PresidentCaesar
Chieftain
There is a way to edit the game where you can activate cheat mode without it hurting your score. I never tried it and I don't remember how to do it or where I saw it, though.
Prefer Civ II to Civ III
- Thread starter mattc670
- Start date
jadelicia
Queen
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 495
My brother could relate to that. He always brings up the scenerio of "what do you think those settlers at 3000B.C. thought when they saw the destruction a nuke causes? What did they think it was?" He seems quite amused by it. I have never actually cheated, but who knows? Maybe someday I'll actually give in. My brother constantly tries to lure me to the dark side saying it would be fun, but I'm a bit traditionalist.
BlackAdder60
Very naughty boy!
YEAAH. I agree totally. The sight of mushroom clouds does feel GOOOD.
Oh yes, cheat mode can be very de-stressing. Especially after a rotten day dealing with twits at work - a little creative editing of the txt files, and poof!! - all the idiots you work with go up in smoke...marvelous...perhaps we ought to suggest it as a new marketing strategy...
President David
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2004
- Messages
- 7
I like Civ II beter bacause it's easier then Civ III, maybe Civ IV will be easier. On Civ III I could not win on cheifton. And in Civ III the city graphics make a huge city look like a small town. All Civ III has is boaders and fancier graphics. Civ II had a better non-cheating ai, while in Civ III the ai could have 20 citys by 100 AD and I only have 15. And this is on cheifton!!! I hate the worker feathure, and the settler taking 2 citizens.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
It took me a long while to switch from Civ II to Civ II, the only real thing I think III should have retained from 2 is the hit points and firepower concept to units, now all unites had 3hp, veterans have 4, and elites have 5. However, in Civ III, the game is much more realistic and fortifications, capturing resources and diplomacy are much more important. The AI isn't actually any better, it just has more options.
BlackAdder60
Very naughty boy!
President David said:
Perhaps not even *that*. City borders are there in "Civ-2 Test of time", it should have been in Civ2 too, or at least in an upgrade patch. What fancy graphics are concerned, they arent all. One of my favourite shooter type games is "Heretic" from 1995, I have played games with sexier graphics than that, and they sucked when compared with that old classic "Heretic".
I am afraid guys that you haven't tried Civ3 enough. It is really a much better game, although probably a bit harder. 
I admit that I play a lot of Civ3 but still play occasional Civ2 games. On Civ3 the AI expand much faster and so you have to adjust your play. The human player can also expand faster in Civ3. The science in Civ 3 is understandable and you don't have to pick from a limited selection of allowed advances. The diplomacy is much better and the graphics are greatly improved. Admittedly early wars are hard to avoid on civ3. The combat system is better though: it's a bit too predictable on civ2.
In Civ 2 spies and caravans are frankly overpowered and this is eliminated from civ3 which presumably makes the change tough to make.
I do however, still like Civ2 and now that I have learnt a bit on civ3 I want to give it a go. The super science city thing looks tempting, another thing that has been toned down in civ3.
I admit that I play a lot of Civ3 but still play occasional Civ2 games. On Civ3 the AI expand much faster and so you have to adjust your play. The human player can also expand faster in Civ3. The science in Civ 3 is understandable and you don't have to pick from a limited selection of allowed advances. The diplomacy is much better and the graphics are greatly improved. Admittedly early wars are hard to avoid on civ3. The combat system is better though: it's a bit too predictable on civ2.
In Civ 2 spies and caravans are frankly overpowered and this is eliminated from civ3 which presumably makes the change tough to make.
I do however, still like Civ2 and now that I have learnt a bit on civ3 I want to give it a go. The super science city thing looks tempting, another thing that has been toned down in civ3.
BlackAdder60
Very naughty boy!
Must agree with you on that one. Havent bought Civ-3... *YET*, I've got so many cool games, some of them strategy games and of course there is me hooked on Civ-2. But as soon as I can find it on a sale I'll buy itOffa said:
funxus
Orange Cycloptic Blob
Maybe not, but every time I try it, Civ2 is inevitably brought to mind, and I leave the Civ3 game in the middle of it...Offa said:
Offa said:
Well, not all of us. I even installed only Civ 3 on my laptop, to make sure that when I'm away (between half and two thirds of a year) I give Civ III its chance.
I agree that spies in Civ III are useless and that you better be prepared for war during the first turns, and that maybe explains why I still go back to Civ 2 when I can.
On a more global point of view, I can't help comparing Civ III and Civ II when I'm playing III, and I must say that I still find II way more interesting!
Offa said:I am afraid guys that you haven't tried Civ3 enough. It is really a much better game, although probably a bit harder.
I found Civ III to be easier to win than Civ II. Of course I have yet learned how to destroy the rest of the Civs in either II or III.
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
I tried Civ III and have to agree it s not as good as CIVII. I found I have to play super-aggressively just to stay in the running. In Civ II you can catch up quite fast with other civs if you need. Also the AI in CIV III really cheats and that hacks me off something rotten. Why do all the other civs share their advances straight away? They've always got them before me. I like the possibility in Civ II of finding stone-age societies with industrial weapons then mercylessly blowing them away. (just like the Spanish/Aztecs, or Americans/native Americans etc) It seems far more realistic. Also in find the Civ II map much larger, you can still explore right up to the Apollo project. Thats also more realistic, if you think that areas of forrest and desert were still unexplored into the 20th century) In Civ III everythings taken really quickly.
jadelicia
Queen
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2004
- Messages
- 495
I must agree with you, Alex, and I haven't even played Civ III. I like the fact that you can find civs that have low tech. It's almost like a goody bonus or surprise. I also love exploring, and I always miss it when I've discovered the whole world.
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
Before Civ III came out I used to think "CIV III will be brilliant because they'll be som many more AI civs to play against, just like in real life" but I was dissapointed to find that CIV III seems to have moved further from emulating reality (or possible reality) to more of a board-game feel where all the other players are middle aged fuddy-duddies.
happy_Alex
Happiness set to 11
I'm thinking between 20 and 30 and having a truly VAST map. That would totally float my boat.
It took me several goes at playing Civ3 and eventually playing C3C multiplayer like I had played Civ2 MGE multiplayer before to finaly cement Civ3 as my preferred game. The tactics are different but over time you get used to them. Even culture flipping begins to seem natural and combat now feels better as it actually involves large amounts of units rather than diplomats bribing cities...
