Has anyone out there ditched Civ3, and gone back to Civ2, simply for the play-ability

[peers_uk]

I was very impressed with civ3, it looked amazing etc, some of the units are cool, swords men etc, and i thought it was logical to e.g. only be able to build swordsmen if you have a road to an iron deposit, but when you play on a huge world for the long game, corruption cripples you and you end up shipping units from the 'homeland', or buying them in the new cities. This really pissed me off, so i went back to civ2, but am now dissapionted with all the draw backs from this game.

I'm hoping that Civ4 will be good, reading the reviews and descriptions on this site, it could potentially be the one we've all been waiting for.

Hope springs eternal.

 

[funxus]

Welcome to CFC peers_uk!

Yep, I, and I know a few others, ditched civ3 for civ2. If I'm not mistaken, quite a few people went back to civ2 for a while, and then again back to civ3.

 

[Specialist290]

(Funxus is back--again!)

I have. Mainly because Civ3 ran too darn slow on my computer, partly because I was still nowhere near finishing my now epic (in my mind, anyway) game as the French. Also because of the massive corruption penalties, as you said, plus I didn't exactly like the way they handled espionage.

 

[The Person]

I must have started about half a dozen games of Civ3, but haven't finished any of them. I even got C3C in an attempt to spark some interest in it. It didn't work. I'm so used to how things look and work in Civ2 to switch over. Therefore I think that Civ4 won't hold my attention very long either.

 

[Peaster]

My answer is basically the same as The Person's. And Civ3 graphics just horrify me (especially the cartoonish leaders). I am not totally sure I ever gave Civ3 a fair chance, but I prefer Civ2.

 

[DBear]

I did for a bit. Vanilla Civ3 is simply unplayable. It took PTW to finally make Civ3 worth playing, and Conquests to make Civ3 great.

 

[funxus]

(Yep, and probably (unfortunately) I'll stay for quite some time now. My gap year is over )

Like The Person I've never really finished a game in Civ3 either. I've gotten into modern age I think twice, and both times I accidently won the game by being elected president of the UN... I was thrilled by this unexpected turn of the game... Not.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I am not totally sure I ever gave Civ3 a fair chance, but I prefer Civ2.

:GoodPosting:

 

[Specialist290]

(Yep, and probably (unfortunately) I'll stay for quite some time now. My gap year is over )

Like The Person I've never really finished a game in Civ3 either. I've gotten into modern age I think twice, and both times I accidently won the game by being elected president of the UN... I was thrilled by this unexpected turn of the game... Not.

Well, from the way things sound everyone's been better on it than I have. Never made it past the Middle Ages tech era, mostly due to lack of interest.

 

[Joeb WK]

I prefer Civ 2 mainly because its easier to mod.

 

[gunkulator]

Like The Person I've never really finished a game in Civ3 either. I've gotten into modern age I think twice, and both times I accidently won the game by being elected president of the UN... I was thrilled by this unexpected turn of the game... Not.

FWIW: You can disable Diplomatic Victory if you don't like it.

There's a lot wrong with Civ3, but IMHO there's even more wrong with Civ2. I still play both however Civ2's GUI is really starting to look its age now. I get frustrated with Civ2 when I want to do simple things like moving stacks of units or building a road from one place to another. And who here hasn't cursed the broken GoTo function? Civ2 has so many exploits that pretty much every player has "house-rules", i.e. effectively playing with one hand tied behind his back.

Civ2 is cleary the best for scenarios due to its scripting language. It is almost unforgivable that they dropped the ball on this for Civ3. However, Civ3 is a more mod-able game overall. Wanna make a wonder that grants, say, a marketplace in every city? How about making a dozen different types of temples? Or maybe you want a government that grants the rep/dem trade bonus, no war weariness, supports a large military but has high corruption. All easily doable in Civ3.

 

[GenMarshall]

I prefer Civ 2 mainly because its easier to mod.

Ditto. I am considering on returning back to Civ2. Possibly use my old Imperialism mod for Civ2 to make Civ2 Redux. Civ3 is moddable but its way too tedious.

 

[belgy42]

I am going back to Civ2 for awhile. I have enjoyed Civ3 since C3C came out. In my opinion it plays better in C3C. There are things in Civ2 that I have missed. Some things, like the Wonder Movies, will be back in Civ4. I like the barbarians better in Civ2. I like the idea of barbs taking a city and advancing to musketmen and dragoons.

 

[classical_hero]

I will never go back to Civ2. is the only version of Civ I play ATM.

 

[Glam Gilgamesh]

Civ 3 held my interest for about a year, but it has too many flaws.
In no particular order -

The annoying cartoon-ish leader heads.
The reduced choice of governments.
The limited 2 settings on the zoom.
The high cost of espionage.
No rush building wonders.
The corruption levels.
No wonder movies.


That's just to name a few.

I went back to Civ 2 and the only aspects of Civ 3 that I really missed were not being able to play with more than 7 civs and the absence of production queues.

 

[BlackAdder60]

I own way to many games including strategy games but I play Civ2 the most despite having Civ-3. I just started a game or two on it played a few turns and lost interest.

The specs of Civ 4 sounds interesting but I fear it to will lose its apeal to me.
What I like about Civ 2 is the many ways/styles it can be played.
Everything from Giant Empires to the OneCityChalenge (my personal fav).
If the OCC is doable in Civ 4 I will propably migrate to it, else not.

 

[Kurioku]

I was very impressed with civ3, it looked amazing etc, some of the units are cool, swords men etc, and i thought it was logical to e.g. only be able to build swordsmen if you have a road to an iron deposit, but when you play on a huge world for the long game, corruption cripples you and you end up shipping units from the 'homeland', or buying them in the new cities. This really pissed me off, so i went back to civ2, but am now dissapionted with all the draw backs from this game.

I'm hoping that Civ4 will be good, reading the reviews and descriptions on this site, it could potentially be the one we've all been waiting for.

Hope springs eternal.

NO I play the call to power series. Much better I think.

 

[Charles 22]

I think I will go back to III pretty soon. I am a builder by design, so II agrees with me more early on, due to not every nation ganging up on me which is so common with III, however, I do tire very much of having to run my planes out to places they recon and back. A pity because the latter stages of either game is what I would normally enjoy the most (though the tank is unforgiveably weak in II). If only II had some routine that would set your planes to do recon automatically on the same path, and then every 4th turn or so you might try another path.

I'm not all that knowledgeable about IV, but it seems to me that it may be the best CIV ever, despite the silly giants, it is nice that you have a man representing every strength point and I do like the spinning globe with clouds.

 

[Godwynn]

I've gone back to Civ2, I cannot stand 3, too many bugs.

 

[MikeLynch]

I took the time to do a Civ2-style conversion of Civ3 -- units, leaderheads, the whole magilla -- and only after I had spent months doing this did I determine that Civ3's multiplayer mode (even in C3C) was unplayably bad.

So I went back. Even with its other annoyances, I would have stuck with my modded C3C if not for the multiplayer problems. Civ2 is annoying sometimes, sure, but I've been playing it long enough now that even its bugs are endearing.

Anybody else feel a strangely comforting sensation when they first started playing Civ2 again after months of Civ3?