When you said "diamond tiles", I thought you meant the small diamond that represents bonus grassland... 
If you can't tell, I've never played anything but Civ3.
If you can't tell, I've never played anything but Civ3.
Comparison between Civ3, Civ2, and Civ1
- Thread starter Illusion13
- Start date
siberian_wolf
Chieftain
Honestly, I think Civ1 is the greatest of them, since it was the first one, which spread the new idea, the new concept of a extraordinary game. Nowadays, when you pick an old game like Civ1, you say "The graphics are so poor, I just won't play it". Guess what, Civ1 is an exception!!! I still love playing Civ1, with Stalin getting pissed off when I don't pay the $50 tribute.
But I have to say, Civ3 is totally different, the graphics, the gameplay, all things in the game were put together in a so perfect way... the UU and the traits were a great idea, and also the resources in the map, like Iron and Horses.
And to finish, I have to say something I hate about Civ2, a little thing, but I just hated it. I think it was a dumb idea to put just an image of the leader of the nation (like the picture of Cleopatra or Hammurabi) instead of THE LEADER IN PERSON.
It's so great (and funny) to see the angry and happy faces of leaders that were so important in the History of Mankind...
But I have to say, Civ3 is totally different, the graphics, the gameplay, all things in the game were put together in a so perfect way... the UU and the traits were a great idea, and also the resources in the map, like Iron and Horses.
And to finish, I have to say something I hate about Civ2, a little thing, but I just hated it. I think it was a dumb idea to put just an image of the leader of the nation (like the picture of Cleopatra or Hammurabi) instead of THE LEADER IN PERSON.
It's so great (and funny) to see the angry and happy faces of leaders that were so important in the History of Mankind...
In Civ3, lots of pollution CAN lead to all desert terrain (minus hills, mountain, tundra). The only thing is, it goes very slowly, unlike Civ2. (Civ2 had I think 5 stages of global warming, the last being the entire world is covered in swamps).
Some things I liked about Civ2 was just about full unit/tech editing (it had a text file -- I know there's probably graphics utils out there), and nice scenario editing, plus a simple event system. The customization aspect of Civ2 really made it stand out from Civ1. Civ3 had the culture/border system, which made that stand out from Civ2. (I wonder what Civ4 will have that's new...)
Modpack/Scenario-wise, I think Civ2 wins out in total customization, however Civ3 wins out on unit/improvement customibility.
Overall, I think Civ3 is the best (half the players out there probably don't even mod their games).
Some things I liked about Civ2 was just about full unit/tech editing (it had a text file -- I know there's probably graphics utils out there), and nice scenario editing, plus a simple event system. The customization aspect of Civ2 really made it stand out from Civ1. Civ3 had the culture/border system, which made that stand out from Civ2. (I wonder what Civ4 will have that's new...)
Modpack/Scenario-wise, I think Civ2 wins out in total customization, however Civ3 wins out on unit/improvement customibility.
Overall, I think Civ3 is the best (half the players out there probably don't even mod their games).
Goober
Turning Right ...
Wow, I never knew about that "capture the capital, Civil War" thing in Civ 2. I shoulda played it more . . . It was kinda fun, except for the VERY crappy graphics.
Capt Buttkick
Emperor
While I agree that Civ 3 is the best, I still play the occasional Civ 1 game. Much like I sometimes load up my C64 with Defender of the Crown. Yeah, I know I'm old
Mano3
King
Here's my positives:
CIV I - small enough to store on two 3.5" discs. This made it easy to load and play it on the crappy laptops of the time when I'd deploy.
CIV II - the mods! The Might & Magic and War of the Ring mods were awesome! I really miss them...
CIV III - Just looks a heck of a lot better. Graphics are awesome when compared to the older versions.
CIV I - small enough to store on two 3.5" discs. This made it easy to load and play it on the crappy laptops of the time when I'd deploy.
CIV II - the mods! The Might & Magic and War of the Ring mods were awesome! I really miss them...
CIV III - Just looks a heck of a lot better. Graphics are awesome when compared to the older versions.
There were some good things and some bad with civ 1/2 V civ 3.
- Civ 2 you could reassign units from the building city to a city more able to support them.
- You could capture/steal techs which made it much more valuable to fight in civ 2.
- The statue of Liberty which allowed 1 turn anarchy and theoracacy(sp) was waaaaay over powered.
- One unit in a stack dies, all units die. I really disliked this.
- Civ 3 has luxaries and resources which is a reason to fight.
- Civ 3 has a much better diplomacy/trading structure. Using caravans was not the thing I enjoyed although you could save them up and make a ton of cash after a war.
- Unique civ traits really adds to civ games. This is the UU and the attibute.
- Graphics are much better in civ 3 but no movies!
- Advisors don't give a 1 minute lecture about what you need to do! I loved that military advisor. *lets go bonk some heads*
- Civ 2 you could reassign units from the building city to a city more able to support them.
- You could capture/steal techs which made it much more valuable to fight in civ 2.
- The statue of Liberty which allowed 1 turn anarchy and theoracacy(sp) was waaaaay over powered.
- One unit in a stack dies, all units die. I really disliked this.
- Civ 3 has luxaries and resources which is a reason to fight.
- Civ 3 has a much better diplomacy/trading structure. Using caravans was not the thing I enjoyed although you could save them up and make a ton of cash after a war.
- Unique civ traits really adds to civ games. This is the UU and the attibute.
- Graphics are much better in civ 3 but no movies!
- Advisors don't give a 1 minute lecture about what you need to do! I loved that military advisor. *lets go bonk some heads*
I loved the trading system in CivII, sometimes I could 2000 for a single freight!
Also, the box I got was...magic! A single look at it could make me drool and start playing at once. Also the included tech chart was great.
I didn't find any better image than this, but if you have this box you know what I mean, it's ... don't have words for it!
Also, the box I got was...magic! A single look at it could make me drool and start playing at once. Also the included tech chart was great.
I didn't find any better image than this, but if you have this box you know what I mean, it's ... don't have words for it!
Knowze Gungk
NOT a mushroom
In Civ2, could you peacefully enter an AI's city if you had a ROP?
Or is that just a false memory.
Or is that just a false memory.
Illusion13
King
In Civ2, there is ALWAYS a way to start shooting at the AI again... Even if you sign a "permanant" strategic alliance... And trust me, AIs would try to sign "permanant" alliances with you even after you backstabbed them again, and again... Mainly I think its because that they dont want to mess with you cause of your power...
What really pisses me off is how the senate can sign treaties/alliances behind your back...
What really pisses me off is how the senate can sign treaties/alliances behind your back...
Legator
Chieftain
someone wrote civ1 was the best because of its feeling.
i remember playing it on the amiga (it was a blackversion :/) daily.
i was 15 or 16 by that time (cant even remember it). maybe i was younger or older
but the feeling was indeed the best - it was just crappy to wait this 10 mins or so until the world was created but then it was an awesome game. one of the best ever.
sadly i never played civ2 - i didnt have a pc - first i got end of 98 and then a bit later i started to play civ3.
i think civ3 is much more advanced (of course...) and one of the best games i ever played. since conquest/ptw i play it was some friends of my alliance in a browserbased strategy game. im so addicted to it again.
i really like that you manage a country now and not single cities. i like the strategic ressources etc. civ3 is awesome.
only game which could reach it (shame on me!) is ctp - but only nearly. i think a mixture of both plus an advanced ki and some other things i dont know about should already make a genious civ4.
btw
I WANT BABIES WITH YOU SID ;-)
i remember playing it on the amiga (it was a blackversion :/) daily.
i was 15 or 16 by that time (cant even remember it). maybe i was younger or older
but the feeling was indeed the best - it was just crappy to wait this 10 mins or so until the world was created
but then it was an awesome game. one of the best ever.sadly i never played civ2 - i didnt have a pc - first i got end of 98 and then a bit later i started to play civ3.
i think civ3 is much more advanced (of course...) and one of the best games i ever played. since conquest/ptw i play it was some friends of my alliance in a browserbased strategy game. im so addicted to it again.
i really like that you manage a country now and not single cities. i like the strategic ressources etc. civ3 is awesome.
only game which could reach it (shame on me!) is ctp - but only nearly. i think a mixture of both plus an advanced ki and some other things i dont know about should already make a genious civ4.
btw
I WANT BABIES WITH YOU SID ;-)
Legator
Chieftain
someone wrote civ1 was the best because of its feeling.
i remember playing it on the amiga (it was a blackversion :/) daily.
i was 15 or 16 by that time (cant even remember it). maybe i was younger or older
but the feeling was indeed the best - it was just crappy to wait this 10 mins or so until the world was created but then it was an awesome game. one of the best ever.
sadly i never played civ2 - i didnt have a pc - first i got end of 98 and then a bit later i started to play civ3.
i think civ3 is much more advanced (of course...) and one of the best games i ever played. since conquest/ptw i play it was some friends of my alliance in a browserbased strategy game. im so addicted to it again.
i really like that you manage a country now and not single cities. i like the strategic ressources etc. civ3 is awesome.
only game which could reach it (shame on me!) is ctp - but only nearly. i think a mixture of both plus an advanced ki and some other things i dont know about should already make a genious civ4.
btw
I WANT BABIES WITH YOU SID ;-)
i remember playing it on the amiga (it was a blackversion :/) daily.
i was 15 or 16 by that time (cant even remember it). maybe i was younger or older
but the feeling was indeed the best - it was just crappy to wait this 10 mins or so until the world was created
but then it was an awesome game. one of the best ever.sadly i never played civ2 - i didnt have a pc - first i got end of 98 and then a bit later i started to play civ3.
i think civ3 is much more advanced (of course...) and one of the best games i ever played. since conquest/ptw i play it was some friends of my alliance in a browserbased strategy game. im so addicted to it again.
i really like that you manage a country now and not single cities. i like the strategic ressources etc. civ3 is awesome.
only game which could reach it (shame on me!) is ctp - but only nearly. i think a mixture of both plus an advanced ki and some other things i dont know about should already make a genious civ4.
btw
I WANT BABIES WITH YOU SID ;-)
pelmeister
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2003
- Messages
- 48
I got the mac version of Civ I around '93 and the graphics on that were pretty good. However, Civ II, with its great map of the world was a huge improvement, with awesome battles in the modern age. Terraforming, though, could get out of hand - Greenland would become Britain's main colony. I can't remember which version (I or II) discouraged you from completely railroading your territory, but it was much better than now. I really hope that Civ IV makes railways expensive to maintain. One feature of Civ III that makes a vast improvement on I and II is cultural limits - the AI used to build in the middle of your territory, which was most annoying. (An AI city in the middle of its empire would occasionally revolt to you, you would invariably lose it along with a key tech.)
Civ III is mainly different because military units are now specialized. Before, cannon meant an artillery brigade (with accompanying foot soldiers) now it just means a cannon. The problem is that it takes just as long to build a cannon as it does a library. This means that it can be pretty tedious building up a military in Civ III, whereas in Civ I and II you could go out and attack when you felt like it and if you needed more units you could add them. As a consequence, Civs I and II actually made some sort of sense on a timeframe basis. (I now spend 20 turns building up a military, which in ancient times is 1000 years!!!)
Civ IIIs great wonders are also more sensible. In I and II they were far too powerful. IIRC get pyramids and leos and you won. Small wonders are a good idea, although they now make prebuilding large wonders too easy.
The same fault, though, runs through all three: The map. I'm surprised, given the links with Avalon Hill games, that Civ's not used a hexagonal map. I remember playing a home-made version of D-Day at school using squares (as hexes were too difficult to draw) and it was pretty poor. You could move too easily through the diagonals, making it very difficult to defend. I feel this is a flaw throughout Civ. This also gets rid of the need for the annoying missing corner squares in cities (which actually look more stupid in Civ II and III than they did in Civ I) Hexes also made for more sensible maps (especially rivers and mountain ranges).
Civ III is mainly different because military units are now specialized. Before, cannon meant an artillery brigade (with accompanying foot soldiers) now it just means a cannon. The problem is that it takes just as long to build a cannon as it does a library. This means that it can be pretty tedious building up a military in Civ III, whereas in Civ I and II you could go out and attack when you felt like it and if you needed more units you could add them. As a consequence, Civs I and II actually made some sort of sense on a timeframe basis. (I now spend 20 turns building up a military, which in ancient times is 1000 years!!!)
Civ IIIs great wonders are also more sensible. In I and II they were far too powerful. IIRC get pyramids and leos and you won. Small wonders are a good idea, although they now make prebuilding large wonders too easy.
The same fault, though, runs through all three: The map. I'm surprised, given the links with Avalon Hill games, that Civ's not used a hexagonal map. I remember playing a home-made version of D-Day at school using squares (as hexes were too difficult to draw) and it was pretty poor. You could move too easily through the diagonals, making it very difficult to defend. I feel this is a flaw throughout Civ. This also gets rid of the need for the annoying missing corner squares in cities (which actually look more stupid in Civ II and III than they did in Civ I) Hexes also made for more sensible maps (especially rivers and mountain ranges).
siberian_wolf
Chieftain
Oh, there's something I believe all of us forgot to say 'bout Civ2... the Partisans, remember??? In the Modern Times, when a city was lost, lots of Partisans appeared from nowhere, around the city, to try to capture it back!!
It surely turned the game a little harder, but I think it was fun and kinda real... I just loved it!
It surely turned the game a little harder, but I think it was fun and kinda real... I just loved it!
