Prefer Civ II to Civ III

[happy_Alex]

It's interesting that you mention units because I don't think there's that much change to civ 2. You still have to pile in with superior numbers and power and of course knowing how to make 'the turn' work for you. I like the special units though.

 

[jadelicia]

I'm thinking between 20 and 30 and having a truly VAST map. That would totally float my boat.

That would be so cool! I could definately deal with that

 

[happy_Alex]

I'm thinking between 20 and 30 and having a truly VAST map. That would totally float my boat.

I feel with civ III its like playing cludo or something. Its very claustrophobic. You meet the other players really soon and its like 'what else is there to do' and they all seem to gang up pretty quick, the total bunts.

 

[Titi]

Exactly. And their first move is often to trade, and when there's no trading left, make war... Civ2 is less determinist IMHO.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

My wife just got me a copy of Civ3 and I've been fiddling around with it. Maybe I'm just biased, but it seems like most of the changes were geared towards simply taking away anything that worked well for the human in Civ2 rather than doing something that makes them more balanced. Trade of goods allows a human to make too much science and money? Don't rework the payout system or make the AI a better trader, just get rid of camels altoghether. Too easy to bribe cities in Civ2? Don't make it harder, more expensive or more prone to failure, just get rid of spies completely. Ai is stupid in Civ 2? Don't make it smarter, just make it cheat more. ICS was powerful in Civ 2, so not only do they make you give up 2 citizens for a new city, but the corruption is crippling beyond some "optimal city number" so you simply can't have a thriving large empire no matter how well you play (or something like that...I haven't gotten far enough to see for myself, but that's what I've read in the little bit of poking around I've done).

I haven't seen enough fighting (or looked at unit definitions) to know what the hitpoint/firepower changes have done. I thought that was one of the better implemented parts of civ2. It really provided substantive differentiation between ancient, gunpowder, and modern units.

I'll still play around with it for a while, but at least initially I just feel lost. It seems like they took away the best parts of civ2 and didn't put much that is fun-to-play in their place.

 

[happy_Alex]

I'll still play around with it for a while, but at least initially I just feel lost. It seems like they took away the best parts of civ2 and didn't put much that is fun-to-play in their place.

I agree. when I played Civ III, I found that it had not evolved in the direction that I would have expected. I think we should all be more objective about the series. If you consider the original Civ was there to describe some of the processes causes of civilisation and what would happen if they were changed. I think the series should be using the technology to continue this idea rather than just be super-introspective which is what civ III. Civ III represents the series turning in on itself a bit too much.

Take for example having a singel leader through the entire game. Its not realistic, no-one lives for ever, so why do we accept it? Just because it was a 'feature' of the original game? (at least in SMAC they offered an explantion, that the leaders were in some Michael Jackson-life-prolonging-oxygen-sarcophgi, which can be done in Sci-Fi). Why not have it so the leaders change, or that great leaders appear occasionally like those war leaders in Civ III and when they do it confers on your Civ some special bonuses.

And why are the leaders in CIv III cartoons? just because the technology exists to make them so? They don't say cool stuff like they do in CIV II.
When I'm talking to someone who's boring the pants of me I can say to them
"I grow weary of this conversation"
as opposed to "got to go" like I said pre-civ II days.

And don't even start me on that time-wasting diplomacy interface in Civ III with its sound effects that seem to have been scientifically designed to wind me up.

 

[OzJeremy]

I enjoy the culture, and the borders, but the other thing I like most about Civ3 is the diplomatic options - that you can trade cities, resources etc. More flexibility. But SMAC had pretty much everything I like in Civ3.

But Civ2 i like chess. It's beautiful as it is. Actually, so's SMAC. God I love those games.

 

[OzJeremy]

Actually, while I remember - I hate what Civ3 did to naval and air combat. They became useless.

 

[jadelicia]

Sounds like what the Descent series did. I don't know if any of you have played or tried Descent - another one of my fav games - but it's a totally different game than Civ. However, I loved the original Descent. When they came out with Descent II, it was great because they just elaborated on the original ideas, added new weapons, new enemies, harder levels, etc. However, when Descent III came along, they made it extemely complex, almost impossible to win. The style of play was totally changed. I think that sometimes game-makers don't realize when to leave well enough alone. Although, my brother plays Descent III, he's only won the game cheating, and he's had it for a while. Personally, I like something I can win WITHOUT having to cheat.

 

[jadelicia]

I'm also glad that when I got my friend her birthday present a few years back I got Civ II. I had the opportunity to give her Civ III, but since I'd never tried it myself, I didn't want to risk giving her something she wouldn't enjoy. Now, after seeing all your comments, I'm glad I got her Civ II.

 

[Tanstaafl]

I went back to Civ III after a long time of playing II and using a lot of different ideas I learned at these forums. Playing Civ II was exciting and at least hopeful if I kept track of all the different ways to win and lead my cities' production efforts.
In Civ III the pretty graphics actually seem to have shrunk the units and make it hard to really appreciate the greater detail. I like the idea of conquest and play it often but Civ III makes it so much harder by not allowing rush buying and you have a bunch of gold just setting there doing nothing.
I do believe that the designers made Civ III prettier but harder when they could have improved Civ II to be more exciting. Yet I belive that Civ II has a beauty of its own, especially when I sample some of the scenario maps that are created by fans.
I might try Civ III again but I feel that the best idea is to just uninstall it and free up more of my computer space for Civ II saved games.

 

[Jawn Henry]

Not allowing rush buying in Civ3??? Don't tell anyone, but i do it all the time

How much rushing a project costs can depend on gov't type - despot cost citizens, monarchy+ costs gold. Also, you can't rush wonders, unless you spend a great leader to do that - you have to get one, 1st, though.

Overall, i feel Civ3 is a great starting point to a great game, like Civ1 was for Civ2. They just need to merge 2(ToT and straight)&3 to make 4, and it would be Super!

I like 3, but 2(esp. ToT) is better.

JH

 

[happy_Alex]

Actually, while I remember - I hate what Civ3 did to naval and air combat. They became useless.

Its true. In reality one battleship could turn any number of frigates/galleons/triremes in to matchstick.

In civ3 you wait while your b'ship gets picked of by squillions of crappy frigates.