WOW big difrance between CIV2 and 3

Ace4nyC

Warlord
Joined
Nov 10, 2003
Messages
141
Location
NYC !!! Duh
My Computer kinda blew up so i pluged in my old one in and installed civ 2 on it... the graphics are so premtive and the game is too easy i started on monarch on gaint content is is all of mine production is quick ! turns are even quicker !!


Civ sure came long way back from intl 2 days =\
 
There is a gigantic difference. I hated it when my armor attacked a walled city defended by a phalanx and lost. :mad:
 
now your tank can attack a walled city defended by a spearman and lose ;)
 
Originally posted by Hygro
now your tank can attack a walled city defended by a spearman and lose ;)

damn it, i hope thois isnt going to turn into one of those threads again.

actually civ3's combat system seemed to me to be a bit more balanced than the civ3 one. while the civ3 one is utterly ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by Sarevok
actually civ3's combat system seemed to me to be a bit more balanced than the civ3 one. while the civ3 one is utterly ridiculous.

Huh? :confused:

I don't play Civ2 very much, but occasionally will fire up Civ1. . .
 
In actuality, Spearman-beating-Tank type of events are commoner in Civ3 than in Civ2 due to drastically lowered HP counts.

The Civ2 AI being rather inferior to the Civ3 one, it's no surprise if Civ2 seems very easy to someone used to Civ3.

Edit: Added missing word.
 
Originally posted by Masquerouge


He was just being sarcastic about the debate "tank vs Spearman", which has a long history of sparking controversy on this forum. :)

He said "Civ3" three times, and didn't compare it to any other. Unless he meant to do that. . . .
 
and me, please tell us what you mean
 
Originally posted by Masquerouge


Ho, you got the joke, I see ? :D

i don't get it
 
Top Bottom