Civ 2 vs Civ 3 vs SMAC vs Colonization

[LordAzreal]

While looking around the forum, I found a "Civ 2 vs Civ 3" poll. I decided on a poll including Civ II, Civ III as well as Alpha Centauri and Colonization. So how about it? Which one out of all four of them is best?

 

[Mapache]

Colonization is easily the worst of your quadriga. Although I didn't play it often I voted for SMAC.

1. SMAC
2. Civ2
3. Civ3

4. Colonization

Even Imperialism 2 was imho better than Colonization.

 

[tmai]

We sit together, SMAC and I, until only SMAC remains.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Colonization was the worst?How can you say that,it was great,I know some have problems with that game,everyone´s entitled to their own opinion,but putting Colonization behind a game as bad as Civ2 hah!

Colonization had atmosphere,it was romantic,it didn´t have the "attack stack destroy all;problem",it had resources which were worth something,the best trade system so far,minor tribes which took part in the game,it was a truely great game,and in my eyes the best Civilization part 2 there ever was.

Civ2 sucked!It was the same game as Civ1 with all the cute things taken out,like Russians in fur coats moaning at one in the Diplomacy screen,troops marching into town,it had nerve racking trade caravans,one would be hated for being too powerful,the only good thing was editable units (which even a n00bie could change),but thats more or less it.

SMAC was a good game....if it had worked,read an article in PC Gamer were it said;one gets the impression one can play a game with a single unit and win;they were right,one really didn´t need a variety of units,the AI was lame,I really wanted to play that game but it was simply no fun,btw I´d appreciate any help in finding multiplayer games,where is a forum?

And Civ3 HAH!...Have no objections
Well except for the combat system which should finally be enhanced,I´d like to see it in Panzer General style,would also like to see a better trade system and that resources are more important,but otherwise it´s a good game.

 

[simwiz2]

2 days ago i would have said civ2, but yesterday i tried playing civ2 mge with someone. it was awful. so many things we take for granted now, such as seeing when a city will grow/finish project from the map or even the city screen, couldnt be done. ICS was horrible, and the howie-blitzes of the lategame were the ONLY way to win in civ2. if you dont blitz them they blitz you. in one turn a mighty civ is completely gone, and the defender can ony watch as his useless under-powered mech infs are wiped out along his RR.

 

[Mr Spice]

Man, is it exhausting to keep voting in all these numerous "Civ 3 vs some other game"-polls. But one has to remain a loyal Civ 3- fanboy.

Regarding SMAC and Colonization I totaly agree with Dirk.
My biggest gripe with Colonization was that when you had finally got your empire running smoothly, the game was over. You never had the chance to really use you creation. SMAC is a good game with a lot of feeling, but has terrible AI.

Civ 2 is a classic. Of course, when first playing it I felt exactly like Dirk, but it changed soon enough.

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Yep know what you mean concerning Colonization Mr Spice,it was kind of fixed with a later patch which would let the game continue even after independence was achieved,but still agree with you. Maybe why I didn´t take it as annoying is because I´m the exploring/settling kinda dude,and in this Colonization excelled, nothing was more fun than finding new tribes,a tobacco leaf under woods,good positions for cities,finding the "Fountain of Youth".It really had this romantic Terra Incognita feeling,very nice

As for C2,well I dunno will probably never like that game,also thought that XCOM3 was the worst part of the series,it had some nice sides but somehow didn´t like it as much.Silicoids were simply cuter,when they´d raid wheatfields for cows to abduct

 

[Minuteman]

Originally posted by Mapache
Colonization is easily the worst of your quadriga. Although I didn't play it often I voted for SMAC.

1. SMAC
2. Civ2
3. Civ3

4. Colonization

Even Imperialism 2 was imho better than Colonization.

Have to disagree with you there. Colonization was a great game, and sorely underrated at the time. But, we all have our favorites, now don't we?

 

[Jimcat]

I've said it in every poll so far and I'll say it again.

I'm a big fan of Civ3, but the best of the "Sid Meier" games is still SMAC.

SMAC had better diplomacy, better unit customization, a more interesting tech tree, and a better combat model than Civ3.

That being said, they are two different games. I like Civ3 as an (alternate) historical scenario. I like SMAC as a science fiction scenario.

Colonization, despite its flaws, remains a sentimental favorite of mine. The fact that I still play it after eight years and three changes of computer is testimony enough to its appeal.

 

[Ordep]

Don't get me wrong, I love Civ3, but I was very upset when I saw some of the things that were in Civ2 and SMAC that I enjoyed, but were left out of Civ3. For example:

How come there were more wonders, civs and governments to choose from in Civ2?

Why can't I easily make my own civ and add it without replacing a default like in SMAC?

Where are the cool little movies that played every time you made a wonder in SMAC?

Don't even get me started on the lack of multiplayer.

And what about the talking advisors in Civ2?

Like I said, I love Civ3, I just think its weird that the creators would have it fall short of earlier versions of the game in so many ways (though it is much better then them in other ways). Oh, I've never played colonization, so I can't really comment on that.

 

[1-800-DOCTORB]

Colonization is the oldest of the 4, but certainly not the worst. I had more fun playing that game than any of Civ 2, Civ 3, or Alpha Centauri. Thats not to say that they're all bad games, I love Civ 2 and Civ 3, and AC is widly respected as a great strategy game, but in terms of sheer fun factor, Colonization wins out. The combat is atrocious, I'll admit that, but the fact that you could harvest around around 10 different resources from the land rather than the basic 3, was a refreshing change from the other games.

 

[Richard III]

It's heresy, but on sheer game design:

1. SMAC
2. Civ3
3. Colonization
4. Civ2

In terms of games I would rather play, Civ3 pulls way above SMAC. I'm not a big sci-fi fellow. But then, as I've said elsewhere, I play civ for the history. The historical feel is important. SMAC had a great feel, you would even want to watch the wonder movies, and it would have been great to see Civ3 just be a historical SMAC with culture added. Likewise, Colonization at least gave you a sense that you were colonizing and exploring something. Who couldn't feel a sense of joy when that "discovery of the pacific ocean" screenshot popped up?

Civ2 doesn't add to either. While I still played it until civ3, it just felt too "game" and not enough "experience."

PS got a chuckle out of the "hair-raising caravans" comment on Civ1. You're right. I probably lost about two years to the high-blood pressure effects of losing caravans I'd nursed through enemy territory for years.

R.III


I

 

[Gerad]

I have to say SMAC is overall the best game so far. In my opionion CIV 3 sort of stepped back rather than foward I don`t get why they didn`t take some good ideas from SMAC and put them in CIV 3.

The other thing I liked better was the wonder movies!! It's a rip off the movies made getting a wonder a bigger event and yes I know they were called secret projects. The movies were cool

but besides that overall SMAC was a better game and the sad part it that SMAC was made a few years ago you would think CIV 3 would be a lot better. CIV 3 is a pretty good game but where are the big improvements after so many years??

 

[Futumch]

I have played both games enough now to see the differences between them, apart from the obvious ones like setting, tech and so on.

Civilisation 3 is a great game with one major flaw, and that is the diplomacy. It's barely functional and quite primitive. Bear in mind that the same company wrote Alpha Centauri, and the diplomacy in that game was considerably better than in Civ 3.

Some examples. Things that you can do in Alpha Centauri that you can't (but maybe should) do in Civ 3.

Technology research can be directed to specific goals.
Attacks against a common foe can be organised, even down to which city you plan to hit.
You have influence over your allies and can get them to call a truce against third parties.
You can stack with their units.
You can enter their cities for repairs.
Government and Economy types influence what the other factions think of you to a limited extent. (eg. Gaians and what they think of you if you go to a Green economy).

Hmm well that's what I consider to be a fairly signifigant list. I'm sure that Firaxis had their reasons when they dumbed down the Diplomacy in Civ 3. It's a shame that you can't select a more complex diplomacy option, like the way Railroad Tycoon had more complex economic models if you wanted to play that way.

That's the only gripe I have with Civ 3, enabling multiplayer would go a long way to fix some of the points I mentioned above.

 

[Publius]

Originally posted by Dirk Aurel
Civ2 sucked!It was the same game as Civ1 with all the cute things taken out...

Dirk, what the hell are you talking about? You cannot honestly mean that! It must be pure shock value, designed to generate a response such as this. I mean no disrespect to you, but Civ 2 did NOT suck. If you want to talk about a strategy game that sucked, how about Star Wars Rebellion? That sucked, SUCKED!, worst money I ever wasted. I would have been better off blowing that 40 bucks on a craps table in Atlantic City, at least I would have had some fun with it. But to say that about Civ2? I must take exception with that remark. Until last autumn, Civ2 was my favorite game ever.

IMHO, I vote 1)Civ3, 2)Civ2, 3)Colonization, 4)SMAC. Even though I like SMAC, based on gameplay, I put Col before it even though it isn't as pretty. Colonization is much too underrated nowadays, considering the graphics technology of its time. And trying to compare Col to Civ3 is like comparing the Flying Fortress to the Stealth Bomber.

But anyhow, I am getting tired of these "Civ3 vs ..." polls. Maybe I'll post a new one: What is better? Civ3 or Leisure Suit Larry?

 

[Ironikinit]

Technology research can be directed to specific goals.

F4 for science advisor, click on a goal that's up the tree a ways. They are queued up in order of least research to most. If you don't like the order, you can shift+click to queue them up. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by specific goals.

Government and Economy types influence what the other factions think of you to a limited extent.

Civ 3 doesn't have economy types, obviously, but the various AI civs have settings (accessible via editor) for favored and despised gov't types. The theory is that the civ in question will have better relations with civs of the favored type and worse with the other. France, for example, favors the republic and despises monarchy. It doesn't seem to affect the AI's choice of government.

The stacking with allies thing and healing in their cities were nice extras. It would be cool if somebody, like a real Civ 3 afficianado, interviewed Soren Johnson and got the rationale for leaving out some of the elements of SMAC. My guess is that 9 out of 10 times the answer is streamlining.

 

[Constantine XI]

I love Colonization, an actual trading system . I actually kinda like SMAC the least but I think its becasue the scifi setting often confused or bored me(nothing I can think of wrong with the gamepley)

 

[Futumch]

Originally posted by Ironikinit

Technology research can be directed to specific goals.

F4 for science advisor, click on a goal that's up the tree a ways. They are queued up in order of least research to most. If you don't like the order, you can shift+click to queue them up. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by specific goals.

Hmm no what I meant was the other faction will say 'I'm researching tech A, why don't you do tech B'. I probably didn't explain that too well...

A lot of the Pact options were extremely good.

 

[Futumch]

Government and Economy types influence what the other factions think of you to a limited extent.

Civ 3 doesn't have economy types, obviously, but the various AI civs have settings (accessible via editor) for favored and despised gov't types. The theory is that the civ in question will have better relations with civs of the favored type and worse with the other. France, for example, favors the republic and despises monarchy. It doesn't seem to affect the AI's choice of government.


Yes that's true, there's all manner of goodies in the editor. The point to make is that you should not have to edit in your own features, particularly when they had these government and economy things working in SMAC.

In case you're not real sure what I mean, you have these options in SMAC that let you choose what sort of social system you want to use amongst your population. These social engineering choices influenced what the other factions thought of you. If you went for a Democratic, Free market, knowledge based society, the Morganites and University would probably love you, but the Spartans and Believers would not be too impressed. And they would tell you as well...

Maybe that clears up some stuff about my original posting.

 

[brody]

Originally posted by Futumch
Originally posted by Ironikinit

Technology research can be directed to specific goals.

F4 for science advisor, click on a goal that's up the tree a ways. They are queued up in order of least research to most. If you don't like the order, you can shift+click to queue them up. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by specific goals.

Hmm no what I meant was the other faction will say 'I'm researching tech A, why don't you do tech B'. I probably didn't explain that too well...

A lot of the Pact options were extremely good.

Yes, that's the one true diplomacy thing I really liked in SMAC... a "research pact" sort of thing. Maybe they'll get something better in Civ3. I mean, the "put your trade out on the table" approach does make it more flexible, so maybe it won't be too hard to add these sorts of things in the future.

As for Civ2, Dirk is SO right. That game was garbage. It was a cheap Civ1 ripoff - most of the good stuff, a little bit of bad stuff, and a little extra gravy. It wasn't worth the time between games, and it wasn't enough of a difference to keep me occupied. I played it on and off for about a year and never cared for it much.