Is history of civ playin related to quality?

[Gainy]

I was just wondering if the better quality players of civ 3 owned civ 2 or civ 1 beforehand(or at least played em alot). If you did own them what difficulty level do u play civ3 on now, and if not what level do u play?

I would make this into a poll but im too thick

 

[Padma]

I wouldn't want to flatter myself as being one of the "better quality" players, when I consider some of the others who post here, but I do win at Regent, and I can win at Monarch, and probably Emperor, if I were willing to invest the time and effort.

I did start with Civ2, which I usually played on Prince level. Of course, I didn't know of any place like this at the time.

 

[Ralph-x]

I played civ 1 and 2, but have only beaten 3 at regent level

 

[Rowain deWolf]

I played Civ1, 2, CtP1, Ctp2 and SMAC and I now win on Emperor easily and can beat Deity.

But in no way has this to do with my previous experience. The level I reached now I only reached by playing the Game since its release and by listening to the advise , ideas of such great players as Sirian, Sulla, Charis, T-Hawk .....(in no way this list is complete)


Rowain

 

[Shillen]

I played civ1 a long time ago and ctp2 recently. I got pretty good at ctp 2 but it didn't help me at all with civ3. I never played civ2. I started playing civ3 about 5 weeks ago and have been playing entirely too much. Anyway I can beat monarch easily now. Emperor is challenging but I can beat it.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I played CTP I & II, but those I would consider completely different games to Civ3, so my experience with those games in no way helped me with Civ3. I never played Civ1 & 2, but I've read that many people who have played those games say that their game experience from those games doensn't help much at all in Civ3. Playing (a lot!) and reading these forums for tips and strategies is what really helps.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I played Civ2 and I continue to make the same mistakes in Civ3.

I think Civ3 is such a different game that the only real advantage to playing before is you get to know how to do things when you start

 

[Borealis]

Actually, I think Alpha Centauri may have helped me more than Civ2- it had more of the features of Civ3, and some features omitted in Civ3 that helped. However, I remained stuck at Regent in Civ3 until I came here... now I'm playing at Emperor, and trying Deity.

 

[Moulton]

I have played and owned every version since the original Civ. I generally stopped at the Monarch/king level, playing for enjoyment, and beyond that was too much work.
I win handily at regent, now, but Monarh not at all. previous experience helped with the basics, the starts, what to build, how strong an army, etc. This forum teaches how to pley CivIII.

 

[wilbill]

If my experience with earlier Civ games helped me with Civ 3, I hate to think how painful my first few games would have been if I hadn't played Civ 1 or 2.
Other than basic familiarity with the concepts of the game, no the earlier game experiences didn't help much.

 

[Rellin]

Never played any of the other games, played my first game like 3 weeks ago and got stomped first and second game on chieftan till I got fed up and started looking for strategy sites like this and apolyton.

Now I am beating game easily on Reagant, regularly on Monarch, and going to try Emperor soon (though I am dreadful of, and dont like the idea of, AI starting bonuses).

 

[Gainy]

thanks everyone, keep em coming

 

[Gunnar Thor]

I play Civ II, Alpha Centauri and Civ III. I win in Civ II at King, in Alpha Centauri at Trancend and in Civ III I just moved up to Emperor level from Regent, I'm trying out GOTM 16 with Rome and I'm doing pretty well so far.

@ Rellin: I used to dislike the fact that the AI gets bonuses too, but it makes for a harder game and that's what you want, isn't it?

 

[[cK]Krust]

Just testing this

 

[Panda]

I don't consider myself one of the better players here, but I did play Civ I & 2, SMAC, MoO I & II and MoM before, usually on the second hardest or hardest level.

Currently, I'm playing Civ3 on Regent and Monarch, and am too reluctant to play on Emperor.

 

[Mariusz]

I played Civ1 a long time ago, actually it was one of the first games that I played on PC.
Later I played Civ2, which I managed to finish on Emperor a few times.
Now I'm playing Civ3 on Monarch, but I want to try Emperor in a while.
I started playing Civ1 in 1994, so it's already 9 years of my adventure with Civ.

 

[jack merchant]

I've played both Civ 1 & 2 but never above King level in those two (I was younger and preferred winning). In civ3 I am a good emperor player and have won a deity game.
Having played Civs 1 and 2 certainly helped me pick up the pace faster; I played my first civ3 game on regent.

 

[test_specimen]

I played most of the civ versions (except ctp2), but not until civ3 as a challenge on which level I can beat the ai. I think knowing the previous versions only gives you the knowledge what to expect, but not how to play successfully. Some things are similar, but eg the whole ressource model and the diplomacy are totally different from previous versions.

 

[YNCS]

I started with Civ2 and could win at King. I then spent a year learning how to win SMAC/SMACX at Transcend level. I never did much with CTP (my daughter wins about half the time at the 2nd highest level). I can usually win Civ3 at Regent and I've once won at Monarch.

 

[Aggie]

I only played a few games of civ2, but Alpha Centauri really got me hooked. I eat trancend quite easily, but it took a loooong time, and help from CFC, to get to emperor in CIV3. Now I try deity, but play emperor regularly.