- Joined
- Oct 25, 2000
- Messages
- 12,624
This was posted by Bob Mayer on <a href="http://www.cdmag.com/cgi-bin/WebX?14@^404@.ee6fcd6/655">CGO's forum</a>:
<font color=brown>...OTOH, there is so much here that is different, within the overall paradigm, that I'm finding it to be an order of magnitude more entertaining than Civ II. Culture, and national borders, make a HUGE difference for me. The entire international relations dynamic is changed. In Civ/Civ II, at the end of the game frequently there were only two or three civilizations left, whereas in Civ III it's not uncommon to reach the 21st century with all of the starting civs still going at some level. The AI civs fight each other regularly, and cooperate with you when it suits them. Diplomacy is much more rational, with many more options, so you can actually have an idea of what doing X to Y will affect.
The resource system, whereby just having the necessary tech for a unit doesn't let you build it, is also very powerful, if sometimes a tad weird (I've gone deep into the 21st century with F-15s and nuclear subs, but no tanks or marines because I had no rubber, for instance). You find yourself coveting resources your neighbor has, trading for them, and sometimes going to war for them. And the ability to take over cities via "cultural imperialism" is very cool--you can build universities and cathedrals and the heathens on the borders will rush to join you.
In my estimation Civ III features a vastly improved mid game and an improved end game; only the early part is pretty much the same as Civ II with only a few minor improvements.
.... Combat is tougher, too, with the new combat rules, and city taking is harder. </font>
From Jonah Falcon
<font color=brown>By the way, the option for spies to spread disease in enemy towns has been removed. </font>
<font color=brown>...OTOH, there is so much here that is different, within the overall paradigm, that I'm finding it to be an order of magnitude more entertaining than Civ II. Culture, and national borders, make a HUGE difference for me. The entire international relations dynamic is changed. In Civ/Civ II, at the end of the game frequently there were only two or three civilizations left, whereas in Civ III it's not uncommon to reach the 21st century with all of the starting civs still going at some level. The AI civs fight each other regularly, and cooperate with you when it suits them. Diplomacy is much more rational, with many more options, so you can actually have an idea of what doing X to Y will affect.
The resource system, whereby just having the necessary tech for a unit doesn't let you build it, is also very powerful, if sometimes a tad weird (I've gone deep into the 21st century with F-15s and nuclear subs, but no tanks or marines because I had no rubber, for instance). You find yourself coveting resources your neighbor has, trading for them, and sometimes going to war for them. And the ability to take over cities via "cultural imperialism" is very cool--you can build universities and cathedrals and the heathens on the borders will rush to join you.
In my estimation Civ III features a vastly improved mid game and an improved end game; only the early part is pretty much the same as Civ II with only a few minor improvements.
.... Combat is tougher, too, with the new combat rules, and city taking is harder. </font>
From Jonah Falcon
<font color=brown>By the way, the option for spies to spread disease in enemy towns has been removed. </font>
It seems that the enhanced diplomacy, and less than predictable AI we whined so much for, is in place. He says that all civs are often around until the modern era, but I wonder how many of them get on the UN council with 25%+ of the world's population...
