Civ2 or Civ3

[Specialist290]

I personally like both games, each for their own reasons.

Same here, though lately I haven't been playing much of either...

I guess I'm just too easily distracted sometimes

 

[The Person]

The point is that i played both games very intensively. Most of those who prefer civ2 have given civ3 a short try at best.
So you can make those changes, but then your comment might very well be based on nothing.

That may be the truth. But to my defense I have started a few games, some of the even reached the medieval age. But I never went back to a savegame. I'm too used to Civ2 to truly enjoy Civ3. That's the most sensible explanation I have. It's just a matter of taste, I guess.

 

[Smash]

I won Civ2 OCC the very first time I tried it. Not much of a challenge really.

Thats due to the groundwork of Paul and many others at Poly.
You should have been around when OCC was first envisioned for Civ2.
Trust me..it was a HUGE challenge.

Neither game really does a great job in the mid>late game.In Civ2 you can move camels/freights ala trade network.
In 3,you just kinda sit there.

I like war in 3 a touch better than 2.The 3 AI is not a great general or anything,but it will send large numbers at you.
The civ2 AI is really only decent at modern age/weapons warfare.Particulary with nukes.I've seen the 2 AI use nuke/paratroops fairly effectively.

But,as with 3,by the time you get to modern age(assuming you can hack it that long) the game is generally just a matter of technique to win.

2 is better overall.The wide range of scenarios with EVENTS to d/l makes it a fairly easy winner.
Civ3 scenarios are not really scenarios.The mulitplay of Civ3 is not good as compared to 2 but not many players left these days.

Civ3 is better in the eye candy department.Not exactly mindblowing though.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Civ2 is better. The AI in Civ3 is just more stupid than the AI in Civ2, although the both are too stupid. Civ2 has a lot more strategies. For example, if you try the classic SOD strategy in Civ2, if one of your units gets wiped out, then all of your army is destroyed. Civ2 values troop maneuvering and the combat system is a lot better and realistic. In Civ3, you can just send lots of units in a stack and destroy your enemies easily. Also, you will need 5 swordsmen for each spearman the enemy has. This is not realistic.

 

[gunkulator]

Civ2 is better. The AI in Civ3 is just more stupid than the AI in Civ2, although the both are too stupid. Civ2 has a lot more strategies. For example, if you try the classic SOD strategy in Civ2, if one of your units gets wiped out, then all of your army is destroyed. Civ2 values troop maneuvering and the combat system is a lot better and realistic.

The AI in Civ2 is quite a bit stupider than the AI in Civ3. Some of it is game mechanics, though. One of the worst rules in Civ2 is the one you mention: stack death. Nothing is as unrealistic as seeing a huge army wiped out because a single unit loses. So in Civ2 you have to do unnatural things like separate all your units instead of concentrating your force. Then again, the AI does help you by building fortresses and then not manning them - really really dumb.

Civ2 combat is way too boring. Most battles don't need to be fought because the odds are so lopsided. Unfortunately, the AI has no clue about this and insists on attacking even when its odds of winning are vanishingly low. For offense, basically all you do in Civ2 is count up the defneders in a city. If there are X defenders, you bring X+1 fast attackers with higher attack. No surprises. No real strategy needed. In Civ3, you need a mixture of attackers, fast units, artillery and defenders.

In Civ3, you can just send lots of units in a stack and destroy your enemies easily. Also, you will need 5 swordsmen for each spearman the enemy has. This is not realistic.

These two statements contradict each other. Be aware that when you launch an attack into AI territory in Civ3, they will also send a large stack to go after your cities. Yes, you may succeed in sacking their cities but they will be doing the same to you. One of the more devasting things the AI does in Civ3 is attacking your rear. The AI likes to load up 2 or 3 ships and drop them off where your defense is thinnest.

Civ3 did away with silly zone of control rules that allow a single musketeer to prevent a huge stack of tanks from moving past. In Civ2 it was too easy to build an impenetrable Maginot Line. In Civ3 you have to occupy each square with strong defenders to block progress.

Civ3 also has luxury and strategic resources that the AI likes to pillage. The former will make your people unhappy while the latter prevents you from building the best units for reinforcements. This adds a new flavor to the game and gives you something to defend besides your cities.

On the whole, I find Civ3 combat far richer, more strategic and much more complex. Best of all it is more balanced: no more 30 shield spies bribing everything under the sun (award here for most unrealistic tactic), no howitzer kill-all super units, no infinite rail movement in AI land, no blocking the AI with old units, no more hiding under bombers, etc.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Civ2 combat is way too boring. Most battles don't need to be fought because the odds are so lopsided. Unfortunately, the AI has no clue about this and insists on attacking even when its odds of winning are vanishingly low. For offense, basically all you do in Civ2 is count up the defneders in a city. If there are X defenders, you bring X+1 fast attackers with higher attack. No surprises. No real strategy needed. In Civ3, you need a mixture of attackers, fast units, artillery and defenders.

The combat in Civ3 requires an immense superiority. That's ridiculous, because you will need many units to defeat a sole enemy defender. Defensive units in Civ3 are way too strong, and this makes things boring. Artillery misses the targets almost all the time, but their value in history was bigger than it is in Civ3.

On the whole, I find Civ3 combat far richer, more strategic and much more complex. Best of all it is more balanced: no more 30 shield spies bribing everything under the sun (award here for most unrealistic tactic), no howitzer kill-all super units, no infinite rail movement in AI land, no blocking the AI with old units, no more hiding under bombers, etc.

That was replaced by the killer spearman with 1HP defeating an entire army of tanks. Civ2 combat was much better. BTW, you can always use your workers and other worthless units to attract AI units out of their cities so you can face weaker defenses. That's an AI stupidity in Civ3.

 

[gunkulator]

The combat in Civ3 requires an immense superiority. That's ridiculous, because you will need many units to defeat a sole enemy defender. Defensive units in Civ3 are way too strong, and this makes things boring. Artillery misses the targets almost all the time, but their value in history was bigger than it is in Civ3.

Defense in Civ2 is even stronger. A vet phalanx behind walls has a D=9. A vet musket in a walled city is D=13.5, a rifle D=18, etc. Add a river to the equation and its D=13.5, 20.25, 27 respectively. That's pretty unbeatable. What you are depending on is the incredible ineptitude of the AI because they don't build walls or vet units. The human player is under no similar veil of stupidity so of course you load your boarder cities with walls and vet units. On the off chance that AI actually does build a wall, a 30 shield spy will take care of that. Does the AI ever try to take down your walls before attacking? Nope.

Compare to Civ3. A spearman behind a walled town has D=3.7. Swordsmen have an attack of 3. Catapults bombard at 4. Bring enough cats to bombard down to 1 hp and your swordsmen have a 90% chance of winning. Yes, it takes a little more planning and a mix of units but it is certainly doable.

That was replaced by the killer spearman with 1HP defeating an entire army of tanks. Civ2 combat was much better. BTW, you can always use your workers and other worthless units to attract AI units out of their cities so you can face weaker defenses. That's an AI stupidity in Civ3.

A 1 HP spear behind a walled town has a 99.9% chance of losing to a tank. You can only attract attackers with decoy units, not defenders, and the same trick works in Civ2. It's actually harder to pull off in Civ3 because your units can't use the AI's roads and rails to get away.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Defense in Civ2 is even stronger. A vet phalanx behind walls has a D=9. A vet musket in a walled city is D=13.5, a rifle D=18, etc. Add a river to the equation and its D=13.5, 20.25, 27 respectively. That's pretty unbeatable. What you are depending on is the incredible ineptitude of the AI because they don't build walls or vet units. The human player is under no similar veil of stupidity so of course you load your boarder cities with walls and vet units. On the off chance that AI actually does build a wall, a 30 shield spy will take care of that. Does the AI ever try to take down your walls before attacking? Nope.

Compare to Civ3. A spearman behind a walled town has D=3.7. Swordsmen have an attack of 3. Catapults bombard at 4. Bring enough cats to bombard down to 1 hp and your swordsmen have a 90% chance of winning. Yes, it takes a little more planning and a mix of units but it is certainly doable.

You are talking about chances, but what about Civ3 combat in practice? Although it says a cavalry or a tank has no chance of being defeated by a spearman, this happens frequently to me and to all players. Lost elite tank, veteran cavalry... Damn, Sid Meier must be kidding with us! However, in one of my games in PTW 1.27f a musketman on a hill was defeated by a swordsman. There are even stories of musketmen being defeated by warriors! The Combat Calculator may say this is wrong and this won't happen, but this will happen. random number crap.

It's actually harder to pull off in Civ3 because your units can't use the AI's roads and rails to get away.

You are talking about mobility. But this case is about combat, in general. When my stack of tanks approaches a spearman, then I don't bother about mobility. But one thing better in Civ3 is that you can't use enemy roads or friendly roads without ROP. At least in Civ3 there are some things better.

In Civ2, defenders were powerful in theory. But in practice, they weren't that monster from Civ3. Civ2 combat system is still the best, despite all its flaws. Nothing is perfect.

I hope the Civ4 combat system is better.

 

[gunkulator]

You are talking about chances, but what about Civ3 combat in practice? Although it says a cavalry or a tank has no chance of being defeated by a spearman, this happens frequently to me and to all players. Lost elite tank, veteran cavalry...

It doesn't say there is no chance, just that it is unlikely. Over the course of a game with many battles, you should expect to lose a few. What's so bad about that? I've played many many Civ3 games and I have found the combat calculator to be accurate. That Cavalry you mention wins against the spear 86% of the time, that's about 6 out of 7. Expect to lose 1/7 of your attacking Cavalry. Seems reasonable to me.

In Civ2, defenders were powerful in theory. But in practice, they weren't that monster from Civ3.

For the human player they were. We all build vet units and walls which makes our civs unbeatable in Civ2. It is only the hapless AI that is too stupid to know to do the same.

 

[Dominus Romae]

It doesn't say there is no chance, just that it is unlikely. Over the course of a game with many battles, you should expect to lose a few. What's so bad about that? I've played many many Civ3 games and I have found the combat calculator to be accurate. That Cavalry you mention wins against the spear 86% of the time, that's about 6 out of 7. Expect to lose 1/7 of your attacking Cavalry. Seems reasonable to me.



For the human player they were. We all build vet units and walls which makes our civs unbeatable in Civ2. It is only the hapless AI that is too stupid to know to do the same.

At leat we can make a good conclusion: both of the Civ versions were great .

Anyway, I am a bit disappointed with Civ3 mainly because of the bonuses the AI gets, and the combat system. It is tough to play Civ3, but I wouldn't expect having all my cannons miss the target or my tank beign defeated by a spearman. Civilization combat system was never perfect. In Civ1, a phalanx could defeat a battleship. I hope there should be a more fair combat system in Civ4, but as you said in your previous threads, something unexpected can happen. Artillery must have a bigger value: because it will always be important. In lower levels, you should also use artillery. That's because they were decisive weapons in the history of mankind. This does not happen in Civ3. Indeed, in Warlord games I don't use them. In Regent, perhaps a few cannons, rarely a great stack of them... Just build a great cavalry stack and attack, but that's not realistic. Civ3 improved some concepts from Civ2, but I am yet disappointed with other things. And I am disappointed with all Civ versions because the AI still has much to improve.

 

[Titi]

Yep, and I hope they will include this CTP feature: when you piled units on the same tile, and got attacked (or attacked an enemy), the units were organised to have the artillery/archers (well, actually all the long range units) fire, then the short range units went into contact. What was missing in that combat system is the ability to withdraw though.

 

[fishjie]

It seems like a lot of people just didnt want to give civ3 a try because it was newer and something different heh. i bet civ3 lovers dont/wont like civ4 either.

anyway i like both versions of the game.

the GREATEST weakness of civ2 is diplomacy, and i'm surprised no one brought this up. civ3 has a vastly superior diplomacy system that actually lets you propose deals and negotiate for stuff. it was very rich and rewarding.

with civ2 diploomacy is a joke:
ai - GIMME URE MONIES!!!111
you - no?
ai - DIE!!! WAR!!1111

also as was mentioned, you load up tons of howitzers and the ai CRUMBLES.

but civ3 gives defensive units too much power and it is frustrating. you basically need like a 5:1 ratio of strong attackers to defenders to be **guranteed** success if the enemy has strong defensive units. but i guess it just requires a different strategy. you basically have to load up on artilery units, bombard a few turns, and then attack. this way, the ratio is more reasonable, like 2:1

i've actually started to enjoy this bombarding stuff. you can really destroy an enemy infrastructure and level his cities. pretty cool if you ask me. its more "subtle" than a brute force hundreds of howizters railroading into an enemy city. blah.

the most frustrating thing about civ3 though are the culture flips.

i still enjoy civ2, especially all the different scenarios, and there's just something about its graphics that evokes warm memories and a certain kind of distinct and unique magic that make it a really enjoyable game. so civ2 and civ3 are both great games in their own right.

 

[The 777 Hoax]

I suppose this is kind of biased since I don't own Civ2, but I like Civ3. Lol.

 

[Skyer2]

fishjie, about diplomacy - no no no.

It is not that simple as you described. It was that simple because of the hostility of the AI, but this was fixed, and now AI is no longer hostile and different diplomacy options are available.

In fact the Civ2 diplomacy is THE BEST IN ALL 4 GAMES. Yes. I know, it is less functionable, than in Civ3 and Civ4, but it is much more likeable, much more comfortable and has the best atmosphere. It is really good and really funny And functional enough to make game interesting and diplomacy - great. The eternal technology exchange in Civ3 is too boring. You should click and check too much every turn or nearly so. Resourse trading is great, though. Right of passage - alliance is better. Alliances against - the same is in Civ2, when other Civs offering alliances against some opponent. Useless in both cases MPP - self-kill usually and not used

I think, that diplomacy in Civ2 is the best in all four games. But I agree with the fact, that the both games are great. I like both - Civ2 and Civ3. And don't like Civ4. But only for one reason - it doesn't have spies. No, it does have spies, but they are useless. They do not have the main option - incite revolt. If Civ4 customizers will create that - I will consider playing Civ4 again.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Disclaimer: I don't own Civ4 yet, and I like both Civ2 and Civ3

Things I like about Civ2:
- Trade system, in that I can choose what I trade and when
- Espionage that actually works
- Ability to use AI roads & rails
- Low corruption in demo, fundy
- Able to research techs in < 4 turns

Things I like about Civ3:
- Stacking units helps
- Changing production does not mean loss of shields
- National boundaries means I can stop AI from loitering about
- Ability to sell things to the AI, to keep it poor
- The AI counter attacks much better, always finding my weak spots
- Armies, for better offensive operations

Things I hate about Civ2
- Stack death, stack death, stack death
- International date line messes up long "goto" commands

Things I hate about Civ3
- Corruption in newly conquered or far-flung cities
- Espionage functions are drastically reduced
- Tech tree divided into ages, can't research tech in next age
until all required techs in previous age are done

Things that are unbalancing in Civ2
- City defense is way too good. One or two gunpowder unit behind
city walls is nearly invincible until howitzers or bombers. I once lost
8 veteran tanks trying to take Thebes; it didn't fall until I could take
down the walls, or use units that ignored them.
- Leonardo's workshop gives free upgrades for a good, long while
- Inciting revolts; I love it, but the AI is too stupid to use it

Things that are unbalancing in Civ3
- AI always goes for undefended workers
- AI doesn't know how to use bombard units until bombers

 

[RegentMan]

Nice summary there, vorlon_mi.

 

[MikeLynch]

I agree, good summary -- and my feeling on the debate is probably close to vorlon's:

Civ2 is deeply flawed. Civ3 is deeply flawed. Each has some advantages over the other. I like Civ2 better because I've had more time to adapt to its flaws, whereas the flaws of Civ3 bug me disproportionately because I'm not as used to it.

(Actually, full disclosure: I'd probably be playing Civ3 all the time instead of Civ2 were it not for Civ3's uselessly buggy multiplayer.)

If they released the source code for both games, you'd have two camps of people: one that takes the good ideas from Civ2 and works them into Civ3 (and then claims Civ3 is the best game ever), and one that takes the good ideas from Civ3 and works them into Civ2 (and then claims Civ2 is the best game ever).

In which case, it would all come down to graphics. Where Civ2 is better.

 

[Andu Indorin]

If they released the source code for both games, you'd have two camps of people: one that takes the good ideas from Civ2 and works them into Civ3 (and then claims Civ3 is the best game ever), and one that takes the good ideas from Civ3 and works them into Civ2 (and then claims Civ2 is the best game ever).

In which case, it would all come down to graphics. Where Civ2 is better.

Give me the source code ... and viola! Civ V.

 

[fishjie]

Yeah civ3 balanced a lot of things in civ2. For example, the pyramids, one of the best wonders in civ2, has been toned down by limiting to the same continent (as have other wonders). Also, howizters were removed, since they did indeed break the game (but made combat mind numbingly easy). And like i mentioned the civ3 diplomacy is much superior to civ2 diplomacy (i still dont see how people can consider the limited diplo in civ2 better - going back to civ2 diplo is like cutting off your right arm). Culture also made it so that you couldn't use enemy railroads (and if you had 1000000000 howizters, you could essentially take over an entire enemy nation in one turn). Bribing off tons of enemy units and cities is no longer posisble either.
There's really nothing broken with civ3, other than the corruption problem (which is solved by specialists), and of course, the random and frustrating combat which requires heavy numerical superiority in order to gurantee victory. but even in civ2, you have crap like a SPEARMAN defeating a BOMBER, which funny enough is IMPOSSIBLE in civ3, since bombers do not engage in combat.

spearman > battleships, bombers, tanks happens way more in civ2 than in civ3, where battleships and bombers will NEVER lose to a spearman.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Give me the source code ... and viola! Civ V.

You would have plenty of competition for sure.
And that is one reason the source code will probably never be released to the public.