Civ II vs. Civ III?

[Chinghis]

Greetings, fellow fanatic. Or, should I say addicts? That certainly applies in my case... First post - nice place you have here.

Started with the original Civ in 1996.... Got Civ II Gold MP so I could play with my wife, but she decided she didn't want to get addicted and kill as much time on the game as I do. Stopped playing for a while, but got back into it recently, playing mainly Deity-level games... haven't won one since my return, however.

Anyway, the wife got me Civilization III Conquests for Christmas, either not realizing I would need Civ III to play it, or thinking I could upgrade Civ II.

So, here's my question - anyone have any comments on how the two games compare? I realize they're different games, but curious to hear how they stack up. I feel like I could play Civ II for the rest of my life and never get bored. Think it's worth it for me to buy Civ III so I could use the expansion she gave me (I do love military history, so it looks intriguing)... Or, should I just trade it in for the basic game, and decide on expansions later? Or, just concentrate on Civ II?

So many scenarios, so little time.... Thanks!

 

[LouLong]

I play Civ since Civ 1. Loved Civ 2 and was NOT pleased by the basic Civ 3 but with the two expansions it is very good.
I tried playing Civ 2 again for one game lately (mostly because my cousin discovered Civ 2 in an old stuff bin) and I must say I don't really like to go back.

Frontiers and their zone of controls limit the howitzer exploit. Albeit it was hard to get used to it at first (using a stack of 50 artilleries on a row is QUITE tedious) I prefer the artillery and bombardment (air and ships) in use now.
Stacks are not destroyed if one unit is destroyed. Strategic resources are really worth fighting for now.

All that contributes to make it better IMHO for someone who enjoys military history.

There are still some bugs (submarine bug) and some flaws in the editor (no events, poor set up for civ relations (locked war or locked alliance but no way to adjust "liking" or just at war with the possibility to make peace).

But overall I think situations are richer, with more diplomatic and trading options. Armies are nice, ....

Now that you have Conquests I think you can get vanilla for a bargain so my advice is try it (but with the expansion).

Or just look at it and wait for Civ 4...

For user-created scenarios, my best advice for you is to go in the Scenario thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=75) and see what some people have done. It is usually discussed by and large so it should give you a good idea of the possibilities of the editor.

And you can also check the Civ 2 scenarios section.

And ... welcome to CFC !

 

[bkwrm79]

I was disappointed that Civ III is not clearly better than Civ II... but it's about as good, with different advantages. They're my two favorite games, and are both currently installed on my computer (along with Starcraft).

The bottom line for me is that I recommend getting Civ III, and playing both.

 

[mazzz]

Get civ3, download 1.22 patch, and then get civ4 next year!

 

[Chinghis]

Thanks, folks. I just found the "Why Civ II is better than Civ III" thread on the Civ II board, so that actually is helpful, despite some of the hyperbole. It does sound pretty different.

Heck, a Sid Meier game can't be all bad, right? I just discovered recently that you can download Colonization for free... Very tempting, although I ignored the game when it was on store shelves.

Get civ3, download 1.22 patch, and then get civ4 next year!

Huh? Does that mean you'll be able to upgrade from Civ III to Civ 4? Or are you just suggesting a further injection to feed my addiction?!

 

[Blackbird_SR-71]

Get civ3: Conquest. it has plenty of great things. the game is awesome. i haven't ever played Civ2 so i don't know how good that is.

 

[wilbill]

Does that mean you'll be able to upgrade from Civ III to Civ 4? Or are you just suggesting a further injection to feed my addiction?!

When/if you get Civ 3, install it, install Conquests, then download the 1.22 patch and enjoy!

No, Civ3 won't upgrade to Civ4. Civ4 is under development and expected for Christmas next year. Another addiction.

I played Civ I & II also. I can't even imagine going back to Civ 2. 3 has more variety, more challenges, and can't be mastered nearly as easily.

 

[mazzz]

You can not upgrade from civ 3 to civ 4 (when it comes out)

 

[Strato]

I appraoched Civ III with some apphrension, but I don't think I'd go back to Civ II now. There is just a lot more that can be done with Civ III. Sure, some people will say Civ II is better, and some will say Civ III is better. To be honest, getting the game yourself would be the best way of deciding. Given the fact Civ III would be going out cheap now, you don't have much to lose I don't think.

But I found Civ III personally to have a lot more depth and winning options about it. I can really decide just how I want to win, with all the winning conditions available with both Civ III and C3C

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

From the Civ2 supporters thread:

1 - In Civ II you spend more time playing your turn than you spend waiting for the AI.

That hits the nail. Civ3 has a pretty competitive AI, in Civ2 there simply is nothing you'd have to wait for. Don't be surprised when you need quite some time to win on Emperor in Civ3 (if at all!), while beating Civ2 Deity easily.
Civ2 is more simple (fine), but too easy. And, half of all points in the Civ2 thread is related to processor speed. Long loading time? Endless interturns? With a PentiumII, of course.

And yes, I was a Civ2 fanatic back in time, but even without the internet, I managed to find out so many tricks/exploits, it wasn't interesting soon. Scenarios were great, true; but the regular game....

 

[punkbass2000]

Completely agree with DocT. I don't know that I would have moved above Emperor in Civ3 if it hadn't have been for discovering Velocyrix's strategy threads at Apolyton shortly after getting the game. Civ2, OTOH, I beat Deity quite easily with no outside help whatsoever; I knew few who even played the game and none that ever played above King.

BTW, is that a patch for RaR I see, DocT? Is there any chance a PBEM can be updated (not that it's past the first turn anyway... .)

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

OT: RaR patch - Nothing new; I finally remembered to put the link in my sig. Updating the PBEM: Not the game itself, only the Civilopedia (and fixing the Apache Longbow typo).

 

[Alexnm]

maybe i'm too late (the original poster may have bought civ3 already), but i'd like to summarize a few points about the two games:

- both have the same addictive qualities

- civ3 has borders

- civ2's zone of control and unit hitpoints are gone. this can be both a blessing and a curse at the same time. somehow, the absence of any zone of control in civ3 eliminates one of the tactical aspects of the game. and since units have no hitpoints anymore, combat results are more random than in civ2. this could be good for a backward civ, giving it a chance to survive, but it is annoying when it happens to you (it's not fun losing a tank fighting against an inferior unit). on the other hand, this reinforces the need to use balanced and combined arms, eliminating, for instance, the 'howitzer exploit' in civ2.

- now civs have different traits, and this was a good addition to the game (it is not in the same level of diversity as in SMAC, but it is good anyway).

- strategic resources are one of the best features added to civ3. some units can only be built if the player has a certain strategic resource (iron, saltpeter, oil, etc.) this makes it very important to secure these resources and provides a good reason to wage war to your neighbor.

- now certain city improvements and wonders generate culture, and this creates another victory condition in the game - the one with the most culture wins.

- civ3 AI is superior to the one in civ2, which does not mean it is perfect. it still has many flaws that could be easily exploited by a cunning player, but it is definitely a step forward with regards to civ2 AI.

- diplomacy options were expanded and diplomatic negotiations are now even more important than before. on the other hand, civ3 doesn't have a spy unit; any espionage action now has to be executed from a menu - this is somehow frustrating, especially because the cost of espionage is rather high, making it less useful.

- in civ3 your units are not supported by individual cities, but by your budget. this makes it easier to maintain a large army.

- when civ3 was first released, it had a very disappointing and limited editor, but the expansion packs and numerous patches improved this situation and now you have good scenario capabilities.

- no wonder movies in civ3

of course, there are other differences between both games, but i think these ones i cited can give you a good overview of how civ3 compares to civ2.

sorry for the long post.

 

[morchuflex]

I just discovered recently that you can download Colonization for free... Very tempting, although I ignored the game when it was on store shelves.

I'm not sure this is very legal. But yes, I remember COL as a great game. Reading this topic made me feel like giving it a new try (from my legally bought CDRom!).
Unfortunately, I can't configure my sound card properly. I know this is a little off topic, but does anyone know how you can properly configure a "sound card" when your computer has an integrated sound chipset (nForce2's Realtek AC97)? I have no clue whatsoever as for what card to choose from the list, not to mention card address, IRQ and DRQ... I chose default options but get nothing.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Another differnce between Civ2 and Civ3 is they way the AI is programmed to act.
In Civ3, each AI Civ tries to win for itself; get large, build culture, build wonders, launch.
In Civ2, the AI is programmed to stop the human from winning - once you're big, they will gang up against you, and stop trading with you. That was pretty silly, IMHO. Civ3 AI is much more realistic, they do act like nations, not as if they're playing a game.

Also, my strategy in Civ2 was always to stay small, gain as many footholds everywhere as possible (any island was fine), pile up cash (not considered for power calculation), revolt to Demo, and take over large parts of the world within a few turns, using Spies and Bribery extensively.

 

[The Last Conformist]

My strategy in CivII was generally; if it's smaller than me, kill it; if it's bigger than me, kill it anyway. The AI was clueless enough that it worked on Deity level.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Yeah, but as long as you stayed small, they ignored you. And the only thing that made the epic game intereresting was by starting on a remote small island - and take over the world with cash and Howitzers within 20 turns .

 

[LionQ]

War was easier to achieve in Civilization II. I remember that you'd get something called Black Points, if you'd declare war without reason. The consequences of doing that in Civilization III are heavier.

The AI remembers your undiplomatic behaviour for a much longer time and global instability is an affect I now have encoutered for numerous times in Civilization III.

Moreover, numerous Civilizations don't like you anymore when you get involved in a war; even when it's due to a MPP.

 

[punkbass2000]

Actually, you take no Rep hits for decalring war unprovoked in Civ3. You will take a severe Attitude hit for declaring war from the civ that you declare war on, regardless of whether or not it's provoked. You will take a Rep with every civ if you break a deal in anyway, even if it's not your fault (unless the civ you have the deal with declares war on you). You will also take a Rep hit for declaring war for any reason with at least one unit in the victim's territory.

EDIT: Oh, and yes, I generally agree Civ2 was far too easy. I look forward to an AI in Civ4 that I won't be able to beat when it starts with an extra Settler.

 

[punkbass2000]

I'm not sure this is very legal. But yes, I remember COL as a great game. Reading this topic made me feel like giving it a new try (from my legally bought CDRom!).

A great game. I admit I downloaded it, but only because I could not find my legitimate floppy disks for it. I still consider it to be a game I'm "actively" playing, though I haven't actually played in about three months. Then again, all my free time seems to get swallowed by C3C (well, a little goes to chess), so every other game I consider "active" has pretty well fallen into the same predictament (R:TW, Ceasar3, WC3, WoW [which I haven't yet opened from Christmas], and EE).