What do you miss in Civ 3?

[Sultan Bhargash]

What feature, unit, or improvement from Civ 2 do you most miss in Civ 3?

 

[narmox]

I miss civil wars. Right now, it seems taking an enemy's capital has no effect other than relocating it. So I usually just end up pillaging all roads leading to the capital so he can't trade anymore, and take the capital only when forced too/when there's nothing else to do...

 

[Smash]

I miss all of it.
especially dips and caravans.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I agree: I miss it all, I totally forgot about the Civil Wars (I only acheived that once), spy units that you could send all over enemy rail lines checking out their cities also rocked. But I voted for King Richard's Crusade. I know if you are extremely lucky (once in twenty games for me) you can get the iron works, but King Richards used to come on line for me just in time to build every Wonder between Leonardo's and Women's Suffrage.

Somebody ought to make a mod that uses the Civ 3 graphics to replicate Civ 2. Why didnt they do that?

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I think you neglected one option on the poll that I, for one, miss: the firepower combat system.

 

[Lazy]

A lot has been added to Civ3.
A lot has been lost as well.
I think I miss the Celts the most... they got my vote.
Also miss Dips n' Spys.
Another thing I miss is the way air power is handled. Air units have been reduced from formidible combat units in and of themselves to mere artillary.
That's just my two or three cents.

 

[scavenger]

I think that MANY more things have been lost then gained

with the single exception of Culture, can you name one MAJOR game play aspect that is better then Civ 2?

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by scavenger
I think that MANY more things have been lost then gained

with the single exception of Culture, can you name one MAJOR game play aspect that is better then Civ 2?

- resources and luxuries
- no more ICS. you actually need roads and city improvements if you want to win in any way
- bombardment (I don't agree that bombers are useless in civ3 compared to civ2.. I find them very very useful when I fight war in the industrial and modern age to weaken my opponent's armies and infrastructure and to support my artillery and ground troops)
- better AI
- better diplomacy and trade, and no more futzing around with 200 caravans or spies or diplomats
- reduced power of wonders that don't completely overpower your opponents when you build them (read what someone said about the Crusade above) but still remain quite useful. small wonders are cool too
- more stuff happening in each age so you actually get to wage some useful wars before you get tanks
- more corruption (yes! more, maybe not all the corruption pre-patch, but more corruption means no exponential conquest: ie, take one city on a faraway continent with a few tanks, rush-buy a factory and sdi if necessary, then pump out more units every 3 turns from that city to conquer the rest of the continent. Now you actually have to use many resources to conquer or wage a long war)
- war is much better too cause you need to plan things in advance (as for the combat system itself, that's a matter of opinion; I've no prob with it)
- I kinda like the leaders and armies too!
- and so on...

Civ2 pales in comparison.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

I miss alpine troops. I miss having a mobile defensive unit in Civ3. Unless I got Samurai!

 

[Mike C]

Civ 3 is definatly a step forwards from the original civ 2.

However, compared to Alpha Centauri, it just doesn't have the same feeling of style and polish that AC had.

Consider some things.

1) I enjoyed the (not so) secret project videos. The voice acting was decent in those and while people said they didn't add much to gameplay, and they don't, they add a certain amout of polish to the game which makes it enjoyable to play.

2) World council seriously had its nuts chopped off in Civ 3.

3) Diplomacy also castrated to a great deal. To some extent, this probably couldn't have been reproduced but the AC social engineering options which directly corrolated to how other factions viewed you was a very enjoyable aspect. When you talked to someone, they would often praise your or pan you for what your government style was etc...

3a) The options seem rather limited as well. You are "at war" or "at peace" or have a MPP. Kind of skimpy if you ask me. There is no way of improving relations being "at peace" so people who were polite to you one minute could turn around and declare war on you. The fact that no nonagreesion pact exists sucks. Also, there is no option of whether to honour MPPs or not.

4) A major lack of differentiation in the different civs as opposed to the factions in AC. In AC, the differences were tangible. If you were the University faction, drone control was always a problem. If you were the Gaians, mind worms for war was a pretty unique ability (well being successful at it).


All this adds up to what I would call a simple lack of polish and overall feel. Its the same kind of thing which made StarCraft more enjoyable to play than Red Alert 2, even though it predated RA2.

Right now the game, while playable and certainly not a bad game by any sense, is missing that magic dust which propels it into the "great game" status or a game that would be in contention for "game of the year" awards.

 

[narmox]

hm.. I never played SMAC Heard some good and bad things about it, but never bothered to play.. I was too caught up in CTP

So, compared to SMAC, it misses some things, but compared to Civ2 it's a great step forward, is that it?

At least it's a step forward from civ2, not backwards (like some people seem to imply sometimes)...

 

[57%]

I miss the Fascist patch.

I also agree with MikeC about Civ3 feeling like it lacks polish compared to Alpha Centauri, though I wouldn't necessarily call it a lack of "polish". It feels like they settled for a level of complexity that predates Alpha Centauri, taking a whole lot of the diplomatic subtleties out, and in comparison it _feels_ less polished. I think the diplomatic interactions in Civ3 work fine, they just suffer in comparison.

But I appreciate all the new things you can choose to trade, and I like the menu-style negotiation, combined with the "What would you give me for this?" button. Their first offer is usually really close to what they would accept anyway, so I usually don't try to hardball. The way I've been playing is to sell tech to anybody who'll pay - each time I learn one I make the rounds: "What'll ya give me? OK. Moving on to the next nation..."

I _don't_ miss the caravan/freight and diplomat/spy units. I'm very glad they're gone. Why deal with all the logistics of building and transporting units over several dozen turns if you just want to re-contact a neighbor...

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by 57%
I miss the Fascist patch.

eh??? Look around in the files forums.. My my, what's this! "Fascist mod for civ3"

But I appreciate all the new things you can choose to trade, and I like the menu-style negotiation, combined with the "What would you give me for this?" button. Their first offer is usually really close to what they would accept anyway, so I usually don't try to hardball. The way I've been playing is to sell tech to anybody who'll pay - each time I learn one I make the rounds: "What'll ya give me? OK. Moving on to the next nation..."

I _don't_ miss the caravan/freight and diplomat/spy units. I'm very glad they're gone. Why deal with all the logistics of building and transporting units over several dozen turns if you just want to re-contact a neighbor...

exactly!

 

[bakant]

Double irrigation has not been lost just changed.

If you railroad a square which has irrigaiton in it increases the amount of food produced. (I think by 1)

 

[57%]

Ooooo. Thanks!



> eh??? Look around in the files forums.. My my, what's
> this! "Fascist mod for civ3"

 

[loduke]

Am I the only one who misses the abilty to make your units sleep?

I was always putting units at strategic points and making them sleep so if anyone tried to pass by, I'd know it.

It's not a major loss, but I do miss it.

 

[guardianciv3]

Just started playing but I miss the ability to counter attack from a city without having to take the hex (exposing your unit next turn). Still checking out the rest but I really like the culture and diplomacy.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Oh man! Let me assure you all that I have played an astounding amount of Civ2. And yet not once have I ever caused, had or seen a civil war take place. I have conquered and conquered, taken capital after capital, and not once have I got this. I remember reading about it... I feel like I missed out on an experience!

What I think I miss the most is utterly destroying the Spanish. Oh how I hated the Spanish...:slay:

 

[57%]

I think the nations whose capital was being captured had a higher chance of civil war if they had a lot of cities, so if you stomped through a nation normally through attrition it was unlikely to happen. But if you landed an invasion force right on, say Washington D.C. and took it first, you might cause a civil war.

 

[Wolfshanze]

The official Civ3 Fascist Patch (from the author of the official Civ2 Fascist Patch), can be found at:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/sgt_stryker/homepage.htm

Personally, I miss the firepower system in Civ2... we're back to the Civ1 days of warriors and hoplites destroying modern armored tanks!!!