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

[Kev]

Hey KofC - Yes, those were my drunklomats indeed. Love the good 'ol days.

Glad to see you are still a soft&silky nightwalker.

I'm not going to get too bogged down with the arguments back and forth - though I'll defend a few. To each his own I guess, and my opinons are not really going to shift very much in this case.

I don't remember the Civ2 launch because I discovered the game, I assume, after it was fairly well set, so my only foul experience happened to be with the Civ III mania of false starts.

Can we then have a happy medium with regard to corruption. Perhaps the total lack in Civ II made the play easier for those of us who loved to work an expansive democracy, but what I experienced in the beginning of Civ III was certainly the other end of that spectrum. Just made it no fun for me then, and I don't even know if they've counteracted it in any major way since I bailed on it in frustration.

I'm not going to go further on specific details except to reply to the last part of gunkulator's post. I did not give up on the game after one or two tries - I gave it every opportunity to draw me in. I did so many patches I can't remember, I did the succession games that I liked so much, tried games of the month, and just played on my own with a huge variety of setups. You've apparently mistaken me for someone who disliked Civ III because I cannot adapt or adjust to new playing styles and rules. On the contrary - I enjoyed the aspect of trading, of culture, unique units, luxuries, etc. What I hated was having a city - even on one's home continent - that produced thirty-one shields and having thirty go to corruption. Still not wild about the combat items I mentioned, but all I wrote about in my original post combined to just give me a bad taste in my mouth.

I'm glad that many have taken to Civ III and apparently enjoy the permutations that came after the 'vanilla' version. It means that enough interest is there for the makers to create Civ IV, and you can be assured that I will then give that game every chance to draw me in as well.

 

[gunkulator]

Just to comment on a few things...

First of all, Civ3's combat system... sucks. Look me straight in the face and tell me that a Tank unit should have ANY chance of defeat at the hands of a musketman (or spearman).

The irony with this statement is that a Civ2 veteran musket behind walls has D=13.5 which gives it pretty good odds against a Civ2 tank. Add in a river and/or a forest and/or a hill and the musket actually has better odds. Still there is a perception that Civ2 combat results are somehow more realistic. Part of the reason for this is because of the AI's extreme ineptitude, i.e. they rarely built walls and only occasionally builds vet units, even though defense bonuses are so huge. OTOH, any human city that was threatened had walls rushed in it asap. So, yes, you never saw a civ2 tank lose to a musket because a) the AI doesn't know to defend properly and b) the human player was typically far ahead of the AI so the reverse scenario never occurred. That does not by any stretch mean that a tank can't lose to musket in civ2. Far from it, in fact.

Barbarians:
I like Civ3 barbarians, and I love the horde idea they came up with. Unfortunately the 'horde' is all but a cakewalk for a couple of units because of the ridicolous bonus a player recieves against barbarians.

This bonus diminishes at upper levels and is moddable in any case.

I can't remember if the bonus is in Civ2 or not... either way, the Civ3 barbarians (w/ some tweaking to their combat effectiveness) can be a very real threat early on, and do a great job of representing their effect on history.

No bonus against barbs in Civ2 except for some speculation about barb archers being weaker than their A/D specs. Civ3 barbs are more of a threat against workers and settlers than against military units. I typically lose at least a couple and those losses are very painful at the start.

 

[Sark6354201]

The irony with this statement is that a Civ2 veteran musket behind walls has D=13.5 which gives it pretty good odds against a Civ2 tank. Add in a river and/or a forest and/or a hill and the musket actually has better odds. Still there is a perception that Civ2 combat results are somehow more realistic. Part of the reason for this is because of the AI's extreme ineptitude, i.e. they rarely built walls and only occasionally builds vet units, even though defense bonuses are so huge. OTOH, any human city that was threatened had walls rushed in it asap. So, yes, you never saw a civ2 tank lose to a musket because a) the AI doesn't know to defend properly and b) the human player was typically far ahead of the AI so the reverse scenario never occurred. That does not by any stretch mean that a tank can't lose to musket in civ2. Far from it, in fact.



This bonus diminishes at upper levels and is moddable in any case.



No bonus against barbs in Civ2 except for some speculation about barb archers being weaker than their A/D specs. Civ3 barbs are more of a threat against workers and settlers than against military units. I typically lose at least a couple and those losses are very painful at the start.

I never said Civ2's system was perfect, I think it was better, but I agree with what you are saying. The main reason I feel Civ2's system is better is because of the hitpoint and firepower difference between modern and ancient age units. A clear cut distinction in ability that is not present in Civ3 without modding.

On the Barbarians, I failed to mention it was moddable easily, and I have done so.

The Civ3 Barbarians are more of a threat to workers and settlers than military units because they only have 2 hp and you get a huge bonus against them. Take away the bonus, mod in a barbarian only unit with +1 base hp so they get the normal 3 for regular units, and they are quite dangerous.

 

[Dominus Romae]

The irony with this statement is that a Civ2 veteran musket behind walls has D=13.5 which gives it pretty good odds against a Civ2 tank. Add in a river and/or a forest and/or a hill and the musket actually has better odds. Still there is a perception that Civ2 combat results are somehow more realistic. Part of the reason for this is because of the AI's extreme ineptitude, i.e. they rarely built walls and only occasionally builds vet units, even though defense bonuses are so huge. OTOH, any human city that was threatened had walls rushed in it asap. So, yes, you never saw a civ2 tank lose to a musket because a) the AI doesn't know to defend properly and b) the human player was typically far ahead of the AI so the reverse scenario never occurred. That does not by any stretch mean that a tank can't lose to musket in civ2. Far from it, in fact.

But I've never seen a musketeer destroy an armor in Civ2, even with walls and a river giving all these bonuses. And I've never seen a phalanx defeat an armor. In practice, Civ2 combat system is a lot better, although not perfect.

 

[LoopyLewis]

Hey guys,

I tried Civ 2 again today for the first time in years and I have to say I'm shocked by what I found.

I normally play Regent in Civ 3 - but when I went to Civ 2 I found that I was far ahead of what I normally achieve on Civ 3! I had out grown the AI's by about five times before I even got to muskets (admittingly they were at war for a while but they had plenty of time before then to grow) and then I went to war and have trashed them at 800a.d. (or somewhere around then). I ate through the tech tree even though I was concentrating on expanding (building just settlers at times) and even with the AI's declaring war on me I was able to smash them to bits.

That was far too easy in my opinion. I prefer civ 3 - however, the civ 2 game was quicker as some of you mentioned earlier, and I actually finished it, which doesn't happen with civ 3 often. So I think I'll probably spend my days playing both of them till CivIV comes out.

Oh and the one thing I actually disliked about civ2 was that settlers devour food per turn (and sometimes shields!?!?!?!?) - that is really annoying. And what's with the units that take away the shields! Why not just take the gold?

Weird

 

[Sark6354201]

Hey guys,

I tried Civ 2 again today for the first time in years and I have to say I'm shocked by what I found.

I normally play Regent in Civ 3 - but when I went to Civ 2 I found that I was far ahead of what I normally achieve on Civ 3! I had out grown the AI's by about five times before I even got to muskets (admittingly they were at war for a while but they had plenty of time before then to grow) and then I went to war and have trashed them at 800a.d. (or somewhere around then). I ate through the tech tree even though I was concentrating on expanding (building just settlers at times) and even with the AI's declaring war on me I was able to smash them to bits.

That was far too easy in my opinion. I prefer civ 3 - however, the civ 2 game was quicker as some of you mentioned earlier, and I actually finished it, which doesn't happen with civ 3 often. So I think I'll probably spend my days playing both of them till CivIV comes out.

Oh and the one thing I actually disliked about civ2 was that settlers devour food per turn (and sometimes shields!?!?!?!?) - that is really annoying. And what's with the units that take away the shields! Why not just take the gold?

Weird

That was the way it was in Civ1 as well. I like the food being taken away... and to an extent the shields. In Civ3 it's way too easy to support a huge army late in the game for the AI and player alike. Civ2 does a better job of this IMO.

Play Civ2 on Diety, it will be a much better challenge.

 

[ElephantU]

It's part of the balance of the game - you "support" your Settlers and military units from your existing cities, so you have to weigh the liability of building tons of units. If there was no cost to Settlers we'd build a bazillion - they are so useful to improve terrain and found new cities. I'm a little grumpy when I can't "join" a Settler to a city of size 8 or greater, but I guess that just keeps us from making super-cities too easily (food caravans are the loophole there though).

 

[nerovats]

Sounds like an accurate depiction of world history to me.
(ducks)

Then we should be rules by egypt (or china?).

I just came back to civII on a gotm liked it, but lost interrest allready. CivIII allows for a bigger variaty in strats, and can be played at a higher level. Now I can still beat civII at the highest level, without knowing that we´ll of what I´m doing (lost the tech poster, and don´t want to look everything up in the help).
Back in the days I played civII a lot I was abale to hand build every single wonder on deity, would like to see someone do that on sid...
Always hated the caravans and the fact you lost your whole dogpile if 1 unit lost. Trading seems more logical in civIII. Corruption is a bit high in CivII, would have preffer it a bit lower, but no corruption is to much. Some wonders are just to strong in civII like leonardo.

In short, came back, don´t like it no more. Don´t like the sound of cIV, so will probably stay with civIII for a long time.

 

[nerovats]

It's part of the balance of the game - you "support" your Settlers and military units from your existing cities, so you have to weigh the liability of building tons of units. If there was no cost to Settlers we'd build a bazillion - they are so useful to improve terrain and found new cities. I'm a little grumpy when I can't "join" a Settler to a city of size 8 or greater, but I guess that just keeps us from making super-cities too easily (food caravans are the loophole there though).

I think this is also better on civIII. Depending on government units (including settlers and workers) can be very costly.

 

[Sark6354201]

I think this is also better on civIII. Depending on government units (including settlers and workers) can be very costly.

Do you mean Civ2? If you mean CivIII I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement...

 

[nerovats]

In civII it's easy to get a surplus of 10fpt, paying a couple for some settlers is not a problem.

 

[Sark6354201]

In civII it's easy to get a surplus of 10fpt, paying a couple for some settlers is not a problem.

Even a couple settlers at 2 fpt would be almost half that city's food production. Add to the fact that few cities get that much foot production, and Civ2's support system made making settlers harder.

In Civ3, you can easily become a Republic early with a commercial Civ and not have to worry about settler or worker costs. Excessive military unit building? Yes, but not settlers or workers.

 

[nerovats]

Every unit over your free number costs gold in republic. Wether it´s a ship a knight worker or settler. Especially in the beginning when cities are small your can hav just 1 maybe 1,5 units for free in republic, theat´s how many workers you want. Then every other unit will cost 2 gold.

 

[Sark6354201]

Every unit over your free number costs gold in republic. Wether it´s a ship a knight worker or settler. Especially in the beginning when cities are small your can hav just 1 maybe 1,5 units for free in republic, theat´s how many workers you want. Then every other unit will cost 2 gold.

I know how the system works... and its easy to get enough gold to never worry about it.

 

[gunkulator]

Even a couple settlers at 2 fpt would be almost half that city's food production. Add to the fact that few cities get that much foot production, and Civ2's support system made making settlers harder.

In Civ3, you can easily become a Republic early with a commercial Civ and not have to worry about settler or worker costs. Excessive military unit building? Yes, but not settlers or workers.

Civ2 settlers and engineers worked faster than workers in Civ3 so you didn't need as many. With enough gold, you could bribe AI settlers and get NON units that didn't need any support. Civ2 settlers and engineers also had actual hps and defense so they weren't sitting ducks to barbs like they are in Civ3. If you wanted a lot of settlers, you could build a "food city" in grassland and support many of them from there. With WLTKD growth you could rush a settler every turn until the food ran out.

Civ3 early Republic is typically a hardship goldwise. It's not until cities get big enough and have markets that Republic can support a decent amount of units. If you abandon too much of your military in lieu of workers, you are encouraging the AI to attack. This fact alone keeps you from having a large number workers in early Republic. Also, recall that Civ3 settlers cost 2 population and with no WLTKD growth, it takes time to for the city to recover.

 

[Titus]

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

Same here. The corruption problem is the only thing not better about Civ 3 IMO, the entire culture and tradable resources concepts added so much to the game Civ 2 feels completely obsolete to me now. I tried it again a couple of weeks ago and got bored instantly.

 

[The Person]

Same here. The corruption problem is the only thing not better about Civ 3 IMO, the entire culture and tradable resources concepts added so much to the game Civ 2 feels completely obsolete to me now. I tried it again a couple of weeks ago and got bored instantly.

I miss the ability to double irrigate in Civ3, not to mention caravans, spies, etc. It is those things (among others) that keep up the charm of Civ2. I'm so used to the Civ2 way that moving on is difficult.