Civ2 or Civ3
- Thread starter jajas83
- Start date
Ace
Emperor
The original Civ was great. Civ2 is the new and improved version. Civ3 is not up to par. its all graphics and no action.
mgeary
Chieftain
I haven't been able to play Civ. III all the way. the graphics are great, but I must agree with Ace that Civ. II is better to play.
Marlos
Christian Soldier
SHOCKING! 
Archer 007
Rebirth
Why would you say something like that
AGRICOLA
Warlord
I have played all three. CIV I was a brilliant idea by Sid Meier. The original CIV II was a great evolution of CIV I. Then the need to continue selling games led to a couple that could just as well have been scenarios, a real rip-off. The final version, CIV II MGE with improvement and multiplayer capability, was again worth the price.
After Meier joined Firaxis and they had to get a product on the market as quickly as possible it is not surprising that Alpha Centauri was a complete bore. I played it once. Its only good feature was the ability to design your own units.
This brings us to CIV III. Regrettably, I own a copy. Played it once, but have no intention of doing so again. I think CIV III is a classic example of how more and fancier is not necessarily better.
There are the following problems with the game:
1. The choice of faded, pastel colors (the guy who chose them should consider interior decorating as a future career) as well as tiny buttons and small lettering (especially in the city screens) do nothing to make the game more playable. Some of the screens
really can be hard on the eyes.
2. More units are not necessarily better. Why complicate the game with workers and settlers when one unit would do?
3. When you finish a game you should have a civilization that looks like an empire. Compare the top scoring games in CIV II and III. The CIV III looks like a collection of mud huts that Genghis Khan would have been ashamed of.
4. I most heartily agree with the comment earlier on this thread: CIV III is all graphics and no action.
5. One of the features I use a lot is zoom and expand to get all or most of the world on one screen. CIV III has two settings: big and not so big.
So, I'll keep playing CIV II (there are some excellent scenarios on the net as well as others that require a bit of editing) until something better becomes available. CIV III ain't it, the next version has been taking its knocks from reviewers.
After Meier joined Firaxis and they had to get a product on the market as quickly as possible it is not surprising that Alpha Centauri was a complete bore. I played it once. Its only good feature was the ability to design your own units.
This brings us to CIV III. Regrettably, I own a copy. Played it once, but have no intention of doing so again. I think CIV III is a classic example of how more and fancier is not necessarily better.
There are the following problems with the game:
1. The choice of faded, pastel colors (the guy who chose them should consider interior decorating as a future career) as well as tiny buttons and small lettering (especially in the city screens) do nothing to make the game more playable. Some of the screens
really can be hard on the eyes.
2. More units are not necessarily better. Why complicate the game with workers and settlers when one unit would do?
3. When you finish a game you should have a civilization that looks like an empire. Compare the top scoring games in CIV II and III. The CIV III looks like a collection of mud huts that Genghis Khan would have been ashamed of.
4. I most heartily agree with the comment earlier on this thread: CIV III is all graphics and no action.
5. One of the features I use a lot is zoom and expand to get all or most of the world on one screen. CIV III has two settings: big and not so big.
So, I'll keep playing CIV II (there are some excellent scenarios on the net as well as others that require a bit of editing) until something better becomes available. CIV III ain't it, the next version has been taking its knocks from reviewers.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Now post the same poll in the Civ3 forum and check the results!
Civ2 is a great game, and if you say, which game is better at the time it comes out/for its era, it wins hands down. But I can't seem to go back to it now...
Civ2 is a great game, and if you say, which game is better at the time it comes out/for its era, it wins hands down. But I can't seem to go back to it now...
Remorseless
Relentless
Gee, here's a poll I've NEVER SEEN on CFC....sorry, Jajas.
I think most people have settled their preferences on this issue. I like II, didn't like III and never played the original. I have friends who play III, and most of them have played I and II. Some like II better, others I, others III. It's a matter of taste, and I really don't think we need to castigate people for liking the simplistic, graphic-driven hellhole that is III over the elegant, mind-engaging addiction that is II. Really, we just shouldn't say anything bad about them
LOL
I think most people have settled their preferences on this issue. I like II, didn't like III and never played the original. I have friends who play III, and most of them have played I and II. Some like II better, others I, others III. It's a matter of taste, and I really don't think we need to castigate people for liking the simplistic, graphic-driven hellhole that is III over the elegant, mind-engaging addiction that is II. Really, we just shouldn't say anything bad about them
LOL
The AI is just to stupid to allow a challange. After struggling to beat Deity in Civ III on many occasions, I expect a challange. I beat Deity in Civ II in three instances where I purposely held myself back:
1. Played as the english on the large world map and never left my island, still won.
2. Played as the japanesse on the large world map and never left my island still won,
3. Played on a small random map and started out on the South pole!! Never left the south pole the whole game and still won.
With that being said, has any hacked the game and made a mod with a very good AI? The rules of civ 2 really were better, combat was better and more diverse, the space race was more exciting, the wonders were more strategic, etc, etc.
If the AI of civ2 were as advanced (attacked in numbers, managed cities better) I would just assume go back to civ 2
1. Played as the english on the large world map and never left my island, still won.
2. Played as the japanesse on the large world map and never left my island still won,
3. Played on a small random map and started out on the South pole!! Never left the south pole the whole game and still won.
With that being said, has any hacked the game and made a mod with a very good AI? The rules of civ 2 really were better, combat was better and more diverse, the space race was more exciting, the wonders were more strategic, etc, etc.
If the AI of civ2 were as advanced (attacked in numbers, managed cities better) I would just assume go back to civ 2
Dynamic Cow
Moo
Civ II! i started to play it again last weekend... after almost two years its still as good as i remember it.
Aravorn
Deity
In non scenario SP I say Civ III
In scenario Multiplayer I say Civ II
In scenario Multiplayer I say Civ II
Cleveland
Emperor of Angels
The only good point on Civ III was the border lines between civs and the graphigs. But thats just my opinion.
Aravorn
Deity
I really like the whole cultural influenece thing as well, I just wish you could really make scenarios for Civ III like Civ II
Martacus
World's Greatest Warrior
In Civ III, I once lost an army of...Dragoons? (whatever replaces Knights) to a single phalanx in a NON-WALLED city.
Civ III may be more strategic, but the first two Civ games are a lot more fun, if you ask me.
Civ III may be more strategic, but the first two Civ games are a lot more fun, if you ask me.
Kasperus
Seeker
civ2 suits better real-world-empire reconstructing (aka my usual gametype) than civ3.
Marlos
Christian Soldier
Originally posted by puglover
Civ 3!In Civ 2, walls are too strong. MY MUSKETEER LOST TO A PHALANX!!!!!
Sorry, pug, you won't get any sympathy from me on that one.
What are you doing attacking a city with walls with a musketeer for? 
Militarily, city walls were very difficult to overcome. The musketeers stand outside, firing their rounds trying to pick off soldiers with shields hiding behind the parapets? :shotgun:
As far as the game goes, if the phalanx is a veteran, his defense becomes 3. If he is fortified behind city walls, his defense triples to 9! Attacking with even a veteran musketeer (attack of 4.5) would almost always mean defeat. This is why you attack with crusaders or catapult, my dog-loving friend.
