I have recently started to re-play Civ 2 and just started to play Civ 3. However I seem to be unable to enjoy the third game as much as the second. I can't put my finger on what it is but I just don't enjoy the third game as much as the second (or even the first) civilization games. Does anyone else feel the same way?. And if so, what is it about civ 3 that makes it less fun than number two?. Civ 3 has some great features (like the graphics- some of the leaders faces are great) but I just get bored quickly when I play Civ 3. Maybe it is something about the maps?.
Why do I like Civ #2 more than Civ #3?.
- Thread starter gealai
- Start date
Yes many feel the same.
This is it:Civ3 asks the player to do much less than Civ2.Only the ancient era comes close as there is much to do early.
This brings the period of tedium on much faster than Civ2.
Thats my thoughts anyhoo.I noticed right away the ancient era of Civ3 was pretty good.After that,you(the player) find yourself sitting and watching more and more.Unable to affect.
War is good but if you are a peace lover,Civ3 is rather dull.
This is it:Civ3 asks the player to do much less than Civ2.Only the ancient era comes close as there is much to do early.
This brings the period of tedium on much faster than Civ2.
Thats my thoughts anyhoo.I noticed right away the ancient era of Civ3 was pretty good.After that,you(the player) find yourself sitting and watching more and more.Unable to affect.
War is good but if you are a peace lover,Civ3 is rather dull.
I prefer peace in Civ than War so maybe that's why I don't like it.
Oh, one other thing: You can't play a realistic game in Civ on Earth. When you do play on earth, the civilizations start in random places and not in the locations where they should start. That is certainly irritating in my opinion.
Oh, one other thing: You can't play a realistic game in Civ on Earth. When you do play on earth, the civilizations start in random places and not in the locations where they should start. That is certainly irritating in my opinion.
Civ II is faster paced. I like both games, but rather than Civ III being clearly superior they have different strengths and weaknesses, not only in the epic game but even in scenario capabilities. It's disappointing... but Civ III (fully expanded) is still a great game, and 99% of my limited gaming time goes to one or the other.
gealai said:
I also prefer peace, more because I think the spaceship goal is a greater challenge than early conquest. Even on Deity level, the AI are roadkill if you can find them early enough.
Civ 2 has the essentials well-balanced for a classic game. Civ 3 unbalanced a few things and added too much fancy graphics and interfaces. It is cute, and easier for a novice, but less appealing to the hard-core Civ 2 player.
Not to say I couldn't make a few recommendations about things I wish could be fixed/improved in Civ2...
Regarding the "realistic game on Earth", you need to say No when the setup question "Do you wish to randomize civilization's starting locations" comes up. All the standard Earth maps have starting locations for each of the civs that correspond to their actual location. Of course, this gives you a bit of an advantage if you check the Top5 cities list early - knowing which civs are in the game tells you roughly where to find them. If I'm playing for fun I randomize both the seed and the starting locations. If I'm playing for a real challenge I start somewhere like Greenland...
You make a good point ElephantU; when you play with the Civs in their real starting locations some civilizations are on less productive land than others; just as important is the fact that some are bunched close together while others have a vast area to themselves. If you play using the 'accelerated start' (so that you start on 3000 or 2000 BC) however I find these problems are somewhat reduced, particularly if you play on 2000 BC. I find that starting on 2000 BC makes for a particularly realistic game (as far as you can have a realistic game in civ).
