civ game to enhance the personal enjoyment of the game. Also bombardment needs to be lethal against Naval Units.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Zouave
That was the main problem with Civ 2 - top unit destroyed equals the ENTIRE stack destroyed. I had hoped Civ 3 would give us STACK combat with realtime tactics; instead we got tedious individual unit versus individual unit battles, but at least it's a slight improvement over this aspect of Civ 2.

The published CW scenario sucked for a number of reasons, including supply issues, use of railroads, and pathetic naval warfare specifically blockade runners and amphibious invasions.

At least Civ 2 had a cheat mode - unlike Civ 3.

You're right. The Civ 3 combat system is incredibly simplified compared to a game like Europa Universalis, and that's one of the things I dislike the most about Civ.

 

[Dinorius R.]

I can't believe this thread is still going! Surely Edmund Spenser is up for some kind of award for this? Must be some kind of record here...

 

[qanda]

I've never played Civ2 before but Civ3 got me hooked for almost a year, which is a miracle, as I easily get tired with games.

Civ3 rules!

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
I thought that CIV 2 was better than CIV 3...

Until I played CIV 2 for nastalgia about a month ago, & now I know CIV 3 is better than CIV 2. I could not finish the game! It just seemed so cheap, & the diplomatic features of CIV 2 suck compared to CIV 3. The only thing that CIV 3 really needs is an editor so that we don't have to mod the game in order to make slight changes to the game ( in CIV 2, for example I gave Mech Inf. & Armor the ability to move as on roads, to increase mobility without them having 5 or 6 attacks per turn, Battleships ignored city walls. ranges for para;s bombers, fighters, were increased & made more potent. (Air has always been weak in CIV games), helicopters & bombers were allowed to see subs, ect.) Slight changes are needed in order to tweak any civ game to enhance the personal enjoyment of the game. Also bombardment needs to be lethal against Naval Units.

It's time for people to understand:

CIV3 is NOT perfect, but it IS much BETTER than CIV2

CIV2 is the worst of the series! Who play CIV3 has not the courage to go back, because CIV2 seems a game from the last century and has so many little anoying bugs (battleship/bomber invencivility,for one...) and some important features (diplomacy,for example...) are so simplified...

Try to get CIV3 better with mods, patches, new graphics, or so on, but do not get back to CIV2

This is for all, and I thanks Mad Bomber for implicited have agreeded with me.

 

[tyguyx12]

Civ II AI looks like a monkey designed it compared to Civ III. The AI didn't respect the player enough. They would declare war on a much stronger civ for nothing.

Also check out the Civ II AI stupidities.

 

[thestonesfan]

Hey now, Civ2 is classic. I always play Civ3 now, because yes, it is improved, but Civ2 was vastly improved over the original Civ. I'll play Civ4 when it comes out.

Civ3 pluses - Borders, for one, really help the game. Resources are a very nice implementation, and improved diplomacy is always great. Artillery and bombardment in general is handled much better. The graphics are nice too. Culture adds more depth. The recap at the end of the game is a treat, and of course the fate of an entire stack of units does not rest on one.

But there are lots of things that still need work.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Let's face it...it's obvious now, after these ten pages, that the rookies still prefer civ 3 and the vets, experienced, expert or supreme players favor the more 'classic' civ 2.

ed

 

[lordwu84]

Civ2 compared to Civ3 in its current stage of development is a far superior game. This is simply because there are still too many bugs with Civ3 that it is fustrating to play. I think MP Civ3 will be great, if there are any problems, players will find a way around them. The scenario editor capabilities will be just as good, probably better, than Civ2. I don't think I will go back to Civ2, the new stuff are just too good. The main problem with Civ3 are the limitations. You are not as free to pick your own path. There are more options, yes, but they are ultimately more confining. The makes the game "simple" and is not what a TBS should be. I agree that Sid was probably unable to go completely free in designing his ideas. A lot of features of Civ2 will not be implemented and will be dearly missed (mainly espianoge and caravans). Hopefully, PTW will fix some things, although my hopes are not high. Give Civ3 a couple of years and then start a new poll, I'm sure it'd be close to 90%.

 

[SirJethro]

Originally posted by EdmundSpenser
Let's face it...it's obvious now, after these ten pages, that the rookies still prefer civ 3 and the vets, experienced, expert or supreme players favor the more 'classic' civ 2.

ed

Which do you spend more time watching: ESPN or ESPN Classic? TBS or Turner Classic Movies? MTV or Classical performance?

Call it what you want. Which do you play more now? If the answer is Civ2, stubborn nostalgia or a 386 PC are dictating your actions.

But hey...more power too you. (but aren't you posting on the wrong forum?)

 

[thestonesfan]

"Supreme" players prefer Civ2? Civ3 is a heck of a lot harder than Civ2, no doubt about it. The AI is far better. The first time I played Civ3, I played it on Chieftan just to get a feel for the game, and it was actaully challanging. The first time I played Civ2 was also on Chieftain, and I had the world dominated in a night.

I agree with SirJethro about the nostalgia thing. Who doesn't have fond memories of Civ2? The music, the wonder movies, the civil disorder rumble...it's a classy game. But the inclusion of resources, more trade, borders, and culture more than push Civ3 to the fore.

Plus, with the editor, you can change a lot of the more annoying things with Civ3.

 

[EdmundSpenser]

Originally posted by Dinorius R.
I can't believe this thread is still going! Surely Edmund Spenser is up for some kind of award for this? Must be some kind of record here...

i agree, come on sun ztu and all u bloke moderators...how bout some kudos for the Ed man...maybe a free copy of the New Expansion for Civ 3 or a bloody moderating post, or just a slice of beef jerky, i dont care