CIV2-VS-CIV3 Looking for opinions!

[LakeTahoeGuy]

I've been playing Civ2 for years and love it! I had bought Civ3 a few years ago, but it was lost in a move and I just never bought it again, but have been considering buying it again. When I had played it before i didn't enjoy it as much as I had Civ2, but then again I didn't get to play it very long. Are there any aspects of Civ3 that you liked better in Civ2. Is Civ3 better than Civ2 over the long run?

 

[Sargon of Agade]

I don't know, civ3 has not drawn me in like Alpha and Civ2 did, I did the same thing, played civ3 for awhile and then dropped, but the Conquests expansion is what changed my mind, now I enjoy the game just as much as Civ2, although I don't think I'll ever play as much Civ3 as I did SMAC and SMACX...

 

[Crimso]

I have one major argument for why Civ 3 is better: it is much harder. It can be mastered and beaten on the highest difficulty, but it takes A LOT of civing. Even then, winning is not as consistent as Civ II on the highest difficulty levels.

Civ I and II will always hold the nostalgia factor for us, except for those who entered into the genre with III. I and II definitly had more personality than III, so you young 'ns should check them out!

 

[Thunderfall]

Both are great games. I actually played more Civ2 than Civ3, but that's mainly because I don't have as much free time for games nowadays.

Civ3's culture model and resource system are probably the biggest improvements over Civ2. The Civ-specific unit feature also turned out to be a good idea, even though lots players were against it before Civ3's release.

I actually like Civ2's espionage system alot more than Civ3's. It was fun moving those diplomat and spy units on the map, stealing techs, bribing enemy units, etc. You also have to like Civ2's wonder movies and high council.

 

[michael4000]

I do miss the movies. Other than that, I am not looking back from CIV III. CIV II feels completely predictable when I play it now -- like I can tell how the whole game is going to go after the first few turns. CIV III has (or maybe just ~still~ has) a feeling of open possibilities that I love. Culture is awesome, as is having several different possible routes to success, as is being able to win by domination and not go through the tedium of mopping up every last pocket of resistance.

Damn, this is a great game!

 

[Turner]

Well, I went back and played a Civ2 game about a year ago. Civ3 really messed me up.

Personally, I wasn't impressed after the third or fourth time on the council and wonder movies. I just wanted to play. They got turned off pretty quickly. So did the throne room, after I completed it. The throne room/palace view has never been high priority for me, going all the way back to Civ1.

Civ2 was great. I loved it and played it a lot. Civ3 is great, too. I'd have to side with Civ3, simply because I'm a much better Civ3 player than Civ2, and I have much more experience with Civ3. But that's not to say that I think Civ2 isn't a good game.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

For me, civ3 is both much better, but also do i hate parts of it.

I am a conquest player. Every time a city flips to my opponent,(and not just 1, often a city flips back every other turn) i'm like WHY WHY WHY can't this game just let me conquer the world in a normal way ???????

Other than that, i much prefer civ3 however. Most other things are real good improvements to me.

 

[Dragonsbain]

The diplomatic and spy system was better in civ II also I truly mis the trade units like caravan to hurry wonders. (I almost never get Grl)

Then again the resorce and culture system in III made the gameplay more interesting and the AI is better.
I'm stikking with civIII though but only because I don't want to get the chance to compare te two.

 

[morchuflex]

I loved Civ1 and Civ2 more than anything in life (including all my GFs so far) and must have played literally thousands of games, but Civ3 is definitely better in almost every aspect, at least after you start to master it (the first games were very frustrating and disappointing).
The key to loving Civ3 is to approach it as a new game, and not as "Civ2 with better graphics".
Don't forget Conquests, that adds a lot to the experience.
I really miss the High council, and also many of SMAC's features, especially the complex social engineering and the voices that accompanied discoveries. But trust me, Civ3 is the richest Civ-like ever, beside maybe Master of Magic, which would have been my all-time favorite game if it hadn't be so unbalanced.

 

[Offa]

I think for a peaceful game Civ2 is superb, especially for early landing games. The trade system in civ2 is brilliant. However, the AI is very weak in civ2 and combat is much better (les predictable) in civ3, so for warmongers civ3 is much more of a challenge.

If you just want to beat the top level, Civ2 deity is much easier than civ3 deity, let alone Sid level. I think civ2 deity is a little like regent/monarch on civ3.

Finally Civ 3 looks better graphically.

 

[gunkulator]

Civ3 improves on Civ2 in many ways. There are a few things missing but for the most part, Civ3 is far superior. Here are some annoyances from Civ2 that were fixed in Civ3.

- "8 units destroyed", i.e. stack death. Unrealistic and unbalancing. Civ3 allows you to concentrate your forces without such huge risk. The first time you see an AI SOD (stack of death) heading into your territory, you'll wake up to the age-old strategy of concentrated power.

- Too predictable combat. Let's face it, we all knew that Rifleman on a mountain would always, always beat Cavalry. Fewer hps in Civ3 means you have to plan your offense and defense for contingency. More importantly, combat uncertainty in Civ3 leads to needing to use combined arms (defensive units, offensive infantry, fast movers, artillery). No more "killer units" like Cavalry or Howitzers.

- ZOC. Why should Warriors stop my Tanks from moving right by them? Combined with predictable combat you could basically just build a couple forts, plop 1 or 2 units in them and guard an entire continent in Civ2. Worse, the AI would continue to bash its units into your fortified positions over and over again. ZOC no longer prevents movement in Civ3 so you better pay attention to protecting your land.

- Spies and Diplos. 30 units that can almost singlehandedly conquer or bribe the world. Way way overpowered plus the poor AI never had a clue on how to use them. Civ3 does away with these cheats.

- Caravan hoarding for wonder building. Another human-only exploit. Except for the very occasional great leader in Civ3, there are no shortcuts to wonder building.

- Steam Rolling, i.e. once you are "on a roll" you can quickly use all those conquered cities to add to the juggernaut until soon it becomes unstoppable. Civ3 puts the brakes on steam rolling: Conquered cities have resistors and may flip back culturally. The corruption model no longer allows an infinite number of productive cities. You can't use roads and rails in enemy territory. No more gaining a tech every time you take a city.

- Michaelangelo's Chapel, Leonardo's Workshop, Adam Smith's, Statue of Liberty. All overpowered wonders now signficantly toned down in Civ3.

- The Bomber cheat. In Civ2, Bombers could protect all units underneath them from attack, except for attack by fighters. And with ZOC, you couldn't even move around them! Mostly this was yet another human-only exploit.

- Uneven diplomacy. There wasn't much you could do in the Civ2 diplomacy screens. Civ3 opens up a whole new world in this area.

- Fundamentalism. Gone in Civ3. May it RIP.

And these are just the things fixed from Civ2 to Civ3. Civ3 adds even more to the game: trading, culture, resources, new victory conditions, more govenments, meaningful civilization traits - and more of them, Unique units for individual civs, the Golden Age, and more configurability of more game parameters. As a long time Civ2 player, Civ3 to me is a greatly superior game.

 

[Longasc]

I do not know why, I loved Civ1, found Civ2 "strange" and did not like Civ3 either initially... but then I got into it and by now I am playing it for years!!!

I just stopped because I have some other things to do, but I was playing a few days ago as the Dutch!

I wonder how often I will return to Civ3. I even dropped Rome: TW after some weeks in favor of Civ3 (Civ3 just has "IT").

 

[DBear]

I thought Vanilla Civ3 was just horrible. Civ3 NEEDS the two expansions to fully realize its greatness.

The one advantage Civ2 has over Civ3 is the spy game. A shame that it got completely nerfed in Civ3.

 

[Alexnm]

Civ II is better. But, then, this is just my personal feeling about the two games.

 

[necrosmith]

Resources and borders are something that Civ3 definately has on Civ2.

I can't really think of anything I miss from Civ2 off the top of my head, except the combat system.

 

[morchuflex]

I would never revert back to Civ2.
Civ3 is one thousand times better than previous ones, but of course it no longer has the fresh flavor Civ1 enjoyed. Still, the fact that it hooks us to our computers means it's a real improvment over previous versions.
I've been addicted to Civ3 for the last 12 months, the longest period of time I have ever dedicated to one game. With previous Civs, I used to experience shorter periods of addiction (from some weeks to several months), but never that long.
However, it's true that mastering Civ3 can be frustrating for veteran Civ2 players.
As for major improvments, Gunkulator made a lot of very good points. I'll add just one for now: the fact that you can't research more than one tech every four turns.
In Civ2, during the late game, I would routinely discover one tech per turn, sometimes two (I even once got three! - without Darwin's Voyage, aka TOE). Not only did that completely destroy the atmosphere, but many units became obsolete before you could even complete one or two (dragoons come to mind). Now, you can at last experience distinct eras, each one having a specific flavor in all regards.

 

[Kozmos]

Civ 2
Music(music number 1 is awesome)
Spy game
Advisors
Nukes
Cruise missiles

 

[Damburger]

Played Civ 1 a few times and didn't like it. Civ 2 I played religiously for years then forgot about for a bit. Then I got Civ 3.

I've got to say, I even loved the vanilla version, flawed as it was. The interface is much nicer, and so is the gameplay. I can't ever imagine going back.

Onward to Civ 4!

P.S. Call to Power was lame

 

[morchuflex]

The one thing I hate about Civ3 is the interface! It has advantages but one major drawback: the fact that you can't select new building projects by hitting a key. In Civ2, if I wanted to build a factory, I would go to the city screen, hit "c" for "change production", "f" for "factory", and <enter>. Using the arrow keys, and with **some** practice, starting a factory in every city would take about ONE second per city (OK, that was after a lot of practice!).
In Civ3, you have to click the "production" icon, then scroll the list, which can be very long in the late game, and click on the desired item. If this item is on the lower end of the list, it can easily take up to FIVE seconds. That's a lot of time wasted in the long run. And that's one of the reasons why I hardly ever play beyond mid-medieval or early-industrial.
Of course, the ability to copy and paste building queues is nice, but I don't use it too much because you can't always tell what you'll be doing in 20 turns... I would rather have the ability to give building orders to all cities at the same time, such as: start building a factory in every city. There was something like that in Master of Orion 1, IIRC.

 

[Alexnm]

In Civ3, you have to click the "production" icon, then scroll the list, which can be very long in the late game, and click on the desired item. If this item is on the lower end of the list, it can easily take up to FIVE seconds. That's a lot of time wasted in the long run. And that's one of the reasons why I hardly ever play beyond mid-medieval or early-industrial.

This might bother you, but it is not like if Civ 3 was some RTS game where you need speedy reflexes...