I have to admit Im a big fan of ctp2, ctp1 is hurting in some of the aspects like the "space" cities and underwater cities, (by the time you get to them, there pretty worthless).
As per comparing ctp2 to civ3 I like them both... civ3 eaking out a slight victory in overall single player balance. ctp2 introduces several very cool units, and takes air power in the same direction as smac did, that is, air units are just that... "units" not just tactical artillery. They move out and have to fly back to an airport/town/carrier; later they can carry nukes and cruise missles which is very cool. The trade implemention in ctp2 is neat in that it creates a "trade line" between the town with the resource and the town getting it; and can be pillaged by barbarian or enemy forces. Whereas in civ3 it is very difficult to shut down AI trade (if youve been caught horseless in an early age war you know what I mean on a continent with no horses). Ships moored in harbor are also affected by bombardment and units fortified in towns can be wiped out due to bombardment (in ctp2); which means a "pearl harbor" can easily happen whereas in civ3 ships in towns take nothing from bombardment. Submarines in ctp2 can also carry cruise missles which make for a very cool opening to an invasion (much like todays modern war) Where as the cruise missile in civ is nearly worthless and almost totally ineffective.
Time seems to move abit more accurately in ctp2 as well; there are ALOT of techs between epocs; although it does seem to be missing the "dark age" of early musketeers... perhaps im spoiled on age of empires
CTP2 also introduces the formation of armies; stacked units can be formed into an army at will; this also gives certain units like "tank" a flanking ability; where it shoots the troops on the opposite side of a line first then takes out the rear defenders (artillery act as rear defenders). Aircraft can also be grouped with land vehicles and can do tremendous damage if the opponent has no aircraft defenders or sam units... again very slick.
Where ctp2 fails and civ3 shines is in the AI. Ctp2 has an extremely weak ai that uses very poor judgement in organizing its units; or dealing with polution or teching up for that matter... and its extremely poor grasp of naval power.. it is quite easy to win a large/gigantic map on diety mode because of this. Civ3 with the strategic resources is also very slick; and adds a whole new dimension to logistics and planning. The last point is that Civ3 feels like a "solid" game for what it is, thought out improvements where improvements could be made, but not so different as to not be a totally new game... this is both to the credit of civ and abit of a dissapointment... ala Quake 3... its quake.. in a new wrapper... being from Firaxis games... I had expected to see alot of the inovations that where in alpha centauri... your ai allies "donating" units was very very cool (alliances allowed you to use there towns to garison your troops was also very cool)... unit design, techs that where simply techs that you incorporated into your own vehicle designs... (much like masters of orion), would have been very cool indeed in the civ realm.
Does Civ3 live up to the hype?
In short... no.
Is Civ3 a well balanced slightly improved upon game from the original?
Yes... even better if it had multiplayer...
Is Civ3 better then CTP series?
Yes, Civ3 is better then the Ctp series because I feel like it accomplished what it set out to do for the most part, whereas ctp fails misserably in the AI department and really didnt deliver the goods as per what the box said...
Does Civ3 have the most advanced AI dipomacy to date in a turn based strategy game?
No... Smac did it better hands downs, you could pick from a list of towns and ask your ally to help you attack it, your allies would help you embargo your enemy, they would "donate" units to you, and there was a feel of a global economy late game... (smac has a economic victory) At best it feels like civ borrowed from smac for its current model.
In conclusion civ3 and ctp2 are both a love hate relationship... in my opinion since playing civ way back in the day when it was new on my spanky 386sx 16mhz, things have both come a long way... and things have hardly budged an inch... its still civ... it still lacks alot of good features, in exchange for apparent refinements on the interface and odd tables to show your empire to you. AI's still rely on the cheat factor to be competative. No I havnt lost a stealth fighter to a spearman (yet), but ive lost a veteran destroyer to a regular trieme...
I have to admit though, civ3 has been the first incarnation of the turn based conquer strategy games that have made me get angry... and say "wtf?!" which was something ctp or smac, never did (your combat chances where not hidden). I think its because of the combat system... with several reloads and attempts of the same battle its almost "always" the same... that destroyer? heh.. died 4 out of 5 times on 5 reloads to that trieme... civ3 has a hidden science and combat system which is still being probed... (I also think it has a unit advantage in the higher difficulties, which was the same story in the harder difficulties of its predescors) I liked the science shields better, you could really see the advantage of micro managing scientist in your cities... in civ 3; nope... its all science rate.
Why is civ3 better then ctp?
Civ is endearing... its like a game of chess with an old friend, civ3 just happens to be on a new chessboard... but, its still classic chess.