Comparison between Civ3, Civ2, and Civ1

[Illusion13]

Well, I never played Civ1, but I've played the SNES Civ, which I heard is the same as Civ1

Snes Civ
- Square terrain
- Possible to tech up with only 2 or 3 cities
- Extreme crappy AI
- One hit kill combat system
- Civs often make annoying threats for techs, diplomacy system bad
- Possible to take out entire nations or more with 2 cannons
- No point of building any high tech units
- AI has absolutely no chance in teching as fast as you can, not even 1/3 of the speed you can tech in
- Air units useless

Civ 2
- Diamond terrain
- More cities required for good empire
- More agressive AI
- HP combat system
- Same crappy diplomacy system as Civ1
- More strategy required for combat
- AIs will gang up on you if you are more advanced than them
- More strategy required with air units, though still not good...

Civ3
- Diamond terrain
- The more cities, the better
- Softer AI, especially with diplomacy
- Diplomacy is so much fun now, especially that you can trade anything for anything
- Bombard system
- Air unit with bombard system
- Culture boundries, no more unit away from town unhappiness!
- AIs tech roughly the same speed you do, usually only 2 or 3 techs behind (which makes a BIG difference)
- Luxuries system
- Now with cultural flips

So, what ya think? I cant think of any comparissons with warfare strategies though...

 

[globester]

i think my preference still goes to civ2, i just love that game :/

 

[Theoden]

A positive thing in civ2 was that you coluld transform terrain. In civ3, if your grassland is turned into desert by global warming then you cant turn it back again.

 

[globester]

would take you some time in civ2 to turn it back though
my massive cities would starve heh

 

[siberian_wolf]

People, don't forget the unit support change in Civ3. In Civ1-Civ2, the units were supported by the city in which they were produced. In Civ3, they started to be supported by the all "empire". I dunno about you guys, but it was a huge change to me, since now you can let your most productive cities producing lots of units, while the others can focus on something else, and this doesn't cripple your GPT...

 

[Illusion13]

AND, your units in Civ 3 dont have to be in your city to not cause war warriness. They simply have to be in your boundary.

 

[planetfall]

Curious, does play change at all when using diamond tiles vs square tiles?

== PF

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by planetfall
Curious, does play change at all when using diamond tiles vs square tiles?

== PF

I get real tired of holding my head at a 45-degree angle to keep the game on the proper horizontal/vertical orientation.

 

[Michael York]

The maps look better on the diamond tiles.

Until version 1.29 (or perhaps even PTW), I would had to have gone with Civ2. I loved the scenarios (especially the dagor scenario). Until I started playing on less than huge maps, I felt that civ3 was WAY TOO slow. Neither did I initially like the idea that 30 cities were better than 130 cities.

Now that I have C3C, Civ3 is far and away the best civ (or any game for that matter). Civ2 is probably the 2nd best ever.

 

[Esckey]

I prefer the old way of flying aircraft......to some extent. I like the air superiority missions but I prefer using the aircraft as actuall units and not immobile artillery peices. I still prefer most of the Scenarios in the 2nd(Especially the Mars one, loved that one) one to almost all of the ones in Civ3. I miss the actuall terran alterations from civ2 but other then that everything else is great about civ3

 

[Illusion13]

yeah, but the thing about aircrafts being actual units is that they fun out of fuel... You have to know when to go back and stuff... which is a pain.

 

[Knowze Gungk]

I never played much Civ2, but in civ one, I rember:

Taking the capital of an enemy nation causes a civil war & splits the nation in half (the loyalists & the rebles). If you contact the rebles, they claim to have never met the loyals.

The AI will tell you about their WMD, at every chance they get.

It is possible for a Phalanx to take down a bomber.

 

[Illusion13]

What is WMD? jw... hehe, such a n00b

 

[Turner]

Weapons of Mass Distruction.

"Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS."

Oh, how I tired of seeing that. Yes, I have them too.

Now, I kinda miss it.

 

[Illusion13]

Heh, back in Civ 1, I basically got really board, and massively produced nukes, and then just continue to bomb away with India's 2 remaining cities, not taking them over, but just having my way at it with nukes... It was fun... NOT. So, that eventually led to mass global warming (in Civ1, it affects the whole world, not just terrains with polution) *sigh*

 

[teknalee]

Hell i love the cheat bar in civ 2... u no just to have fun and woop up on civs on deity

 

[siberian_wolf]

That's two reasons I love Civ1, even though the graphics were so poor (but in that time, they were just fine)... the "Our words are backed with Nuclear Weapons" that every single civ that had WMD had to say, and the nations that were split in half when you took the capital.

I think the last one shouldn't desappear, just have a few changes... it should be like this: if you have a large civ, but your government isn't a liberal one (Despotism, Monarchy, Communism), and depending on the happiness of your people, if your capital is taken, I think that there should be a chance of having that civil war that splits your civ in two (loyals, rebels).

In real life, when you are under a government that concentrates power in one person, like Despotism, most of its people tend to hate it, but they keep quiet, because they are afraid of their "leader". But when there is a chance to revolt, they surely will do so, at least that's what history shows us. I'm not saying that history shows us civs splitting in two, but I guess you people got the idea...

 

[garner]

i think civ3 plays much better than the earlier civs.
civ1 and 2 you were running city states where as civ3 you are in charge of a nation.
the trade is national and so is the unit upkeep. and with national borders you dont have to worry about the zulu's building a city in the middle of your empire.

i remember the civil war thing as well, it was great when you pulled it off. it did not happen every time you took out a civ.
never to fanatics for example. but to some of the other types.
it was a lovely touch and i would like to see it back in civ4

 

[mintyfreshdeath]

I think Civ3 (particularly after Conquests and the seemingly endless stream of patches *I'M GETTIN -REAL- TIRED OF THIS FIREAXIS*) is the more subtle and refined of the series. Particularly with the trade system, the unit support, the new ways in which artillery is used etc..
With the different civ traits I've found an infinitely variable game become, erm... MORE infinitely variable. Not to mention the UU's.
I also think that Civ3 strikes that balance between a representation of reality and an epic indulgence in fantasy far better than the previous civs. I think it's this element that is one of the most vital to the series. When we play civ we want historical accuracy and real politik but we also want to build The Pyramids in Paris and a New York defended by two Warriors and a caveman called Zok.
Civ3 does this better than the rest in my humble opinion.

 

[kettyo]

The feeling of Civ1-DOS is the greatest for me.

Although i love Civ3 and C3C too.