GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I play both Civ2 and 3 
Civ2 or Civ3
- Thread starter jajas83
- Start date
Gen_Kasebrot
Chieftain
I just re-installed civ 2 after playin civ 3 and ill tell ya what I had more fun with civ 2....got back into my war mongering that i looked for a forum (this one came up on a search) and i plan on hangin out here a bit.
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
Civ II was a 100% improvement over Civ... All it's strengths, none of it's weaknesses, plus!
Civ III is a mixed bag -- I think that the new Cultural, Resource and especially Road-based Trade rules are an improvement. I HATED having to churn out Caravans in Civ and Civ II. The Cultural stuff is great, IMHO, adds new dimensions to the game. And Resources just make sense to me.
I could take or leave the new specific civilization enhancements (e.g. Persians are Industrial and Scientific, and have Immortal unit instead of Swordsman,) but in general I think it's an enhancement.
Civ III's editor was a joke when it was first released -- no mechanism for starting Civs on an Earth-map world in their "historical" starting positions?!? Come on! That was ridiculous.
These days it's much better, although it still isn't nearly as robust as Civ II.
Corruption in Civ III is so brutal that it makes it impossible to build a large empire in the same way one could in Civ II. I think that this really annoyed a lot of players, but I thought it was fine. It makes sense to me that a large spawling empire would be rife w/ corruption. In the real world, large spawling empires collapse or fragment into smaller, more managable chunks. I only wish that the designers had included mechanisms to better control corruption in the core game. An extension of the Forbidden Palace concept?
I also wish that the designers had retained the potential for a Civilization to split in some way, spawning a "new" civ. In the old game this could happen if the empire was large and lost it's capital. In the new game there are many factors that could contribute to this:
a) large empire size
b) loss of capital city
c) massive corruption in a city (it's far f/ the capital)
d) massive unhappiness in a city
e) existance of a Forbidden Palace-like city improvement -- a Provincial palace. This would solve the problem of rampant corruption allowing for a large empire but at the risk of causing the empire to fragment into rival civs. Obviously, some people will hate my idea, and by extension hate me and everything I stand for. But I think it would be wicked mad cool, and more realistic!
The enhanced graphics are a bonus in the new game, but since it doesn't really affect game play I think of these as mere bells and whistles. I'd much prefer it being easier to mod than having a rich graphical experience.
I am playing "Play the World" but I haven't tried Civ III multi-play yet. I have read that it's buggy. I think that's to be expected. Whether or not Civ II's multi-play works better than Civ III's is probably related to the added complexity of Civ III, which is unavoidable given the enhancements.
Right now for multi-play Civ II is probably better, but hopefully soon Civ III's will be up to par. Civ III's built-in options for shorter games or alternate goal games are nice and point to a brighter future.
So to sum up, Civ II is much better as a scenario builder but lacks some of the more advanced gameplay options of Civ III. Despite that, now that I am playing Civ III I can't seem to go back to playing Civ II, or even Alpha Centauri. The new features make for a more compelling playing experience.
Civ III is a mixed bag -- I think that the new Cultural, Resource and especially Road-based Trade rules are an improvement. I HATED having to churn out Caravans in Civ and Civ II. The Cultural stuff is great, IMHO, adds new dimensions to the game. And Resources just make sense to me.
I could take or leave the new specific civilization enhancements (e.g. Persians are Industrial and Scientific, and have Immortal unit instead of Swordsman,) but in general I think it's an enhancement.
Civ III's editor was a joke when it was first released -- no mechanism for starting Civs on an Earth-map world in their "historical" starting positions?!? Come on! That was ridiculous.
These days it's much better, although it still isn't nearly as robust as Civ II.
Corruption in Civ III is so brutal that it makes it impossible to build a large empire in the same way one could in Civ II. I think that this really annoyed a lot of players, but I thought it was fine. It makes sense to me that a large spawling empire would be rife w/ corruption. In the real world, large spawling empires collapse or fragment into smaller, more managable chunks. I only wish that the designers had included mechanisms to better control corruption in the core game. An extension of the Forbidden Palace concept?
I also wish that the designers had retained the potential for a Civilization to split in some way, spawning a "new" civ. In the old game this could happen if the empire was large and lost it's capital. In the new game there are many factors that could contribute to this:
a) large empire size
b) loss of capital city
c) massive corruption in a city (it's far f/ the capital)
d) massive unhappiness in a city
e) existance of a Forbidden Palace-like city improvement -- a Provincial palace. This would solve the problem of rampant corruption allowing for a large empire but at the risk of causing the empire to fragment into rival civs. Obviously, some people will hate my idea, and by extension hate me and everything I stand for. But I think it would be wicked mad cool, and more realistic!
The enhanced graphics are a bonus in the new game, but since it doesn't really affect game play I think of these as mere bells and whistles. I'd much prefer it being easier to mod than having a rich graphical experience.
I am playing "Play the World" but I haven't tried Civ III multi-play yet. I have read that it's buggy. I think that's to be expected. Whether or not Civ II's multi-play works better than Civ III's is probably related to the added complexity of Civ III, which is unavoidable given the enhancements.
Right now for multi-play Civ II is probably better, but hopefully soon Civ III's will be up to par. Civ III's built-in options for shorter games or alternate goal games are nice and point to a brighter future.
So to sum up, Civ II is much better as a scenario builder but lacks some of the more advanced gameplay options of Civ III. Despite that, now that I am playing Civ III I can't seem to go back to playing Civ II, or even Alpha Centauri. The new features make for a more compelling playing experience.
Silverflame
OBJECTION!
You civ2 fans may be enjoying a lead right now, but its been made known to the general public of civ3 fans.
Actually, Ive never played civ2, but I can tell that its MP is a LOT better than PTW, but for SP, no resources? No culture? Whoa, that must be wierd
Actually, Ive never played civ2, but I can tell that its MP is a LOT better than PTW, but for SP, no resources? No culture? Whoa, that must be wierd
Laser guided
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 188
IMNSHO...
Civ3 does not live up to its potential which is why it is not as beloved as 2. It is Better than Civ2 any many aspects and worse than Civ2 any many aspects. We were expecting Civ2 on steroids and all we got was New Coke, almost a totally different game. But not so different like CTP that it is a different game.
We've seen what other games have done since Civ2 has come out and we wanted Civ3 to incorporate that on top of Civ2. Why fix it if it ain't broken?
Yet, for Civ to reach its perfection it needed to be changed. The Civ2 model did limit Civ in so many ways. Civ3 needed to operate under different principles and it does. Problems it doesn't go far enough. They played it safe with Civ3 because CTP scared'em. Civ is legend and you don't screw with legend.
I spent many a night refusing to eat or take bathroom breaks playing Civ1 and Civ2. Civ3 seems to be teasing to take the series to new heights but backs off at the last moment and that is why it is not beloved.
Civ3 does not live up to its potential which is why it is not as beloved as 2. It is Better than Civ2 any many aspects and worse than Civ2 any many aspects. We were expecting Civ2 on steroids and all we got was New Coke, almost a totally different game. But not so different like CTP that it is a different game.
We've seen what other games have done since Civ2 has come out and we wanted Civ3 to incorporate that on top of Civ2. Why fix it if it ain't broken?
Yet, for Civ to reach its perfection it needed to be changed. The Civ2 model did limit Civ in so many ways. Civ3 needed to operate under different principles and it does. Problems it doesn't go far enough. They played it safe with Civ3 because CTP scared'em. Civ is legend and you don't screw with legend.
I spent many a night refusing to eat or take bathroom breaks playing Civ1 and Civ2. Civ3 seems to be teasing to take the series to new heights but backs off at the last moment and that is why it is not beloved.
DaDoo
Prince
I've played all 3. If I must make pick one, I'd definitely pick civ3. To me Civ3 is a pretty big improvement over civ2.
First and foremost, the AI is noticeably better.
The introduction of cultural borders makes more sense and much easier to identify than the invisible one in civ1 and civ2.
The elimination of caravan and spy unit was a very good idea. The only thing those 2 units every do was being tedious. If I have to kick out another civ's spy unit out of my territory one more time I'm going to scream.
Differentiating artillary unit attack from normal unit attack was a much much welcomed changed. Artillary units now play a supportive role like it should be.
I'm not sure what "expectation" most people talk about when they say they are disappointed in civ3. They seems to throw that word in there for convenience without clarifying much. As far as I know there is only 2 things that ticked off many people. MP and editor. I'm sure those 2 will improve over time through patches.
First and foremost, the AI is noticeably better.
The introduction of cultural borders makes more sense and much easier to identify than the invisible one in civ1 and civ2.
The elimination of caravan and spy unit was a very good idea. The only thing those 2 units every do was being tedious. If I have to kick out another civ's spy unit out of my territory one more time I'm going to scream.
Differentiating artillary unit attack from normal unit attack was a much much welcomed changed. Artillary units now play a supportive role like it should be.
I'm not sure what "expectation" most people talk about when they say they are disappointed in civ3. They seems to throw that word in there for convenience without clarifying much. As far as I know there is only 2 things that ticked off many people. MP and editor. I'm sure those 2 will improve over time through patches.
johnnymiller
An Englishman in Exile
Does nobody think that Civ 3 was released for one reson and one reason alone...? $£$£$£$£
As far as I can see. the game that I play and love (Civ 2) is a completely different game to Civilization 3.
So many of the basics have been changed, just for the sake of change's sake (so they can punt out a 'new' version of the game at £45 a throw).
Anyone who loves Civ is gonna go aout and buy the new version.
I did; and I was very disappointed.
Long live Civilization II - It will stand The (Test of Time)
As far as I can see. the game that I play and love (Civ 2) is a completely different game to Civilization 3.
So many of the basics have been changed, just for the sake of change's sake (so they can punt out a 'new' version of the game at £45 a throw).
Anyone who loves Civ is gonna go aout and buy the new version.
I did; and I was very disappointed.
Long live Civilization II - It will stand The (Test of Time)
nmcul
I have missles
I was one of those that was "alerted" to this poll at the Civ 3 forums. So I came-and voted for Civ 2. Civ 3's flaws are irreconcilable with me, and severly outweigh its benefits.
To illustrate, I will begin by digesting Mr. Dadoo's comments:
1) The AI seems better now, but you haven't had as much practice with it as you have had with the Civ 2 version. If the situation was reversed, we would probably claim that the "new" (in this example, Civ 2) AI was still more challenging.
2) When you're right, you're right. Visible borders are a plus for Civ 3, as is the culture system (something to focus on rather than warmongering).
3) I couldn't disagree more. The new trade system is unrealistic; the new spy system, incredibly boring. When in real life has most trade been handled by diplomats?? For millennia, it has been individual entrepreneurs and corporations that have created trade, not government. In fact, these groups often led to great achievments independent of governments. Example: the joint-stock trading companies in 17th-century England, the Netherlands, France, and other nations sent forth numerous expiditions responsible for the charting of much of the Americas, the establishment of multiple colonies and factories (ex.: Quebec, New Amsterdam [now New York], British India [oddly enough started by two shipwreck survivors], etc.)
And as for espionage models? What's more exciting, a cascading-window-based, overpriced and often detected buffoon suggesting the image of a disgruntled cubicle-dwelling government worker
, or a kickass-covert operative-Tom Clancy-ish ninja 
or studly 00 agent with a license to kill that would make Ian Fleming proud?
4)I do like the new bombardment ability (though I was able to duplicate a limited version of this in Civ 2 long before Civ 3 hit the shelves), although I think airplanes should be given lethal bombard vs. ships standard, as it's ridiculous to think that my bombers can't sink a barbarian galley that I somehow missed w/my destroyers' 8 inch shells... Better make ships have lethal bombard against each other as well.
Need I go on?
To illustrate, I will begin by digesting Mr. Dadoo's comments:
1) The AI seems better now, but you haven't had as much practice with it as you have had with the Civ 2 version. If the situation was reversed, we would probably claim that the "new" (in this example, Civ 2) AI was still more challenging.
2) When you're right, you're right. Visible borders are a plus for Civ 3, as is the culture system (something to focus on rather than warmongering).
3) I couldn't disagree more. The new trade system is unrealistic; the new spy system, incredibly boring. When in real life has most trade been handled by diplomats?? For millennia, it has been individual entrepreneurs and corporations that have created trade, not government. In fact, these groups often led to great achievments independent of governments. Example: the joint-stock trading companies in 17th-century England, the Netherlands, France, and other nations sent forth numerous expiditions responsible for the charting of much of the Americas, the establishment of multiple colonies and factories (ex.: Quebec, New Amsterdam [now New York], British India [oddly enough started by two shipwreck survivors], etc.)
And as for espionage models? What's more exciting, a cascading-window-based, overpriced and often detected buffoon suggesting the image of a disgruntled cubicle-dwelling government worker
or studly 00 agent with a license to kill that would make Ian Fleming proud?
4)I do like the new bombardment ability (though I was able to duplicate a limited version of this in Civ 2 long before Civ 3 hit the shelves), although I think airplanes should be given lethal bombard vs. ships standard, as it's ridiculous to think that my bombers can't sink a barbarian galley that I somehow missed w/my destroyers' 8 inch shells... Better make ships have lethal bombard against each other as well.
Need I go on?
gugalpm
Veteran of psychic wars
The civ3 forum participants (I'm one) are getting a little competitive... go to the civ3 general discussions forum to see...
But I don't think this way. Civ 2 is very good but outdated by now. They tried to mantain the fundamentals and change the inner structure, but that created a completely new thing. The change in the battle system, that creates a situation where a spearman can win a battle against a tank, was completely unnecessary. Other disparity created was the total disqualification of technologically advanced units. One rifleman in civ 2 can fight against 20 or 30 archers and still win. In civ3, 10 archers will simply crush the rifleman, even in a metropolis.
But I don't think this way. Civ 2 is very good but outdated by now. They tried to mantain the fundamentals and change the inner structure, but that created a completely new thing. The change in the battle system, that creates a situation where a spearman can win a battle against a tank, was completely unnecessary. Other disparity created was the total disqualification of technologically advanced units. One rifleman in civ 2 can fight against 20 or 30 archers and still win. In civ3, 10 archers will simply crush the rifleman, even in a metropolis.
Silverflame
OBJECTION!
You know, I hate to say it, but youre right.
We are getting kind of childish. I guess its just because were somewhat mad at you guys posting this in the civ2 general discussions...
Marlos
Christian Soldier
How about "culture flipping"?
This is by far the silliest difference between the two games, and it alone was enough to send me back to Civ2.I do not want to jack this thread with any discussion about culture flipping that has already been handled, ad nauseum, in the Civ3 forums. But if you want to counter my counterpoint...
Any other takers? How about that asinine combat system? How about "settler diarrhea"?!? Even in the real world there are uninhabited places. Not in Civ3 (you never know where a strategic resource may show up -- settle everywhere!)
How about that rampant corruption? While I agree that in large, sprawling empires corruption will be more rampant (one look at the Roman Empire should serve to clarify that), we certainly do not have that situation in the USA. While corruption of various forms certainly does exist, it isn't to the point where a city of 1 million only produces one shield! :suicide:
As Narz once said, Civ3 was a waste of a good crisp $50.
Civ3 is no better than CTP.
Raw is War?
Soul Reaper
There is no way i can go back to playing regular Civ2, now that i have Civ3. Civ3 is just miles better! Graphics, culture, combat system, UU's....etc. Having said that though i do play Civ2 scenarios sometimes because you can't really make scenarios any where near as good with Civ3.
I Totally Agree with Marlos here...now I don't love Civ II (I'm a civ I nut), but Civ III motivated me enough re-install Civ II on my old *MAC*!
Why Civ III doesn't jive:
1) Stagic Resouce management ruined entire premise of the game. "Man I don't have [place resource here], oh now I can't build these [put type(s) here] units!" Makes the tech race almost laughable.
2) Corruption is shocking...it makes sense, but I had to check back to see what government I really was...(I was a DEMOCRACY) because it was so out of control.
3) Settler diarreha is right, you MUST put your cities where the resources are and if that means in the middle of a mountain range...so be it
4) Colony concept good, but not only is it more cumbersome, but it's mopre costly than just building a city. Replace one bad idea with another!
5) We might as well have simplified combat back again....
6) Culture flipping, I mean why can't we just blow up some partisans?!
7) Workers and settlers built BOTH take population, so what does the game do? Your population grows like mad!
8) Cities that are not your capital take FOREVER to build things due to the corruption (no matter what the government!)
9) The Tech tree has become a jungle of a joke. At least the units are specialized!
10) IMO, VERY FEW good city spot sites, even the real world has plenty of places to build a city (I'm anal about city radius too so I have my cities spaced apart.) On a medium continent I can place maybe 3 good cities on it and leave the rest for the friggen barbarians!
11) Great, now barbarians have "cities"...
Why Civ III doesn't jive:
1) Stagic Resouce management ruined entire premise of the game. "Man I don't have [place resource here], oh now I can't build these [put type(s) here] units!" Makes the tech race almost laughable.
2) Corruption is shocking...it makes sense, but I had to check back to see what government I really was...(I was a DEMOCRACY) because it was so out of control.
3) Settler diarreha is right, you MUST put your cities where the resources are and if that means in the middle of a mountain range...so be it
4) Colony concept good, but not only is it more cumbersome, but it's mopre costly than just building a city. Replace one bad idea with another!
5) We might as well have simplified combat back again....
6) Culture flipping, I mean why can't we just blow up some partisans?!
7) Workers and settlers built BOTH take population, so what does the game do? Your population grows like mad!
8) Cities that are not your capital take FOREVER to build things due to the corruption (no matter what the government!)
9) The Tech tree has become a jungle of a joke. At least the units are specialized!
10) IMO, VERY FEW good city spot sites, even the real world has plenty of places to build a city (I'm anal about city radius too so I have my cities spaced apart.) On a medium continent I can place maybe 3 good cities on it and leave the rest for the friggen barbarians!
11) Great, now barbarians have "cities"...
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
I like Civ3 a whole lot better. I'm glad that Firaxis didn't take the easy way out and make "Civ2 on steroids". The kitchen sink approach to game is design is for rank amateurs. The trick is to only put enough features to make a good game and no more (and no less).
My favorite features are the culture (with flips 'cuz they almost always flip to me) and resources (so that there's a reason to go warmongering) and the fact that the AI is actually challenging (I've played hundreds of hours of of Civ1, 2, and 3 (and SMAC/X) -- I know what I'm talking about).
My favorite features are the culture (with flips 'cuz they almost always flip to me) and resources (so that there's a reason to go warmongering) and the fact that the AI is actually challenging (I've played hundreds of hours of of Civ1, 2, and 3 (and SMAC/X) -- I know what I'm talking about).
Squeek
Chieftain
After playing Civ3 for about three weeks, I took it off my hard drive yesterday. Civ2 is a better game. It's more fun to play.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Good for you. I've enjoyed all three civ games, but clearly prefer the third, here's why I disagree with you:
1) Stagic Resouce management ruined entire premise of the game. "Man I don't have [place resource here], oh now I can't build these [put type(s) here] units!" Makes the tech race almost laughable.
I think this is one of the greatest additions to the game. Some of my most memorable games are those where I thought I had the game in my pocket and then found out that I had to start difficult wars to get any oil.
2) Corruption is shocking...it makes sense, but I had to check back to see what government I really was...(I was a DEMOCRACY) because it was so out of control.
Makes you have to actually work to get far-away cities useful, and helps balance the game by making the biggest nation a little bit less powerful.
3) Settler diarreha is right, you MUST put your cities where the resources are and if that means in the middle of a mountain range...so be it
I like to have more than one thing that affects my city placement. Having to choose between the close river spot that can easily grow and be productive or the more distant resource spot that secures you a much needed resource makes the game more interesting.
4) Colony concept good, but not only is it more cumbersome, but it's mopre costly than just building a city. Replace one bad idea with another!
The colony concept is flawed, but not for the reasons you state (which are wrong). The colony is built with one worker, which is half the food cost and one third the production cost of a settler. It is flawed because a nearby enemy city will swallow your colony though.
5) We might as well have simplified combat back again....
Better than easily being able to overwhelm the enemy with just a few unbeatable units IMHO.
6) Culture flipping, I mean why can't we just blow up some partisans?!
So that you didn't have to worry about it at all. Fighting culture flipping is another challenge you have to stand up to, and adds depth when planning an offensive.
7) Workers and settlers built BOTH take population, so what does the game do? Your population grows like mad!
I don't understand...
8) Cities that are not your capital take FOREVER to build things due to the corruption (no matter what the government!)
A great exaggeration. But you have to plan to get two very productive centres (each of 10 cities or so) around your capital and forbidden palace.
9) The Tech tree has become a jungle of a joke. At least the units are specialized!
I'm not sure that I understand what you think is wrong with the tech tree. More interesting and difficult choises when deciding what to research would be welcome though.
10) IMO, VERY FEW good city spot sites, even the real world has plenty of places to build a city (I'm anal about city radius too so I have my cities spaced apart.) On a medium continent I can place maybe 3 good cities on it and leave the rest for the friggen barbarians!
Here your blaming the game, while its you who haven't understood how its smart to lay out cities. You're complaining that you cannot build more than 3 perfect cities, while I would happily build 20 good cities.
11) Great, now barbarians have "cities"...
Yes, and your point is what? IMHO, having to send out expeditions that can take care of the barbarian camps before they gow too many barbarians is just another valuable addition to the game.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Good for you. I've enjoyed all three civ games, but clearly prefer the third, here's why I disagree with you:
1) Stagic Resouce management ruined entire premise of the game. "Man I don't have [place resource here], oh now I can't build these [put type(s) here] units!" Makes the tech race almost laughable.
I think this is one of the greatest additions to the game. Some of my most memorable games are those where I thought I had the game in my pocket and then found out that I had to start difficult wars to get any oil.
2) Corruption is shocking...it makes sense, but I had to check back to see what government I really was...(I was a DEMOCRACY) because it was so out of control.
Makes you have to actually work to get far-away cities useful, and helps balance the game by making the biggest nation a little bit less powerful.
3) Settler diarreha is right, you MUST put your cities where the resources are and if that means in the middle of a mountain range...so be it
I like to have more than one thing that affects my city placement. Having to choose between the close river spot that can easily grow and be productive or the more distant resource spot that secures you a much needed resource makes the game more interesting.
4) Colony concept good, but not only is it more cumbersome, but it's mopre costly than just building a city. Replace one bad idea with another!
The colony concept is flawed, but not for the reasons you state (which are wrong). The colony is built with one worker, which is half the food cost and one third the production cost of a settler. It is flawed because a nearby enemy city will swallow your colony though.
5) We might as well have simplified combat back again....
Better than easily being able to overwhelm the enemy with just a few unbeatable units IMHO.
6) Culture flipping, I mean why can't we just blow up some partisans?!
So that you didn't have to worry about it at all. Fighting culture flipping is another challenge you have to stand up to, and adds depth when planning an offensive.
7) Workers and settlers built BOTH take population, so what does the game do? Your population grows like mad!
I don't understand...
8) Cities that are not your capital take FOREVER to build things due to the corruption (no matter what the government!)
A great exaggeration. But you have to plan to get two very productive centres (each of 10 cities or so) around your capital and forbidden palace.
9) The Tech tree has become a jungle of a joke. At least the units are specialized!
I'm not sure that I understand what you think is wrong with the tech tree. More interesting and difficult choises when deciding what to research would be welcome though.
10) IMO, VERY FEW good city spot sites, even the real world has plenty of places to build a city (I'm anal about city radius too so I have my cities spaced apart.) On a medium continent I can place maybe 3 good cities on it and leave the rest for the friggen barbarians!
Here your blaming the game, while its you who haven't understood how its smart to lay out cities. You're complaining that you cannot build more than 3 perfect cities, while I would happily build 20 good cities.
11) Great, now barbarians have "cities"...
Yes, and your point is what? IMHO, having to send out expeditions that can take care of the barbarian camps before they gow too many barbarians is just another valuable addition to the game.
duke o' york
It don't mean a thing....
I quite like the idea that it is possible to win by a cultural victory, although culture flipping would annoy me, especially with the constraints it puts on waging a decent military campaign. The UN vote does suck though. More ways of winning were a good idea, but that particular one was terrible!
Besides, they don't have Civ 3 on my humble Playstation yet (nor will they ever I reckon), so the question's somewhat academic as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, they don't have Civ 3 on my humble Playstation yet (nor will they ever I reckon), so the question's somewhat academic as far as I'm concerned.
nmcul
I have missles
The UN... I hated it in Civ 2, I REALLY hate it in Civ 3. In 2 it was that "world opinion" would force me to stop my invincible war machine and sign peace with the owner. Those sissy weiners. World opinion? You can take your world opinion and shove it up your
ANYWAY, now in Civ 3 it's worse. Now you can lose the game due to it (and the barbaric treachary of the simian AI leaders).
ANYWAY, now in Civ 3 it's worse. Now you can lose the game due to it (and the barbaric treachary of the simian AI leaders).
