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

[Sprites]

didn't liked civ 1
bored after a few turns of civ 3 (hopefully i didn't buyed it)
so i stay with the 2 ^^
but it's hard to find a classic one to test over-deity

 

[Marx]

Civilization III is a better simulation, but I like the higher 'arcade level' of Civilization II or even Civilization II. Althrough I don't no if there is actually a higher arcadee level in Civilization II. Maybe it is just the more simple interface, and the more smooth gameplay (just my opinion). It seems to be easier for me to keep overview in a Civilization II game compared to a Civilization III

But you can see it as a wave. There are months that I play Civilization, but there are also months that I play Civilization II or months that I don't play computergames at all.

But don't understand me wrong. This is no attack on Civilization III. It is a great game, but I personally prefere Civilization II.

 

[ew0054]

I think I have. Three words...

Extended, Scifi, Fantasy

It's just so much more interesting to play in these exotic worlds... they're just so... different. The stuck-on-Earth Civ3 is so mundane in comparison.

Not to mention I can't win in Civ3 on any level above warlord.

:-\

 

[magicalsteve]

Civilization III is a better simulation, but I like the higher 'arcade level' of Civilization II or even Civilization II. Althrough I don't no if there is actually a higher arcadee level in Civilization II. Maybe it is just the more simple interface, and the more smooth gameplay (just my opinion). It seems to be easier for me to keep overview in a Civilization II game compared to a Civilization III

But you can see it as a wave. There are months that I play Civilization, but there are also months that I play Civilization II or months that I don't play computergames at all.

But don't understand me wrong. This is no attack on Civilization III. It is a great game, but I personally prefere Civilization II.

QFT!

I admit that technically Civ3 is a superior game, but it just can't compare to Civ2's oldschool/hardcore/super fast/no nonsense gameplay. I've tried Civ3 a few times but it always bores me.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I prefer a standard game of Civ3 over Civ2. It's easier to get into and I like having more than 7 civs. Nothing compares to the scenarios for Civ2 though, I love playing them still.

 

[Dominus Romae]

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

I do . Finally, after months of illusion, I discovered that Civ3 is a great game. But Civ2 is much better.

I play Civ3 since around March 2005, but now I am going back to Civ2. Civ2 was my first Civ game, and I never forget the years I spent playing it. Now I am playing at Emperor level. In Civ3, I'm in Warlord. But Civ3 Warlord is just like Civ2 level-above-deity.

 

[The Person]

Civ2 was my first Civ game, and I never forget the years I spent playing it. Now I am playing at Emperor level. In Civ3, I'm in Warlord. But Civ3 Warlord is just like Civ2 level-above-deity.

That might explain it as well. I've gotten too used to farmland and movable caravans/diplomats to do without them. Also I love the simple graphics. No fancy-schmancy animations (except for ToT) and small (in pixels) terrain tiles. Civ3 is too detailed.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Civ3 is too detailed.

You are right. You see, while in Civ2 we have a complex game with a well-done job with the inner workings, in Civ3 we just have these great graphics. When I first looked at Civ3, I felt impressed. But when you start seeing deeper into the game inner workings, you see nothing interesting. With Civ2, on the contrary, we can have fun, because Sid Meier did a great job with the game structure. With Civ3, you only feel impressed for a while, buy it and then discover it is nothing but detailed terrain. A great strategy from Firaxis.

I still like Civ3, and I think it is a great game. But Civ2 is certainly MUCH better.

 

[gunkulator]

You are right. You see, while in Civ2 we have a complex game with a well-done job with the inner workings, in Civ3 we just have these great graphics. When I first looked at Civ3, I felt impressed. But when you start seeing deeper into the game inner workings, you see nothing interesting. With Civ2, on the contrary, we can have fun, because Sid Meier did a great job with the game structure. With Civ3, you only feel impressed for a while, buy it and then discover it is nothing but detailed terrain. A great strategy from Firaxis.

I still like Civ3, and I think it is a great game. But Civ2 is certainly MUCH better.

There are a lot of goodies in Civ2, but all they do is unbalance the game. Sure there are some neat tricks with caravans, spies and nukes but the AI hasn't got a clue how to utilize them.

I find it interesting that the one thing people in this forum always wanted from the next civ game was a better AI and better game balance. Well, that's Civ3. No, you can no longer earn 1200 gold from a 50 shield caravan or bribe a size 1 city with 20 units in it for 300 gold or conquer the world with 12 howitzers or block the AI with bombers or watch the AI waste dozens of units on your fortified rifleman on a mountain or bribe a zillion free barbs from a barb city or kill 10 units in a stack by defeating just one or ... Were those things fun? Sure, but after you do them a couple times you want a better challenge.

I still think Civ2 is better for multiplayer and much better for scenarios with events, however for an epic game or for scenarios that don't require events, Civ3 is a better game.

 

[Dominus Romae]

I don't think so. In civ3:

- Your cavalry are defeated by spearmen due to number generator crap.
- You cannot build anything new because you don't have resources in your entire continent.
- Your enemies get ridiculously high bonuses in Deity.
- Artillery is weak.
- No Wonder movies.
- Unrealistic "SOD" strategy: where in the hell can you place 2 million soldiers in the same square kilometers?
- The AI to AI trade is crazy. The AI civs should work for themselves, not between themselves.


And more... Let's just remember: Civ3 has pretty looking graphics, but it is too hard and is not like Civ2. In Civ2 we had fun. In Civ3, well, it is a good game only. It does not reach the level of Civ2.

 

[Dominus Romae]

watch the AI waste dozens of units on your fortified rifleman on a mountain

The AI also does that in Civ3.

 

[gunkulator]

I don't think so. In civ3:

- Your cavalry are defeated by spearmen due to number generator crap.

The combat calculator gives vet cavalry an 86% chance of winning against vet fortified spearmen. That's pretty good odds in my book, however you should expect to lose on occasion. Often I find Civ2 players have an unrealistic expectation that all combat should result in 0% casualities for them and 100% for the AI.

- You cannot build anything new because you don't have resources in your entire continent.

Well, that's why they are called strategic resources. Wars are often fought over iron, coal, oil and the like. You also have the option of paying another civ for the resource, or just toughing it out and waiting for the next new unit that doesn't need that resource.

- Your enemies get ridiculously high bonuses in Deity.

So don't play Deity. Regent is the 'fair' level. No AI bonuses and no bonuses for you.

- Artillery is weak.

Odd, since the consensus among most Civ3 players is that it is overpowered. The trick is to build a lot of them. They're pretty cheap only 1 needs a resource. Artillery is the great equalizer in Civ3.

- No Wonder movies.

To each his own. I turned them off after seeing them a few times.

- Unrealistic "SOD" strategy: where in the hell can you place 2 million soldiers in the same square kilometers?

A tile in Civ3 models hundreds of square KMs. The unrealistic thing is Civ2 stack death. One losing unit is the death of all the rest?

- The AI to AI trade is crazy. The AI civs should work for themselves, not between themselves.

Trade and technology exchange are a big, big part of Civ3. One of the most unrealistic things in Civ2 is that can you sit alone, trade with noone and still develop all technology faster than the AI. In Civ3, you are rewarded when you trade. This models the real world better where one nation builds on the ideas of another. The trick is that you too can be in on the tech feeding frenzy, however if you hoard your techs and refuse to trade, of course the AI will just trade with one another.

And more... Let's just remember: Civ3 has pretty looking graphics, but it is too hard and is not like Civ2. In Civ2 we had fun. In Civ3, well, it is a good game only. It does not reach the level of Civ2.

YMMV. Civ2 is too easy. The fact that you can win OCC on the hardest level tells you that something is not right with the game.

watch the AI waste dozens of units on your fortified rifleman on a mountain

The AI also does that in Civ3.

Not really. With no ZOC, the AI will usually just move around your fortified units. Also, with fewer hps, a large concentration of older units can overwhelm a handful of newer ones.

 

[Dominus Romae]

The combat calculator gives vet cavalry an 86% chance of winning against vet fortified spearmen. That's pretty good odds in my book, however you should expect to lose on occasion. Often I find Civ2 players have an unrealistic expectation that all combat should result in 0% casualities for them and 100% for the AI.

Not really, many of my games say that the combat calculator is wrong. Once I lost a veteran cavalry to an elite spearman: is it fair?

So don't play Deity. Regent is the 'fair' level. No AI bonuses and no bonuses for you.

Hmm... Yes, it is indeed a fair level. But what about Sid stop with this bonus thing and start working on a better AI (that's what I hope for Civ4)?

Odd, since the consensus among most Civ3 players is that it is overpowered. The trick is to build a lot of them. They're pretty cheap only 1 needs a resource. Artillery is the great equalizer in Civ3.

In Civ2, they were decisive. That is what history tells: what would be Napoleon without his cannons? However, in Civ3, artillery is only important in the highest levels or OCC or 5CC games, where you can't build a large army. In the others you can just make an SOD and destroy everything on the way, without artillery.

YMMV. Civ2 is too easy. The fact that you can win OCC on the hardest level tells you that something is not right with the game.

Civ2 is at least more fair than Civ3. Civ3 is one of toughest games I've ever played.

A tile in Civ3 models hundreds of square KMs. The unrealistic thing is Civ2 stack death. One losing unit is the death of all the rest?

That's to prevent the players from putting their entire armies into a single square. Really, do you see an SOD in history? Armies are always spreaded in the fields.

Not really. With no ZOC, the AI will usually just move around your fortified units. Also, with fewer hps, a large concentration of older units can overwhelm a handful of newer ones.

A great strategy adopted by those who post in the Stories and Tales forums is to keep a musketman fortified on a mountain and then wait, because the AI forces will exhaust themselves against it. It frequently happens, including with me. Indeed, in C3C, it is one of my most useful strategies.

 

[Dominus Romae]

Trade and technology exchange are a big, big part of Civ3. One of the most unrealistic things in Civ2 is that can you sit alone, trade with noone and still develop all technology faster than the AI. In Civ3, you are rewarded when you trade. This models the real world better where one nation builds on the ideas of another. The trick is that you too can be in on the tech feeding frenzy, however if you hoard your techs and refuse to trade, of course the AI will just trade with one another.

´

The AI has a higher level of trading between other AI civs. They were programmed to do that. I think in Regent they have a 120% chance of trading a tech or a resource with another AI rather than with you. This keeps increasing in more difficult levels. And the prices the AI demand for a tech, resource or treaty are absurd. Same thing when you have the tech or resource, because they will only pay a low price.

 

[gunkulator]

Not really, many of my games say that the combat calculator is wrong. Once I lost a veteran cavalry to an elite spearman: is it fair?

The key word is once. If your attack strategy is "I plan for all my units to win every battle" then you can expect to be disappointed. An occasional loss of a better unit is part of the game and is, in fact, more realistic and in any case more challenging.

Hmm... Yes, it is indeed a fair level. But what about Sid stop with this bonus thing and start working on a better AI (that's what I hope for Civ4)?

Bonuses are given because a human can always outsmart an AI. This will be so for Civ4.

In Civ2, they were decisive. That is what history tells: what would be Napoleon without his cannons? However, in Civ3, artillery is only important in the highest levels or OCC or 5CC games, where you can't build a large army. In the others you can just make an SOD and destroy everything on the way, without artillery.

Artillery is not needed at lower levels because you can easily outbuild and outmaneuver the AI. The same is true of Civ2. Give me vet Elephants, Crusaders, Dragoons or Cavalry and I can walk all over the AI because it refuses to build walls or vet units. In Civ3, the AI will at least strike back. While you invade their land with your SOD, they will invade yours with their SOD, wreaking all sorts of havoc.

Civ2 is at least more fair than Civ3. Civ3 is one of toughest games I've ever played.

Civ2 is more predictable. The vast majority of battles are lopsided affairs. I used to like it but now I find it too easy.

That's to prevent the players from putting their entire armies into a single square. Really, do you see an SOD in history? Armies are always spreaded in the fields.

Until modern times, armies were in fact all bunched up together. Without radio, a general needed to have all his troops nearby. Remember a tile is many hundreds of sq KM.

A great strategy adopted by those who post in the Stories and Tales forums is to keep a musketman fortified on a mountain and then wait, because the AI forces will exhaust themselves against it. It frequently happens, including with me. Indeed, in C3C, it is one of my most useful strategies.

It doesn't work for me. I just was playing last night and noticed that my pikemen were attacked on mountains by AI longbows (odds of AI winning: 24%) but when I upgraded to muskets (odds of AI winning: 13%) they just went around. Simply put: The AI does not attack when the odds are very poor. The Civ3 AI does, otoh, love to unload boatloads of attackers in your rear. This one tactic alone makes the Civ3 AI a much tougher opponent.

The AI has a higher level of trading between other AI civs. They were programmed to do that. I think in Regent they have a 120% chance of trading a tech or a resource with another AI rather than with you. This keeps increasing in more difficult levels. And the prices the AI demand for a tech, resource or treaty are absurd. Same thing when you have the tech or resource, because they will only pay a low price.

Regent is the even level, I believe. No AI to AI bonus for trade. If you want a 'fair' game, play at that level. The trick to trading with the AI is finding all the civs asap, researching techs they tend to ignore and then watching for two-fers or three-fers. For example, the AI tends to ignore Literature since it is an optional tech. You can research it and trade it to civ#1 for Mathematics. In the same turn trade it to civ#2 for Iron Working and civ#3 for Mysticism. That's three techs for the price of one!

The Civ2 tech system actually discourages trade. Every tech you learn makes the next one more expensive. Not only is this counter-intuitive, but it leads to all sorts of research strangeness. For example, you can build Crusaders without having learned Horseback Riding or Aqueducts before learning about The Wheel.

 

[Kev]

Old time player and Civ Fanatic here (haven't been to the forums in almost a year now - didn't even know Civ 4 was in the works). I'll put my 2 cents into this discussion. It's nice to post again in any case!

I had played and enjoyed Civ II for years before we even had a sniff of Civ III. So many things I liked about it, but we were all excited about the prospect of Civ III with all of the proposed improvements. I was eager to play with a variety of civilizations and to experience the new trade methods, the issues of resources, unique units, new battle rules, etc.

I was one of the first who went and got the game, and despite the obvious improvements and the intriguing new aspects, I was disappointed.

First, the game was totally choc-full-o-bugs, to the point where some units just didn't even work! So started the litany of patches and fixes and the rules got tweaked and the numbers got tweaked and it just became a hassle. The follow-up versions bummed me out too - just the fact that they were asking me to now spend more money on stuff I would have thought they might take the time and include in the original version. I cannot speak to the latest iteration of Civ III as I did not purchase anything beyond vanilla out of principal.

The other aspect of Civ III vanilla that peeved me was the corruption, and it would seem that this is still an issue to this day. Those of us brought up on Civ II were expansion mongers if we were successful. It was great fun to build and direct a sprawling empire over time. I found the utter uselessness of expanding beyond a certain point in Civ III to be horribly disappointing. And the fact that this was never truly addressed in any of the patches/fixes during the time that I tried to get into the game turned me off.

I did try to give Civ III a chance - I even tried to play succession games with others in the forums. I was invovled in the first succession game in Civ 2, and it was great fun. I did not think that Civ III lent itself to this style (some idiot invarably made a horrible trade deal that left us dead), and this was perhaps another item that disappointed me. This was personal preference, though, and I understand that others might feel differently here.

I guess there were other things that may have saddened me regarding Civ III (seemingly six-hour turns, the fact that artillery and ships could not destroy units, annoying workers who did silly stuff on autoque), but I think that the biggest factor to me was what I saw as a shoddy first effort. I certainly hope that greater care is applied to Civ 4 - no matter if it takes a bit longer to come to market.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Woah, Kev saw your name just pop-up there and recalled the old days - was it you and the drunklomats?

If not...why not!

I think Civ4 is looking good tbh and won't make the mistakes of Civ3, the greatest of which was that one game was too much like the last and unlike Civ2 was a great effort to play seriously.

Good to see you back at Civfanatics, anyhow.

 

[gunkulator]

First, the game was totally choc-full-o-bugs, to the point where some units just didn't even work! So started the litany of patches and fixes and the rules got tweaked and the numbers got tweaked and it just became a hassle. The follow-up versions bummed me out too - just the fact that they were asking me to now spend more money on stuff I would have thought they might take the time and include in the original version. I cannot speak to the latest iteration of Civ III as I did not purchase anything beyond vanilla out of principal.

If you remember, Civ2 went through quite a lot of patches and rereleases too. The final version of the original game was, IIRC, 2.42. Not only that, they expected us to cough up money for each expansion: CiC, FW, MGE, ToT. Except for the events in scenarios, each expansion of Civ2 added relatively few features.

The other aspect of Civ III vanilla that peeved me was the corruption, and it would seem that this is still an issue to this day. Those of us brought up on Civ II were expansion mongers if we were successful. It was great fun to build and direct a sprawling empire over time. I found the utter uselessness of expanding beyond a certain point in Civ III to be horribly disappointing. And the fact that this was never truly addressed in any of the patches/fixes during the time that I tried to get into the game turned me off.

I'm going to disagree with you 100%. Corruption, or lack there of, was what made Civ2 such a cakewalk to win. The number 1 complaint people had here and on other forums was that ICS was just too easy. The game turned into big arm wrestling match, i.e. whoever managed to get a slight leverage advantage (more cities) could parlay that advantage to gain more leverage, making it even easier to get more. What Civ3 did was limit this effect. Yes, you can still hurt the AI by taking their cities, but beyond a certain point why should you also gain the advantage of a fully productive city?

Civ2 was basically reduced to a game of numbers. More cities leads to more units which leads to capturing more cities which produce more units, etc. This snowball effect was unstoppable. Civ3 gives both the human and AI the same limits on expansion. The game is won by how well you manage your cities, resources, trade, and diplomacy, not by steamrolling over everyone.

If Civ4 brings back ICS, I don't want anything to do with it.

I did try to give Civ III a chance - I even tried to play succession games with others in the forums. I was invovled in the first succession game in Civ 2, and it was great fun. I did not think that Civ III lent itself to this style (some idiot invarably made a horrible trade deal that left us dead), and this was perhaps another item that disappointed me. This was personal preference, though, and I understand that others might feel differently here.

There are many active Civ3 SGs here. They are great fun to me because there are so many decisions to make. Some will lead to failure and so they are rabidly debated. Since you can't possibly hope to build every wonder or zoom ahead in tech, you have to prioritize and strategize. Should you trade away your iron in order get the tech for universities or do you need more luxuries, or maybe horses. Should I research a tech I don't need just so that I have a monopoly on it (worth more in trade) or should I use the commerce to start a war between my two neighbors? What's to argue about with Civ2? I can't remember the last game where I wasn't the tech leader or wasn't the biggest civ or didn't have Mikes Chapel, Leo's Shop and Hoover Dam. Give me Fundamentalism, diplos, spies, crusaders, cavalry and/or howitzers and you can't help but win.

I guess there were other things that may have saddened me regarding Civ III (seemingly six-hour turns, the fact that artillery and ships could not destroy units, annoying workers who did silly stuff on autoque), but I think that the biggest factor to me was what I saw as a shoddy first effort. I certainly hope that greater care is applied to Civ 4 - no matter if it takes a bit longer to come to market.

I can't speak to six-hour turns because I've never experienced anything of the sort. I don't miss at all hitting the wrong key and watching my caravel sink because it just attacked a musketeer. Land and sea combat has been rightly separately since in reality there never were any battles between ships and armies. The two can exchange bombardment and weaken the other, but no more battles to the death. Civ2 settlers on automatic were every bit as useless as Civ3 workers on automatic. And don't forget that Civ2 was pretty buggy on its first release too.

My experience with Civ3 newbies who came from Civ2 is that they are surprised how much planning and strategy you have to put into the game in order to win. It's no longer just ICS plus a race to diplos and cavalry. The other thing that surprises new players is that they cannot research everything themselves. You must trade in Civ3 or else be left behind by the civs that do trade. Each trade requires thought. You must give up something in order to gain something. This is anathema to a Civ2 player. You never traded anything beyond a few starting techs. Reputation also has meaning in Civ3. You can't go around breaking deals left and right or else noone will want to talk with you ever again. And then there's culture, strategic resources, luxury resources, bombardment, capturing units, civ traits, armies, and unique units. These are all new concepts that you are not going to master after just a game or two. You won't understand them at first and this is likely to confuse and maybe even frustrate you. That doesn't mean they are bad. If you remember your first Civ2 games, I bet there were many game concepts that were confusing there too.

 

[MikeLynch]

The game turned into big arm wrestling match, i.e. whoever managed to get a slight leverage advantage (more cities) could parlay that advantage to gain more leverage, making it even easier to get more.

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

 

[Sark6354201]

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). Its stupid. Having said that though, it is VERY easy to fix these problems. By making the AD spread much larger and giving additional hitpoints to more technologically advanced units, you can all but elimate the problem.

And please, no posts about "well uh, uh, actually, it is possible, because you know the tank barrells could get clogged and and blow up!" oh cmon... a tank unit, or armored division is not just tanks, it has infantry components, artillery attachments etc.

So does Civ3's combat system suck? yes. Is it easily fixable? yes. For instance, giving a tank in Civ3 a AD or 32,16 instead of 16,8 makes it almost impossible to have it lose to a gunpowder type unit. At the same time using that same 2:1 ration on all modern units will ensure modern combat is not changed.

I won't even mention how stupid Naval Combat is in Civ3...

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. 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. Later on, Privateers and their hidden nationality do a great job of representing piracy.
Some may disagree, but I like how you don't lose cities to Barbarians. Too many issues, and losing a lot of gold or having your improvements pillaged etc. is still a pretty good way to represent their effect.

In Civ2, barbarians are random creations w/out any rhyme or reason. Their ability to capture cities made them much more dangerous than in Civ3. However this lead to some exploits and generally dumb circumstances involving them... Also, there were 'modern' guerillas, who had cavalry and artillery. A bit unrealistic? Well depends on your viewpoint, but in an epic game like Civ I think it was.

Cartoonish leaderheads...

They can be a little ridicolous, but at the same time, you could always mod the game with flags of the respected nations. This way you can also have anyone you want to at the helm of the nations.

Finally, corruption (sorry its easy for me to start rambling on something I spend a lot of time on)

Corruption in Civ3 is... about right. Just look at the Roman Empire, heck, look at the United States today. You can't tell me there is no sizable corruption occuring, whether or not we do not know about it. It helps balance gameplay. Large empires experience rampant corruption. WOW, what a ... realistic concept. In Civ2 communism erased corruption altogether, along with Democracy. Fun to have a nice little perfect empire? yes, realistic? heck no.

Are there ways to get around corruption? Of course, police officers, forbidden palace, communism (communal corruption) and more advanced forms of government alleviate but do not eliminate corruption, as it should be.

Well, I could ramble on a lot more, as I've played both games... well, a lot. And I like both games a lot, so sometimes its tough for me to say which is better. Whenever I have trouble deciding, I just remember all the Civ2 AI cheating. "Oh look, that AI bomber has been flying for THREE turns straight and hasn't run out fuel, wish I could do that.."