From a NOOB to Both Gamez:Civ 2 is clearly better..

[Park Ranger]

Two things about civ3 I don't like:

1. No cheat mode for setting up advanced scenarios.
2. Short duration of use for ocean-going sail - ironclad comes too quickly on heels of frigates.

Two things I miss from civ2:

1. Barbarians that improve over time (with Cavalry and partisans in the most advanced state).
2. Spies - though they offered a lot of exploits to the human player.

Two things I don't miss from civ2:
1. Moving caravans around looking for someone who wants gems.
2. Losing a stack of units because the rifleman's gun was jammed. (i.e. stack loses once and they're all dead).


Two things about civ3 that make it impossible for me to go back:
1. More immersive quality gained from UU's, civ traits, and leaders.
2. More complex trading and more diplomatic states.

Two things about civ3 which annoy me but make for a challenge:
1. Aggressiveness of AI (both in settling/exploring and in conquering).
2. Corruption.

Civ3 also closed off a lot of exploits available to the savvy civ2 player. No more rushing wonders with caravans (or the sometimes obscene $ gained from establishing trade routes), no more using the enemy's rails to blitz their capital, no more insane growth from WLTK as rep/dem, etc....
Sometimes I miss these things but then now I have a more challenging game.

But the true test will be time. I played civ2 for about 3 years. It must have been good, and the editor/scenarios made for a lot of replayability. If FIRAXIS follows through on support/upgrades/multiplayer/editing tools then I expect I'll be playing civ3 a long, long time.

Cheers, and civ on!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
For example, I just quit a game of Civ III as I got sick and tired of the AI's diarrhea of settlers flooding into every open tile near and around my territory, including deserts and tundra. No rational actual civ would ever do that because in doing so they are spending precious resources being annoying instead of developing better their own land and infrastructure. It didn't happen in Civ II. I HATE it.

With 1.17 it got worse. Nowas soon as I raze a captured enemy city (another crock thanks to Culture Flipping) every civ instantly somehow knows of it and sends a settler right there. They do it so quickly I am convinced the AI gives the nearest rival unit a free settler.

Zouave, you apparently consider the AI settlement of tundra and desert to be a strategic mistake. If so, then you can use your advantage in production to save the villages you raze, instead of destroying them. This is the real challenge of the game.

Conquest is easy. Ruling is hard.

 

[Tweedledum]

To my mind, there can only be one answer: Civ2 (written in those big stone-effect letters used for the credits of films like El Cid...)

Why? Although there are some nice ideas in Civ3 (UUs and Culture particularly), I can't help feeling that there is a basic, in-built unfairness in the "rules" for combat resolution, and miscellaneous AI cheating, which comes very close to making a complete mockery of the whole thing.

One example (I could fill up about three pages with 'em, but will spare you all )
I had a city virtually surrounded, but could only use two of them for the initial assault (movement points used up), but no problem (!), two veteran Knights against a regular Impi - off with its head.
Wrong: I lost 'em both (without making a dent).
Nothing moved in during the AI's turn - all the approches were either occupied or at least observed.
Still no problem (!!): a few more veteran Knights
and veteran Immortals and the Impi is no more.
Wrong: I didn't even SEE the Impi, as the city was now defended by three (count them!) ELITE (what the f**k!?) Musketmen (which I didn't even know they could build...) . I don't know where they came from, but I was left a with big pile of corpses as a result.

Now I know Civ2 coughed up an occasional anomalous combat result, and I could (and still can) live with that, but there are limits. It sometimes seems as if the AI's units gain a 2 or 3x strength bonus simply for being AI units. Add in the virtual impossibility of waging war as anything higher than a monarchy
(the war weariness factor is way too high IMHO) and it amazes me that anyone ever wins one.

Before anyone makes a snide remarks - yes, I am another one who can't beat the game (even on Chieftain level). I haven't given up yet, but too many more occurrences like the one described and there's gonna a second-hand version of Civ3 up grabs

 

[rev063]

Originally posted by Northstar5757
BTW when I said it was too hard for newbies i mean people new to the WHOLE civ series, at least in the other civ games someone who had never played the series could remain competitive on chieftain. If you've played other civ games, even colonization civ3 isn't very hard to adjust to. Personally though civ 1 had a better tutorial built into the game then civ3. Most strategy games have great tutorials nowadays. There is no excuse for civ3 not having a decent one.

Civ3 was the first strategy game of ANY kind I had ever played. I got routed on my first game, but I learned pretty quick. The manual and civilopedia were very helpful, and the interface is easy to learn. I can now win consistenly on Regent and sometimes on Monarch.

Speaking as a newbie, I'd disagree that Civ 3 is too hard for newbies.

- rev

 

[Selous]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Zouave, you apparently consider the AI settlement of tundra and desert to be a strategic mistake. If so, then you can use your advantage in production to save the villages you raze, instead of destroying them. This is the real challenge of the game.

Conquest is easy. Ruling is hard.

but then what about those citys losing there cutlure borders then the AI also rushes settlers in to fill the gaps between your citys ... u get the same effect as rasing the citys

and personally i have found diplomatic and space race victorys to be MUCH easier than a conquest victory ... but then that is just me i guess