Civ2 or Civ3

[RegentMan]

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

Battleships and bombers are unable to engage in combat with spearmen in Civ III, so you cannot compare combat results to Civ II where you can. There are dozens of times per game in Civ III where I should win a battle and I lose because of the RNG. I get the impression that you're attacking Civ II's combat system while praising Civ III's as errorless. We all know that's not entirely true.

 

[The 777 Hoax]

Ciiiiiiiiv3.

 

[conquer_dude]

Civ1? That should be an option

 

[scooter]

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.

Ok lets try to be at least a TINY bit realistic here... whens the last time a diplomat/spy has taken over a city by opening his wallet It was a cool feature but all it was was a crutch for those of us (thats right, me included) who sucked at war, hated it, and were way better at building an economy to fund city buying. but as for my list, it goes Civ4, Civ2, Civ3. never played the original civ. Civ4 is sweet, love it. I just plain hated Civ3, not entirely sure why but mainly just hated how boring it was at times, didn't like combat, corruption was ridiculously insane (civ2's was better, but awful too). Thats the biggest reason I love civ4, corruption and shield support gone. replaced with a harsh maintenance system, but hey, there's cottages

a couple more nice things about civ4's spies that make them extremely vital and cool is:

1. They're invisible, only possible to see them is by enemy spies, and even then its not a for sure thing that they get caught
2. Can view enemy cities at no expense or chance of being caught. you lost your dip/spy in civ2 if you did that (dk about civ3)
3. Uh recon, not possible to see them- means crossing cultural borders is no problem, and you can see the army you are up against. They're a huge help (and pretty much a necessity) for modern wars.

So no, spies are NOT weak/useless... just learn how to fight a war and not buy cities. I had to kick this habit somewhat in civ2 and the way I did it was I played a few games where I planned to conquest and I was not allowed to buy a city AT ALL. that was hard but I leared a lot about warfare.

 

[Titi]

It was a cool feature but all it was was a crutch for those of us (thats right, me included) who sucked at war, hated it, and were way better at building an economy to fund city buying.

That's absolutely right, at least for me!

but as for my list, it goes Civ4, Civ2, Civ3. never played the original civ. Civ4 is sweet, love it. I just plain hated Civ3, not entirely sure why but mainly just hated how boring it was at times, didn't like combat, corruption was ridiculously insane (civ2's was better, but awful too).

Same for me. I suspect it's because I tried Civ3, didn't like it at all and reverted to Civ2. But when Civ4 got out, I wasn't too confused because I had this small Civ3 experience... And finally found these new features worth playing.
Nevertheless, I still play Civ2, I really don't think I'll ever throw it away!

 

[fishjie]

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

that is actually a good thing and the #1 REASON things are made open source. having lots of different people modifying the code and coming up with all these cool versions and innovations is the whole POINT.

anyway different strokes for different folks. to me, stuff like culture, resources, strategic resources, and central treasury as opposed to city support are huge improvements.

 

[gunkulator]

a couple more nice things about civ4's spies that make them extremely vital and cool is:

1. They're invisible, only possible to see them is by enemy spies, and even then its not a for sure thing that they get caught
2. Can view enemy cities at no expense or chance of being caught. you lost your dip/spy in civ2 if you did that (dk about civ3)
3. Uh recon, not possible to see them- means crossing cultural borders is no problem, and you can see the army you are up against. They're a huge help (and pretty much a necessity) for modern wars.

You missed one of the big abilties with Civ4 spies: sabotage. Spies can destroy land improvements which is something even Civ2 spies couldn't do.

 

[scooter]

You missed one of the big abilties with Civ4 spies: sabotage. Spies can destroy land improvements which is something even Civ2 spies couldn't do.

I forgot about that, good point. That's a sweet feature when your enemy has only one oil/uranium source. Just sit there and sabotage over and over again.

 

[MikeLynch]

Spies can destroy land improvements which is something even Civ2 spies couldn't do.

I wonder if they could be made to do that. What is it that determines whether a unit can pillage or not? Is it that they have to have an attack factor greater than zero? And if a Spy had that, would it screw up her other abilities?

 

[carmen510]

Civ3, no contest. It has mucho features, 2 spanking good expansions, (better buy conquests as it comes with both) great graphics, and it won't have extreme loading times and compatible with old/slow computers. (The only exeption is the mods/scenarios!) Darn those things! Can take up to an hour loading!!!!

 

[Titi]

it won't have extreme loading times and compatible with old/slow computers.

This is true for Civ2, but is completely the contrary with Civ III...

 

[letterbomb]

Civ 3 has so much more added features, but some suck.

I loved fundamentalism in civ 2, and my fanatics, but I HATED zones of control. Dont ask me why but it allways came up and I was like "aargh!"

But I loved the cheats in civ 2, and pionting out glitches in the game. more fun.

civ 3 is better, but i like old school civ 2

 

[Mirc]

Civ 3.

 

[azzaman333]

I get the impression that you're attacking Civ II's combat system while praising Civ III's as errorless. We all know that's not entirely true.

Hehehe.. why else would we have

 

[SirBois]

2. Can view enemy cities at no expense or chance of being caught. you lost your dip/spy in civ2 if you did that (dk about civ3)

True for the diplomat, not for the spy!

 

[civdood]

Civ 2 say Civdood. Da dood do dat. Civ 3 OK, but Civ 2 bombs Civ 3. Civ 4 better than Civ 3, if PC no get bombed in workie. No PC get da bomb with Civ 1 or Civ 2. No distracting graphic, good gameplay, Civ 2 bombs Civ 3.