Ultimate CIVII List

[happy_Alex]

Ways in which CIVII is BETTER than CIVIII

1. Its larger. The worlds dosent fill up and there's room to expand.

2. Civs don't automatically share tecs so your civ can find others withwildly different levels of technology.And crush them. Just like the Spanish and South America. Its more realistic.

3. Civs dont automatically gang up on you. Unless your the supremo.

4. Its quicker. Once you have learnt how to play.

5. Its quicker. No complicated diplomacy screen, like spending ages working out deals with other civs.

6. Control over spies and diplomats.

 

[777]

I've allways kept Civ II as "adult Civ" and Civ III as "cool young people" game

One important thing Civ II does lack, and it's resources. With better graphics and resources I would jump right away back to Civ II.

 

[Joeb WK]

7. You can easily mod Civ II.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

Civ 3 is way better than civ2, i mean i like civ2 its what i learned on but once youve on civ3 you dont go back... after seeing civ3, civ2 just seems so..... obsolete

 

[yoshi]

1. Its larger. The worlds dosent fill up and there's room to expand.

Civ2's max map size is 32,761. Civ3's max map size is over double that.

Civ3 uses expanding borders so building cities near a rival's cities is no longer an option by the middle-game--WAY better than Civ2 in this regard. The only irritating thing is that the AI builds cities everywhere (partially dealt with in the C3C XP). It's easy to prevent this as you can prevent the building of cities on a specific terrain and of course increase Settler cost--something I've always done since the first day I modded Civ2.

2. Civs don't automatically share tecs so your civ can find others withwildly different levels of technology.

Only because Civ2's AI has a tendency use diplomacy when in direct contact (i.e. units are adjacent) as opposed to negotiating like a human player. If Civ2 AIs are near one another, they trade techs like crazy as well--esp. when they ally against you (AI is more aggressive in MGE though).

Again, this can be easily dealt with in Civ3 (as well as Civ2:ToT) by simply limiting what techs can be traded, thus forcing the AI to research these techs for itself.

4. Its quicker. Once you have learnt how to play.

That's one reason why people still play Civ2. But it's not because it's more difficult to learn than Civ2 (format is identical) but rather due to the slow turn rate (even on higher-end systems) killed Civ3.

5. Its quicker. No complicated diplomacy screen, like spending ages working out deals with other civs.

You mean more primitive. If you know what you want, Civ3 diplomacy is actually easier to work with than Civ2. Additionally, there are no pre-set options as in Civ2 (i.e. you can trade older techs rather than have the AI automatically ask for your latest tech and you can trade any number of techs for any number of techs). WAY better than Civ2.

6. Control over spies and diplomats.

It's funny, I just finished having a debate over why Workers (Civ3 divides the Civ2 'settle' role into city-building and tile-improvement units--another big improvement) will not be eliminated in Civ4 the way Diplomats and Caravans were in Civ3: eliminating the diplo and trade units was very wise as they unecessarily cluttered the map and were a headache to move around in Civ2--a micromanaging nightmare with no real strategic benefit. Civ3 steamlined these by making diplomacy unit-less (you pay for diplo missions based on risk--pay more or less to increase chances) and trade is included into diplomacy and functions to connect cities to resources--imagine having to move a Caravan to each city each turn...yikes.

With better graphics and resources I would jump right away back to Civ II.

Don't say that or they'll never release the source code!

7. You can easily mod Civ II.

Civ3's editor is REALLY user friendly (imagine the MGE editor only much, much better). It's just that there's a lot more stuff to mod, especially where units are concerned.

The thing that makes Civ2 modding superior to Civ3 is Civ2's macro. Civ3 has no player-scripted events.

C3C introduced a unit-building feature for city improvements (the equivilant of a Civ2 TurnInterval and CreateUnit event triggered by the building of an improvement), but it's applications are quite limited--I should know, I've tried every application of this feature imaginable.

Other than that, Civ3 modding is superior simply because there are no hard-coded limitations on items (e.g. you can apply any effects to any improvement and add as many new unit types as you could ever need--I'm presently helping out (just some text things--no time for anything else) on a Civ3 WW2 mod that has like 600+ unit types).

Civ3 is MUCH better than Civ2 where the epic game is concerned, but then, that was the point. They just mucked it up by using an inefficient engine that couldn't handle the workload--Civ3 has many more features to check for per turn than Civ2 does.

So in reality, this thread's list should be:

1. Civ2 has a much faster turn rate so you don't spend most of an hour pressing enter.
2. Civ2 has player 'scripting' thus scenario design (esp. historical) has the potential for much more innovation.

There are some other little things like the removal of tile improvements (namely Farmland--Irrigation food increased by RR in Civ3) and Rivers go along the edge of tiles rather than the center (gives defence bonus to defender if attacker is moving across river but no movement bonus).

I guess there's also Civ3's MP problems so,

3. Civ2 has a much more stable MP mode.

And if you add ToT,

4. Civ2 supports multiple maps.

And for the record,

5. No one threw the Civ2 CD against a wall, stomped on it and then urinated on it after being disappointed that it messed up features in Civ1...AFAIK. (I'm not talking about my own reaction BTW--just a funny post in the Civ3 forums.)

Civ 3 is way better than civ2, i mean i like civ2 its what i learned on but once youve on civ3 you dont go back... after seeing civ3, civ2 just seems so..... obsolete

You don't go back if all you play is the epic game (and even then, if you're on a slow system, you may still stick to Civ2 simply because you don't have 6 hours to wait for each turn to go by). If you mod, Civ2 still has its merits.

Once Civ4 comes out, Civ2 will be well and truly dead where modding is concerned, as it will include full scripting support (uses Python) and likewise, very few hard-coded features. But it will be using a 3D graphics engine (cough--eyecandy!) so (1) definitely still stands.

 

[Nylan]

You tell 'em Yoshi

 

[Joeb WK]

,
Once Civ4 comes out, Civ2 will be well and truly dead where modding is concerned, as it will include full scripting support (uses Python) and likewise, very few hard-coded features. But it will be using a 3D graphics engine (cough--eyecandy!) so (1) definitely still stands.

Not if the source codes released or Civ4s rubbish.

 

[Smash]

it's funny, I just finished having a debate over why Workers (Civ3 divides the Civ2 'settle' role into city-building and tile-improvement units--another big improvement) will not be eliminated in Civ4 the way Diplomats and Caravans were in Civ3: eliminating the diplo and trade units was very wise as they unecessarily cluttered the map and were a headache to move around in Civ2--a micromanaging nightmare with no real strategic benefit. Civ3 steamlined these by making diplomacy unit-less (you pay for diplo missions based on risk--pay more or less to increase chances) and trade is included into diplomacy and functions to connect cities to resources--imagine having to move a Caravan to each city each turn...yikes.

Sorry I have no better words but that is a crock.No offense.

No real strategic benefit?...you gotta be kidding

Delivering a cravan or moving a dozen spys into position for water poisoning is what kept Civ2 interesting after the ancient age.

There is no such interest in Civ3 after the ancient age.The only espionage I do in Civ3 is set up embassys.Whoopee.Anything else is a waste of time and gold

The strategic benefit is/was obvious.Beakers from caravans are extremely strong and the lowly spy is the most powerful unit in Civ2 by far.

The ability to add events.txt for a Civ2 scenario makes it a real scenario.
As opposed to the "scenarios" of Civ3.

The good things of Civ3 are strategic resources,unit capturing,bombardment,Great Leaders and maybe cultural borders.Unit animations are great but overall,"stock" civ3 graphics are an embarrasment to Firaxis.Heck ,we had better user made graphics 2 days after civ3 release.

The game itself is a "Civ2 for Dummies"

Civ3 is good but not great.
Civ2 is great....even now,some 10 years after release.

Diplomacy in Civ3 is neat at first but soon becomes a royal pain in the arse.Unwanted tedium

Bring back camels and top hats!

 

[yoshi]

Not if the source codes released or Civ4s rubbish.

The source code is kind of like a 'pet-project' thing. Not really meant to compete with official releases (I wasn't being serious in my reply to 777).

Aside form their decision to go 3D (a decision apparently made to make things more economical on the design side but that won't be doing players any favors), it looks as though Civ4 will have no choice but to be a smash hit. Even if they mess up the epic game, any aspect of it can be modded to taste by players.

...Unless everything they've said up to now is bull, that is. (Note that Sid 'n Co. have been pretty good about this in the past.)

The strategic benefit is/was obvious.Beakers from caravans are extremely strong and the lowly spy is the most powerful unit in Civ2 by far.

It was a good way of putting a leash on micromanagers: no building up Caravans to build wonders in a turn (although now Civ3 lacks any outside-city 'help' whatsoever so you wonder-building city is left purely to its own devices, which isn't the nicest thing esp. since the AI always builds faster at higher difficulty levels) and made spies less powerful (or at least curbed the spy's power by adding a cost) which is a good thing as this was a major exploit.

Having to transport my spies from my nearest city back to enemy territory every second turn to investigate cities was not fun (in fact, Civ3 should have steamlined further by automating this feature so you don't have to be selecting each city every turn).

The only problem with Civ3's trade system is that sea trade routes are not visible (land routes are Road-based) thus are diffiucult to intercept. (Although this has been the subject of some debate because people like to get the satisfaction of sinking enemy vessels and simply blocking a trade route is not as fun. But it's still much less tedious.)

The game itself is a "Civ2 for Dummies"

If you think not having to micromanage spies and caravans is 'for dummies,' then I guess you're right. Otherwise, Civ3 is almst identical to Civ2. The only other really big strategic change that you forgot to mention is to air units: they automatically fly to their targets. This has downsides but it means that you can't block air units with land units, and that's worth the loss of 'mid-air' control IMO.

The ability to add events.txt for a Civ2 scenario makes it a real scenario.
As opposed to the "scenarios" of Civ3.

Combine the fact that you can add up to 255 improvement types, government types and God knows how many unit types (even citizen types), and the many new features culminating in C3C, you can build yourself quite the hefty scen. As I said, there are ways of getting past the lack of events--to a degree.

Civ2 scens have a major advantage due to events but Civ3 scens are much more intricate in terms of game functionality.

Where the epic game is concerned, nostalgia is the only thing keeping people playing Civ2--that and being able to run it at high performance on any remotely decent system.

(That said, I've found ways of making the 'epic' game better in Civ2 using events (among other things), so there is still hope I guess.)

The only espionage I do in Civ3 is set up embassys.Whoopee.Anything else is a waste of time and gold

You can still do everything as before except sabotage units and poison water supply. Both were unecessary for Civ and served only as exploits.

They left out intelligence pop-ups though, so even after establishing an embassy, you don't know what the bloody AI's doing (in Civ2--and Civ1--you'd get a pop-up informing you that a rival had just discovered a new tech). I'm big on intelligence so this is a real pain in the a$$. (I'm so obsessive about it that using ToT, I modded in a text warning whenever a rival civ builds a new military unit once you've discovered Espionage and added a Spy Plane unit with high MP just so I know what's going on.)

Hopefully Civ4 will have a fully functional intelligence mechanism that doesn't waste your time but gives you all the intel you need.

Oh, and another BIG downside to Civ3 is that it reads from the savedgame file (i.e. saved game stores all the scen info so that anything changed in the scen file (.biq) after the game has been started has no effect on the savedgame). This means NO CHANGING TERRAIN! Removes a killer strategy from cross-season scens. (I tend to make heavy use of this 'feature' in Civ2, so it hit me pretty hard--well, not really --when I found out you couldn't do this in Civ3.)

 

[happy_Alex]

Only because Civ2's AI has a tendency use diplomacy when in direct contact (i.e. units are adjacent) as opposed to negotiating like a human player. If Civ2 AIs are near one another, they trade techs like crazy as well--esp. when they ally against you (AI is more aggressive in MGE though).

When at any point in history have all civilisations shared technologies all at the same time? It dosn't matter how it works the end impact is most important.

The differences in technology between civs has always be the most profound source of drama and excitement and is one thing that makes history so interesting. Look at the Spanish and the Americas, for example, or the Europeanan powers and China. This kind of dramatic interaction can really occur in civ II whereas it never seems to happen in civ III. It makes the game to warm and fuzzy for my liking

You can still do everything as before except sabotage units and poison water supply. Both were unecessary for Civ and served only as exploits.

yep, but the point about espionage in civ 3 is that it lacks drama. Theres more excitment in sending spies out and about. A kinda " spy on a dangerous mission saves world/ james bond type scenario" if you know what i mean.

 

[EmperorGandalf]

I havent actually played civ III, but i would agree that i would probablyy like II better; im used to it, and its certainly good enough for me. (of course im still only playing games at prince or king level, im trying to work my way up) I like how many things work, such as having settlers be able to build cities AND settle land. it makes sense anyways.
Lots of good arguments here on both sides, but it seems the majority here prefer CIV II!!!!!

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

I haven't played Civ3 much (couldn't stand it/get used to it) so maybe I don't understand all it's subtleties, but I have a few comments nonetheless:

It was a good way of putting a leash on micromanagers: no building up Caravans to build wonders in a turn (although now Civ3 lacks any outside-city 'help' whatsoever so you wonder-building city is left purely to its own devices, which isn't the nicest thing esp. since the AI always builds faster at higher difficulty levels) and made spies less powerful (or at least curbed the spy's power by adding a cost) which is a good thing as this was a major exploit.

Why do you consider it necessary to put "a leash on micromanagers"? Shouldn't the opportunity exist whereby efficient management results in superior results?

They could have kept the caravan-based trade system yet limited the ability to influence wonder building, although the civ3 version where you can have no outside input whatsoever is at least as unrealisitic as the caravan model. Weren't many wonders were put together with dedicated resources of a nation state, combined with massive slave labor?

Similarly there are ways to curb the power of spies without going to a different, less entertaining model.

Having to transport my spies from my nearest city back to enemy territory every second turn to investigate cities was not fun (in fact, Civ3 should have steamlined further by automating this feature so you don't have to be selecting each city every turn).

[sarcasm]
True dat. God knows spies never need to infiltrate enemy territory to obtain information year after year. Once you've got an embassy, you can find out everything you need to know.
[/sarcasm]

The only problem with Civ3's trade system is that sea trade routes are not visible (land routes are Road-based) thus are diffiucult to intercept. (Although this has been the subject of some debate because people like to get the satisfaction of sinking enemy vessels and simply blocking a trade route is not as fun. But it's still much less tedious.)

Yes. Game designers should always strive for the option that is "not as fun".

If you think not having to micromanage spies and caravans is 'for dummies,' then I guess you're right. Otherwise, Civ3 is almst identical to Civ2.

:no: with the loss of the flexible hit point/firepower dynamic, it seems battle mechanics took a huge step backwards in Civ 3 as well.

You can still do everything as before except sabotage units and poison water supply. Both were unecessary for Civ and served only as exploits.

I don't think you use the term "exploit" in the same way I do. A designed feature of the game is now considered an "exploit"?

 

[happy_Alex]

Whats an exploit? Sorry.

 

[yoshi]

This kind of dramatic interaction can really occur in civ II whereas it never seems to happen in civ III.

In Civ2, this disparity only seems to occur when the human player blocks off an AI civ's land access to other AI civs early on thus causes them to lag behind in tech thus they have nothing to trade.

If they all start the same though, they all gang up on you and trade tech like crazy...just like Civ3's AI (you can adjust the amount of AI tech-trading through the Editor but it makes little difference).

There are also certain civs (e.g. default Greeks) that always seem to remain behind and small--at level 4 (Emperor) difficulty at least--no matter what.

Theres more excitment in sending spies out and about. A kinda " spy on a dangerous mission saves world/ james bond type scenario" if you know what i mean.

The added advantage of having spies 'out and about' is that you can keep track of troop movements (in the epic game). But this is yet another exploit and Civ3 gives Armies this ability anyway (i.e. where the primary role isn't recon).

Having spies move around is tedious: in the later game you may have over a hundred cities to keep track of so that means sending spies to all of them every second turn at least--not to mention sabotaging, stealing, and poisoning.

Civ3's system has the same effect only without the unit: when you go on a mission, there is x chance that it will fail. You don't need a unit for that so the movement is just for people who like to see the little spies running round the map.

Also, human players can easily anticipate where the AI will launch a diplo attack from and intercept the unit, so just having to move the unit to the target is an exploit.

Don't mistake 'drama' for unecessary micromanagement.

Civ is an empire-building game, so having to control individual spies contradicts this (i.e. you want to be making decisions based on intel, not actually having to do the job of collecting the intel yourself--would be like George W. Bush collecting intel on WMD in Iraq himself...okay, bad example).

 

[happy_Alex]

In Civ2, this disparity only seems to occur when the human player blocks off an AI civ's land access to other AI civs early on thus causes them to lag behind in tech thus they have nothing to trade.

This dosen't contradict my value judgement that diplomacy in civ II is better than civ III. Just because Marco Polo went to China once didn't mean that European powers could chat with China from then on. It is more logical, and therefor better, that civs can only negociate when in contact.

Don't mistake 'drama' for unecessary micromanagement.

Well, in that case why control any unit? Espionage in Civ III is still boring, (and too expensive!)

 

[Smash]

Civilization is/was much more than an empire building game.

As mentioned in the manual,the 4 impulses of Civ are Exploration,Economics,Knowledge and Conquest.It these elements that make the game what it is.

Exploration is completely gone from Civ3.Aside from the first 20>50 turns of your own homeland.Boats?..what do I need boats for?.

Economics is still there but the 'new" system just results in less for the player to do.It works in Civ3 cuz alot of any turn is spent in the highly exciting world of worker actions(not)

Knowledge is still in but few can argue the tech tree of 3 is far inferior to that of 2,despite its flaws.Plus the added handicaps placed on the player only serve to raise the frustration factor.It is these handicaps that many mistake for a "better AI" in Civ3.They havn't fooled me.

Conquest is prolly the best part of Civ3.However,the screwy combat system greatly increases the frustration factor as well.You know the the tank vs spearman scenario..the whole reason a new system was successfully introduced in Civ2..I rarely get that far(modern weapons) but have seen absolutely disgusting combat results.When playing 3,I often wonder why I bother building quality units.

I love parts of 3.They should have introduced these new concepts(resources,bombardment,unit capture,culture border etc) to the allready proven and great things from civ2.

I was worried as heck years back reading all the suggestions for Civ3.Rightly so as it turned out.It seems Firaxis only listened to SMAC players

As far as this "epic game" concept is concerned,you want Epic?..then load up Red Front for Civ2.

 

[yoshi]

It is more logical, and therefor better, that civs can only negociate when in contact.

I didn't say they only do that. I said proximity tends to trigger it more often (hence you get messages that two AI civs have declared war just when one of their units happens to be adjacent to a rival city/unit.

They do negotiate even when no units are present but not as frequently (as far as my testing of it is concenred). By the late game, AIs talk practically every turn--assuming you haven't wiped most of them out and imprisoned the remaining survivors in their last remaining cities by then.

Exploration is less tedious in Civ3 because you can automate it. Other than that, it's exactly the same except for your borders revealing terrain (which makes perfect sense).

Economics is almost exactly the same putting aside resource-trading.

The tech tree is just a slightly enhanced version of Civ2's tehc tree.

Civ3's AI is better: notice the units moving in stacks and not attacking rival units with high defense factor. Pathfinding is also better.

I agree about the combat system: odd they didn't just stick with the Civ2 hitpoints and firepower (granted, hitpoints were added in C3C--but then, that proves our point). Supposedly the reason was to balance things a bit so that a more advanced civ wuldn't have as great an advantage. But I would argue that, if anything, that is a problem of the values accorded to attack and defense factors, not the hitpoint system, so IMO they should have left it alone. As for the questionable combat results, I thought this too initially but turns out it isn't skewed (I'm not totally convinced when my Swordsman get beaten by a Warrior but...). Supposedly the AI has no combat bonuses.

What I always say is that many (if not most) of the features introduced in Civ3 should've been in Civ2 (in addition to a few other obvious things that are in neither). But, what's done is done. Anyway, Civ4 will redeem Firaxis for all it's 'blunders' if it's what they say it will be.

SMAC was like an enhanced Civ2. What's wrong with that?

 

[happy_Alex]

Economics is almost exactly the same putting aside resource-trading.

OMG. Well that brings me nicely to point 8.

8 Resources. Easy to use in civ 2. Just plop a city next to them. In civ 3 they appear with when the tecs make them viable. Which is fine except they NEVER appear within your borders and you have to go on some wild goose chase to find them, only to have some other civ cut of your supply route.

Anyway, who ever heard of only a few lumps of iron appearing here and there in the world. Iron is everywhere, as is aluminium and titanium. Advancing tecs made these metals viable.

 

[Smash]

Automated exploration!?...boy does that sound like fun!

When have you gone past 1AD in Civ3 without the map being full?...I sure havn't.Not that it matters anyways as the corruption model just gives a bunch of 1 sheild production cities that are prone to the wonderful culture flip(yes I notice that can be toggled off now).

Economics is not anywhere near the same.I don't actually do anything.I just build a road.Not much fun really.

Enhanced tech tree?..you lost me here.Civ3 tech tree is awful.Very poorly thought out.Some improvements in PTW and C3C but really just a hodge podge of dead ends.

SMAC was not an "enhanced" civ2.It was a simplified or "dumbed down" Civ2.Don't get me wrong,it is/was a darn good game.Because Brian Reynolds knows this type of game better than anybody including Sid.But it was not as good as Civ2.

We have watched these games gradually involve the player less and less.Automating and watching is not fun.Not for me anyways.

I agree the AI is programmed better for most eras of combat.This is the one area of Civ3 I rather enjoy.The AI will send huge armies and can cause some serious problems.Prolly why I can tolerate C3C and the others..well.

As far as the AI performs in other areas,hardly a step up from Civ2.The civ3 AI is more aggressive at city building(generally speaking as I have seen some huge civs in civ2) but why is that?..... better AI or no waiting till size 3 handicap?.....I am always amused when the Civ3 AI sends settlers deep into my territory to build on those few unclaimed squares.

You couldn't beat the Civ2 AI with modern weapons though.Problem was the players soon learned to be on Alpha Centauri long before the AI ever got to the modern age.
That really hasn't changed that much in Civ3.I am not a great Civ3 player(nor will I ever be as I can't stand the game long enough to get there) but those that are good are destroying the Civ3 AI the same way Civ2 masters did.To be expected really.

In a day where games are getting shorter and more expensive with no replayability,Civ3 is a pretty good choice.I just fear this series will never jump up and grab me the way Civ2 did.And that makes me sad.

 

[yoshi]

Shouldn't the opportunity exist whereby efficient management results in superior results?

No. Why? Because it gives an advanatage to those players that are willing to spend an hour calculating exact results (i.e. the 'accountant' players) and thus penalizes the player that is not willing to waste small chuncks of their lifetimes on such things and prefer to work on 'macro-management.' The point is to remove the tedious elements (and yes, they are tedious to most players).

Weren't many wonders were put together with dedicated resources of a nation state, combined with massive slave labor?

I completely agree but where the game is concerned, it's an exploit. I do think that there should be some interconnectivity between cities and production (something automated that won't give the player any advanatage).

I already gave he reasons for removing trade and diplo units.

Once you've got an embassy, you can find out everything you need to know.

You missed the point: in Civ, you don't get this info automatically with embassy or anything else. YOU have to do all the work even though it doesn't benefit your game in any way to do it yourself.

Game designers should always strive for the option that is "not as fun".

Well, Firaxis specifically made these decisions in order to eliminate "un-fun" elements from the game. Some of their decisions are debatable but other are just common-sense.

A designed feature of the game is now considered an "exploit"?

There is only one use for exploit: a game feature that allows the player to EXPLOIT some unforeseen fault (i.e. something that is not meant to play a role in the game), thus deteriotating gameplay. It usually, if not always refers to AI because the AI will not adapt to something that it has not been programmed to take into account.

Whats an exploit? Sorry.

See my reply to TimTheEnchanter.

Anyway, who ever heard of only a few lumps of iron appearing here and there in the world. Iron is everywhere, as is aluminium and titanium. Advancing tecs made these metals viable.

It's everywhere but not in sufficient quantities to build masses of armor...in reality. Civ3 is not trying to be realistic. If it were, Iron would be more numerous and Swordsmen wouldn't require it as it doesn't take much to forge small arms. Resources are spread far apart--although not always--because this forces the player to trade. The random disappearance is the biggest problem, as your precious resource my disappear well before you can make proper use of it. Personally, I just set the disappearance value to zero so that this is not a problem (of course this means that resources last forever but considering Civ's tech tree only goes to present day, it's a non-issue IMO).

As for your comment about Civ2's system being better: you can't be serious. First, Civ3 still uses bonus resources (if you set disappearance/appearance values to zero and give them no prerequisite, they are identical to Civ2 resources). Second, having resource requirements adds a whole new level of depth to the game--Civ2 not having this is not a good thing.

Automated exploration!?...boy does that sound like fun!

Exactly. It's not fun. Neither is moving a unit around for no strategic purpose. Why do you think they added this feature? If it were up to me I'd have the 'Automate' option for EVERYTHING! The point is to eliminate tediousness (exploration barely even counts as micromanagement because you don't really gain any advantage moving the unit yourself). And BTW, the 'Automate' order is OPTIONAL...so you can feel free to move the unit about all you like.

When have you gone past 1AD in Civ3 without the map being full?

And why shouldn't it work that way?

If rapid colonization bothers you, then all you have to do is increase the cost of Settlers--unlike in Civ2, this will have no effect on the rest of the game as the tile improvement role is seperate to the settlement role in Civ3...which is very, very, very good and it's one of the big failings in Civ2 (especially because you can't prevent settlement without also preventing tile improvement--which is really bad for historical scens). (If MP had at least added a settle flag for terrain, but no.)

Economics is not anywhere near the same.I don't actually do anything.I just build a road.Not much fun really.

And Civ2 is different because...?

Some improvements (namely, Port Facility--Harbor has dual role--and Superhighways--RR fill this role) are out and there is no Farmland (hence, no Supermarket). Aside form thisand no terraforming (a real downside for Civ3 modding but good for the epic game as it was an exploit)

Civ3 tech tree is awful.

They just got rid of redundant advanaces and added advances where needed. They added a few tech flags and nothign is hard-coded. I guess it's a matter of preference. Personally, I never liked the epic game in any release because I like my games more realistic. But that is besides the point: for game-balance purposes and market requirements, the changes are acceptable.

(BTW, the real problem with Civ3's advance system is that the Science Advisor screen only allows a fixed number of tech spaces; any techs added above that overlap or are simply not visible--must've been some ****** at Infogrames that wasn't aware the Civ3 would be modded.)

SMAC was not an "enhanced" civ2.

Example.

I am always amused when the Civ3 AI sends settlers deep into my territory to build on those few unclaimed squares.

It does that in Civ2 as well. In Civ3, expanding borders eventually seal all unclaimed squares. In Civ2, you have to calculate city distance in order to claim all sqaures just so that doesn't happen--not fun. (This was actually the main reason for adding borders AFAIK.

You couldn't beat the Civ2 AI with modern weapons though.

I just finished playing a game at Emperor where I sabotaged the AI's cities so that they couldn't build any heavies (although the AI's production bonus had it building Battleships in like 4 turns in a city with only 5 shields ), built up my own arsenal and liquidated the whole lot of SOBs in 2 turns ('shock and awe' for the AI so to speak)...and I haven't played the stupid epic game for over a year--only went the AC route once and got no satisfaction out of it.

More difficult with Civ3 for some reason...could it be that I'd go bankrupt if I did that much sabotaging or perhaps it's because the AI exposed my spy?

Never been to AC in Civ3...no patience for the long turns in the really late game.

I just fear this series will never jump up and grab me the way Civ2 did.And that makes me sad.

That's because the guys who designed Civ3 are losing their edge (i.e. they should have innovated more instead of just giving us Civ2 and a bag of chips...but without events).

Civ4 will probably change things but the high requirments will probably alienate even more strategy-gamers (i.e. people who like games but have better things to do with their money than spend a fortune on a new high-end system just for game purposes).