1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Civ2 or Civ3

Discussion in 'Civ2 - General Discussions' started by jajas83, Nov 7, 2002.

?

Which is your favorite Civ?

  1. Civ(the original)

    6 vote(s)
    2.6%
  2. Civ 2

    118 vote(s)
    51.8%
  3. Civ 3

    104 vote(s)
    45.6%
  1. Specialist290

    Specialist290 Terracotta Statue Man

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2003
    Messages:
    1,334
    I now have both games, and though I like Civ3, I must say that Civ2 is a little better, if only because it is so familiar.
     
  2. DasMan

    DasMan Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    UK
    Civ 1 was a great game with a few annoying aspects (phalanxes against battleships springs to mind).

    Civ 2 is just fantastic - there's not really anything to fault.

    I tried Civ 3 and (although liking the cultural boundaries idea) decided it's just too different for an old Civ 2 dog to adapt to. The graphics are far to detailed and it is less easy to distinguish between units. Also the gameplay is so slow it takes forever to build / get anywhere.

    So now I'm back to playing Civ 2 and love it as much as when I first played all those years ago.
     
  3. yoshi

    yoshi Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,179
    From the perspective of scenario design CIv2 is better. Civ3 is better where the core game is concerned.

    In general, Civ3 may have dealt with some of the problems that afflicted Civ2 but comes with a whole host of new problems.

    Civ3's long turns have almost become a sort of mean joke. This is not a problem in Civ2. Why? Well, there are many program-related reasons but generally speaking, Civ2 usess a simpler game engine. Then again Civ2 isn't animated (Test of Time is but the .SPR files are nowhere near as detailed as the unit .FLC files in Civ3). Yet, even with the graphics I'm not entirely sure why Civ3 turns take so long. I know that the AI is partly to blame in that it is prone to things like refortifying all its units every turn and continuously chit-chatting with other AI players as well as a whole assortment of other redundant actions. In other words, there is more program information being processed than there needs to be. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be that big of a problem because as I said, it's essentially the same game aside from better graphics and some other changes that shouldn't have much of an effect on processing time.

    The big changes in Civ3's gameplay are to espionage in the form of Spy Missions, air units in the form of Air Missions, trade which is incorporated into diplomacy and is resource-based, diplomacy which uses a bargaining table system, and new additions to combat like bombardment and a couple new unit flags. The most important change IMO is the introduction of Cultural Borders that start out as just covering the area around the city but gradually expand beyond that based on your level of culture. The other big change is that you can (with PTW) have up to 32 civs in a game.

    Although Civ3's Spy Mission system is lovely in that it saves players from having to continuously expel enemy Diplomats/Spies, but it has the downside that missions are purely dependent on gold. The risk of having to physically send your Spy into enemy territory is no longer there. The risk is now a random outcome based on distance and some other factors. You also don't have the ability to sabotage or bribe units in the field. That's bad in the sense that the human has few options in this regard but good in that you don't have to put up with the AI continuously attempting to bribe your units. The new option of Stealing Plans is a nice plus when it reveals all the enemy's units. Counter-espionage is better too in that you can use the interface to search out enemy moles. The one downside is that spy missions are notoriously expensive but then that keeps espionage under control --no more building one lucky spy and sending it to play dirty at no cost.

    The fact that air units don't actually function as regular units (i.e. you don't move them around, instead you select rebase coordinates in order to move them between cities and use a targeting system to have them bombard a specific square) has the advantage that you no longer have air units being stopped by surface units. The downside is that aside from bombarding or being set on Air Superiority Missions (i.e. Fighter automatically shoots down air units that bombard within the area around its city base), air units are rather inflexible. I should add that the Helicopter unit can carry 'Foot' units to squares within its range but it cannot pick up units. Civ2's air units can be set to 'hover' (given range/fuel of 2+) for a turn. This is something that has been heavily criticized. Personally, I have found it to be kind of useful. For instance, in WW2 scenarios Fighters can be given 2+ range so that they can escort Bombers and likewise can be intercepted. Players have asked for an 'Escort' Mission type for Civ3, but designers haven't tended to respond to stuff that requires any real work to be done on the original Civ3 program. The funny thing about air missions is that air units are restricted to bombarding so attack helicopters just aren't feasible no matter how much players want this. The many applications of Civ2 air units like Airships that hover through multiple turns, immobile 'blocking' units, ect. aren't available in Civ3 due to its strict air mission system.

    Civ3's bargaining table system of diplomacy/trade is far more flexible than that of Civ2. The items you can deal with are similar to those of Civ2 except you can deal with exactly what you want instead of waiting for the other civ to ask you for something. Trade (resources) is done through diplomacy. You set up a deal that provides the receiver with x resource for 20 turns. It is only an option if you have Roads connecting your two civs. In the case of sea trading, both civs must have a Harbor with access to the same water mass. The downside is that trade can only be intercepted at sea if you block 'choke points' (Ocean tiles that offer the only access to either Harbor) --so you would need a line of ships stretching from the each pole just to stop trade "ships" from getting from getting through.

    Civ3 Diplomacy is better in the sense that the bargaining table system is more flexible but the AI is border-line ******** when it comes to negotiation, so the advantages are somewhat nullified. I should add that you can't trade units either, which is something that players have specifically asked for. Considering the AI, maybe its best so as not to have occasions where an AI civ is one step away from losing its last city so in negotiation it asks you for every unit in your army or something equally stupid.

    Combat in Civ3 is by far the most important improvement of the release --the other stuff is nice but so great that it makes Civ3 all that better than Civ2 in terms of gameplay. Bombardment distinguishes the support role from the regular attack/defend roles. This is a huge plus since you no longer get Artillery units being destroyed by units with no bombardment and even more importantly, Bombers can't be counter-attacked by ground units. Ships can now only bombard land and you can take away their bombard ability using the Editor so that they can't even do that --no more AI suicide attacks against cities with Costal Fortresses! This should have and could have been in Civ2.

    Cultural Borders are what really set Civ3 apart from Civ2. These borders will start from 1 square away from the city and continue growing outwards until they engulf the whole map --you'd have to wait quite a long time for that to happen though. The only downsides are that they expand so fast and that they expand over water without limitation. Amazingly, like Civ2, you don't have to declare war before entering an enemy's borders. This is primarily so that Settlers can pass through...although that's not what I would call a good thing. The stronger your culture, the higher the chances that enemy cities adjacent to your borders will convert to your civ. This also gives players an added incentive to build culture-giving city improvements.

    More civs is a definite plus --the lack of civs is a source of discontent among Civ2 players, so this is something long awaited. Although I have to say that Civ3's gameplay isn't improved as a result of this oddly enough. The new civs just serve to clog up the map and give you more of a hassle. The AI tech trading is so aggressive that having many civs just means that at least one of them will have traded the techs you have to your neighbour before you do --this is also a result of Communication Trading which means that all the civs are talking to each other by the time you reach the Medieval Age. (Oh, that reminds me: techs are divided into ages so that you have to research most of an Age's techs before going on to the next Age --not much of an effect on gameplay though and is nothing that couldn't be reproduced in Civ2.)

    The other thing I forgot to add which is more of a Civ2 flaw than a Civ3 bonus is that units in Civ3 are 'stackable' (i.e. units in a stack are destroyed one by one). Players have always complained about this as far back as Civ1. I never understood why designers didn't change this for Civ2. I can only assume a moment of retardation-bordering-on-stupidity on the part of Civ2's designers is to blame for this. If you can think of another reason, I'm all ears.

    From the modder's point of view, one thing that Civ3 has that is a significant leap from Civ2 is its Editor. It essentially allows players to edit virtually every aspect of the game in a completely windows-based format. Using this user-friendly system beats the Sid out of messing with Civ2's .txt files and virtually none of the unit/improvement/government/tech characteristics are hard-coded --no Musketeer/Knight bulls$!t. Another plus is that you can add as many units, improvements, governments and techs as you want. Where scenarios are concerned, the fact that you can distinguish between Workers and Settlers is great because you can get rid of the Settler unit for scenarios where you don't want new cities to be built but want players to still have the ability to improve terrain --what to do with the Settler is always a problem in Civ2.

    That pretty much covers the main additions and changes found in Civ3. The are a few other things but they aren't really worth mentioning. From the big picture perspective, gameplay is pretty much the same as it is in Civ2...only it takes a hell of a lot longer.


    Clearly Civ3 is the more advanced of the two but you could also argue that Civ2 could have incorporated most of that stuff and would be the better for it...AND you could've saved 50 bucks (and time waiting for the AI turns to go by for that matter)! As for the graphics...to hell with the graphics (and I DO mean the deepest, darkest hole of hell). Strategy games are not about graphics. They are about strategy and gaming. The .bmp (better than .gif) files in MGE are good enough for CIV's purposes. I'm sure they could be animated using a basic animation system similar to that of the nuclear explosion frames rather than using the .SPR system from ToT.

    The issue of high requirement also brings up the question of elitism. Anybody on a 486 or higher can play Civ2. Granted, some advancement is acceptable but to be having trouble on a Pentium III is way over the line. Civ2 is universal. It will work on practically any system and as someone mentioned in an earlier post, it functions like a basic windows application thus you can switch between windows without any problem. This is a requirement for some scenarios that use Terrain- changing .BAT files that must be activated manually in their scenarios. Civ3 is very restrictive when it comes to that especially considering that it's not a high-grade shooter or anything that would justify the requirements.

    ...And that brings me to the final indisputable fact: what is the point of comparing the two when only Civ2 has events? ;)


    Personally I think that if Civ2 had air units that could pass over enemy surface units, borders, most of the abilities that the Civ3 units have (most of which are the same as Civ2 but not hard-coded), used improvement/tech flags instead of hard-coded characteristics, better AI, more diplomacy options, stackable units and possibly a basic animation system, there wouldn't be much of an incentive to even play Civ3. In other words, I play Civ3 for stuff that should have been in Civ2, not for anything new that Civ3 offers...which is very little.

    I could go into what Civ3 SHOULD have...but this post is long enough as it is. I may open a thread in this forum asking the question: What if you could improve Civ2 and make it the perfect CIVILIZATION?
     
  4. #1 Person

    #1 Person The Cow

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,954
    Location:
    In a grassy knoll with internet
    Civ III is over completated with all the recources
     
  5. Tlaloc

    Tlaloc Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Europe -> Hungary -> Szolnok
    First of all, this is my first post in this forum, hi everyone. :)

    I vote for the Civilization 2, because the Civ 3 is too slow for me.
    But the Civ 3 has got a (I think) so good graphic, but at a strategy-game, the graphic isn't too important.

    Summarized, the Civ 2 is better than Civ 3 for me. (and I not know the Civ 1 :) )
     
  6. Aphex_Twin

    Aphex_Twin Evergreen

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Messages:
    7,474
    Civ2 Test of Time
     
  7. HughMungus

    HughMungus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Funniest thing I've read all day. Thanks.
     
  8. mintyfreshdeath

    mintyfreshdeath Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    223
    I think alot of Civ2 players don't like Civ3 because they don't understand that it is a different game.
    This thread reminds me of the "Ideas for Civ4" thread where it seems like most people's idea of a Civ4 consists of a Civ3 with extra stuff. Perhaps they want, for all intents and purposes, the exact same game but with better graphics and little things like canals and (as I once saw) "Age of Mythology type powers". :)
    To extend on that, I might make it my point to inform people here that Civ3 is actually a different game with different gameplay to Civ2. They are both great games.
     
  9. covok48

    covok48 Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,150
    Location:
    Texas
    Sometimes it all that's needed. Every release doesn't have to be a damned revolution to be a great game.
     
  10. mintyfreshdeath

    mintyfreshdeath Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    223
    Hahaha.. yeah covok48. I get ya. If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
    I understand...

    I still prefer Civ3
     
  11. LetsRock

    LetsRock Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    6
    I have both Civ2 and Civ3 and I have logged alot of hrs on 3 but I must say IMO that 2 is better and 3 couldve built on the "feel" of 2.

    Im playing a scenerio in 2 (20th century I think) and I feel like Im involved in the game, the enemies are real the alliances are solid. I was invaded by China and have an alliance with the English (of course ;) ) and England responded by telling me they are coming to my aid. In 3 this alliance wouldve expired in 20 turns which in 3 goes by in a flash and after 20 turns the computer (In 3 its feel is definately computer like) contacts me saying they do not wish to extend the deal any longer (lame).

    The music Civ2 plays reminds me of the good ol days in gaming sims, and I dont mind leaving it on.

    Trading between civs and cities is pretty cool in 2, I dont like it in 3 (the 20 turn thing and computer handling the footwork).

    On my desktop PC Civ3 plays pretty good, but with Civ2 I can use my old laptop to play and it allows me to use other apps easily while I play.

    The unit commands in Civ2 are great, click on a unit and tell them to go to the nearst city or which specific city you want instead of dragging the mouse cursor all the time.

    Civ2 and 3 are different yes but both share the same concept but carry it in different directions. Civ2 has that "classic" feel down pat! Civ3 is fun but it lacks the "feel" of 2 that made it great. I wouldnt have minded if Civ3 wouldve been a Civ2 on steriods at all!

    Simplicity has its market even in 2004, Some game developers
    should realize this and cater to these gamers!

    BTW Im playing Civ2 as I write this post :cool:
     
  12. Nylan

    Nylan Characters Welcome

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,906
    Location:
    Clow Country
    I prefer CIV2 because I am what some would call a war mongerer. In Civ3, wars are too costly.

    (By the way, this is my first post.)
     
  13. raven15

    raven15 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    29
    Location:
    nevada
    I prefer Civ2 over Civ3, because it's easy to minimize the screen to do other things, such as play music, check email etc. with out stopping the game. Even with keyboard shortcuts, Civ3 goes through the annoying process of rearranging the graphics settings.

    Actually, I think overall gameplay is far superior in Civ3, and the graphics, sounds, etc. keep me more involved in the game. But better graphics come at a price as I said above, and really aren't necessary in a strategy game.
    Also, I prefer listening to my own music anyhow, so..

    In Civ 3 the resources and cultural boundaries are improvements, and I like the better AI and how units I automate behave more intelligently. Combat in 3 has even numbers of improvements / defects, so I'm neutral on that.

    I was greatly irritated at having seperate settler/builder units.

    Overall, Civ3 has many improvements that I thought were needed when I first started playing 2.

    But, all said, I played civ3 for about 2 weeks when it first came out, then switched back to civ2 and never came back to 3.
     
  14. Joeb WK

    Joeb WK Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    1,122
    One of the main reasons i prefer Civ2 to Civ3 is because ive got so used to Civ2, Civ3 just seems strange and weird.
     
  15. Civlyzed

    Civlyzed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    USA
    Civ 2, hands down. I bought Civ 3, but haven't made it thru an entire game yet...I just don't like it.
     
  16. Neomega

    Neomega Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,261
    Civ III.

    I only miss the scripting from Civ II.

    Civ III has a resource trade system, which made trade so much more fun. Caravans were one of my favorite aspects of civ II, but I think the resource system is better.
     
  17. Jawn Henry

    Jawn Henry Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Under the Bridge
    Mixed.

    I bought 1, then 2. Civ 2 was a very improved (to me) Civ1. When i bought Civ3, i expected a continuation of this idea, that Civ 3 would be an improved Civ2. Well, was i ever peed off! didn't finish the game, un-installed it, and it collected dust for a while.

    Then i decided "Look. I spent good money on this. I'll give it another try." I reasoned that this obviously wasn't an improved Civ2, it was a new game with a misleading title that resembled the Civ i was used to. With that outlook, the game kinda grew on me. I like it.

    Now, i just wish that Civ4 would be Civ2 with some features of Civ3. I like the trade model, the diplomacy model - and the way the AI acts diplomatically (no ganging up and having 5 different Civs act as one - gosh i hate that!). The new "borders" system is good too, though linking it with "culture" is a little odd. But i can't think of a better way to have it expand...

    It can't, however, play on "tiered" maps as in ToT :( And there is no events scripting :mad: Wonder movies are lacking, but they weren't there in ToT either (shame on them in both instances!) Corruption is far too strong in Civ3, even in the patches, and improvements take too long to build probably because of the excessive corruption model. The throne room in straight Civ2 was pretty neat (totllay lacking in ToT :mad:) but i prefer tha castle of Civ1 and 3. Civ3 is harder to mod than Civ 2 plain, and still a little harder in some aspects than ToT. But,you can change more fundamental things in Civ3 - like adding (instead of replacing) gov't types. IIRC,you aren't limited in how many techs you can add in Civ3 (but then i may be wrong)

    In my expereince, there is not any less action in Civ3 (except with layered maps, maybe. Even then - it's just more direction fromwhere the action comes from...). It's all there - you can, however, more easily negotiate you way out. Ahhh, but that entirely up to you - no-one is forcing your hand but youself. That suits a wider variety of playing styles.

    Where Civ2 really nails Civ3, IMO, is the events and the layered maps. You can't beat game depth with graphics.

    JH
     

Share This Page