Is it over now?

Rasbelin · November 9, 2001, 10:51

Suddenly the Civ II forums have turned into
tombs. Is there anything left? Is the game now over?

The release of Civ III has literally silenced Civ II
forums of ACSF. Well, some new messages isn't
anything to cheer for.

Has everyone now abandonded Civ II in US?

O' how I start to mis the good old day of ACS and Civ II...

Juggler · November 9, 2001, 12:27

The Civ2 forums started losing posters when Civ3 general discussions opened (before the release of the game), at least that's my impression.
I still remember these forums being full of posters when I logged in back in april.

Marquis de Sodaq · November 9, 2001, 12:32

Yes, the virtual crickets are chirping in the CivII forums. As soon as Civ3 was released, the silence fell - both because many are now obsessed with the new game and because those of us without it can't post. Almost daily I get kicked out because the "server is too busy." I've just gone over to civfanatics instead.

Scouse Gits · November 9, 2001, 13:25

In the UK we can't buy Civ 3 yet. As Marquis says posting here is now difficult. I tried for nearly an hour to reach the Forums on Wednesday.

------------

SG(2)

shade · November 9, 2001, 13:51

I'd say wait till newyear,by then the hype will have cooled down,and there again will be more posts on this forum.
(also the "server to busy" will have stoped I hope)

Shade

Rasbelin · November 9, 2001, 15:37

It's actually a bit sad that people have abandoned
good old Civ II. It's of course true that signs of this
were already visible before the release, but after
30th October there has been a huge drop in Civ II
discussion visitors. It's like after an inferno.

I suppose my The era of Civilization II column
didn't even catch so much discussion as many
other good columns. And that too just because
of the bad day of publishment of my article.

Should I try to write a second Civ II column
that would reflect the difference between these
two Civ eras? Perhaps that could draw some
attention to good ol' Civ II...

granite00 · November 9, 2001, 16:46

I'm sticking with Civ II until the dust settles from the Civ III release. By the looks of the Civ III Forums, that will be quite a while.

Ecthy · November 9, 2001, 16:53

Civ2 will always survive in our memories and hearts

Civ3 probably won't ...

Rasputin · November 9, 2001, 18:13

eventually civ 2 will become jsut a fond memorie like other great 80's games.. it will probalby be relegated to another forum instead of its own, sharing with the CTP games perhaps... But that wont happen till Civ 3 MP coems out, till then civ 2MP forum will continue to thrive...

The ANZAC · November 9, 2001, 22:47

Until sufficiently good scenario editing tools and multiplayer capability are brough to Civ3, Civ2 will never die out. And even if these things are done, Civ2 will always be a classic. Also, I still don't have Civ3 and I live in the US

Rasbelin · November 10, 2001, 05:17

I think ANZAC is right. It's good to remember that
the development of Civ II to it's final stage
took many years, so Civ III will also have to face
many updates and MP support patch or add-on.

The ANZAC · November 10, 2001, 10:14

I can't see why the CIv2 forums have completely drained. Don't people still like creating and playing scenarios and Mulitplayer/PBEM games? That's why I think Civ2 still has life, as I said before.

ColdWizard · November 10, 2001, 17:03

i post here as much as i ever did, at least when the server's not busy. i think that's part of the reason its been so quiet lately. who wants to try to post and get a server too busy message?

Lars-E · November 11, 2001, 09:49

Rasbelin,

I miss the good old days too if that's a comfort... The civ3 release should have been stalled so we could have more time to enjoy civ2... They should have waited and included MP, but I guess it's just a question of making big bucks.

Civ3 is available in stores in 5 days where I'm at...I'll buy it, but civ2 still rules IMO. Civ1 was the best (city view graphics).

Rasbelin · November 11, 2001, 17:11

I have owned the game for 3 days now, but I
have only played it for 15 minutes.

H Tower · November 11, 2001, 19:19

i've kinda abandoned the civ2 forums here b/c the ones at civ fanatics have a lot more traffic...

Deathwalker · November 12, 2001, 02:39

Yeah, in England we still are waiting for the game

But given what I've read about Civ3 and it lack of scemario tools, I'm not even sure about it any more

Julius Brenzaida · November 12, 2001, 04:42

Civ2 still lives and the forum should survive.
But the server is too busy to post ...

I think that in a few months the hardcore fans will still be there

It is not over yet

La Fayette · November 13, 2001, 22:26

I go on playing civ2 day and night as usual (and there is no release date for civ3 given anywhere close to my place).
The lovely message 'server too busy' is the only reason why I almost stopped posting during the last fortnight.
IMO Dan and Mark have taken some drastic and useful measures to improve the availability of the access and the situation is much better now.
Therefore I am planning to start playing MP with my friend SlowThinker very soon (that's going to be an investment since I use to have about 1/2h afterthoughts before any move and I suppose he has at least 2h

).

Laertes · November 22, 2001, 10:28

I got Civ3 recently (Sat - 5 days ago) and it is damn frustrating, so I am still playing Civ 2 when I want to have a full long game, or when I need a break.

The Civ 3 forums are pretty empty in terms of content - nobody seems to have figured a lot out yet. Lots of threads with no replies, and most with less than 10.

I guess all the Civ2 giants are getting to grips with it! I'll just wait till they figure it all out,and copy!

The ANZAC · November 22, 2001, 10:37

Yeah, a lot has changed and is different. Some things are annoying like not being able to rush build. So it is possible to play both at the same time and I think a lot of people will until it has been figured out.

Rasputin · November 22, 2001, 12:25

you can rush build.....

The ANZAC · November 23, 2001, 10:47

Then is it beacuase it's the beginning of the game, I can't rush build with money, but kill people instead to complete a job. What is this?

Laertes · November 23, 2001, 11:15

At the risk of completely being off-topic in this forum, you can only rush build in despotism by cruelly driving your citizens to complete the project, so some of them get upset and leave. This must be in the manual somewhere, because I would not have figured it out.

Rasputin · November 25, 2001, 06:11

Quote:

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Then is it beacuase it's the beginning of the game, I can't rush build with money, but kill people instead to complete a job. What is this?

governments types influence whether it costs money or lives !!!

shade · November 25, 2001, 07:17

Quote:

governments types influence whether it costs money or lives !!!

so this shows a more civilized approach in civ2 and a more realistic one in civ3.
I've already read some nasty drawbacks on the civ3 forum,so I'm getting more and more conviced to wait before buying civ3.

Shade

Rasbelin · November 25, 2001, 11:10

Civ II is still so much more customisible than Civ III, so it apparently fits better for scenario making, at least for the moment. We have also been able to play Civ II for 5 years, so we're also much more used to it. Not to mention Civ's 10 years.

Brian Bergs · November 27, 2001, 18:58

Well, I've tried CIV 3. It leave a lot to be desired. Some of the graphics are very good, some like the battles are just plain dumb.

It has not sucked me in like Civ 2.

I like each civilization having some kind of competitive edge to begin with in Civ 3.

The terrain maps tend to confuse me a bit and I don't like the dull color in Civ 3.

Overall, I will still be playing a lot of Civ 2.

MattyBoy · November 29, 2001, 00:13

When I first had Civ I demonstrated to me by an ardent, articulate fan I thought

"You call that a game

"
Much later, he installed it on my machine and showed me how to play it and I thought "I guess I'll fiddle with this for half an hour" and I didn't think much of it. But how come his approach worked so much better than mine did, so I saved and restarted and tried something else...

Many turns later I bought and installed Civ II and it was just Civ I with no real improvements, just more complex and the fun was diluted a bit by more technologies, more this-n-that - a pretty weak follow up to the best game ever. So, after an hour, I left it for a year or so. But when I later played it for real it turned out to be a better game with subtle improvements.

Nowadays, it looks like others are going through the same slow startup with Civ 3. Maybe in a year, I'll get a copy and give it a try.
(but then I might never want to play SMAX again

)

Laertes · December 4, 2001, 10:43

Well, Civ 2 is still doing it for me, even though I am playing Civ 3 in parallel.

I have just won a game at Deity where I decided, for the first time, to go for the Super Ironclad win, and boy did I have fun. After a good start with Rivers and Pheasants, I expanded rapidly, to about 15 cities, and got the requisite wonders with a massive caravan campaign.

I had discovered the Indians and Vikings (on the same continent, fighting each other and small) and the Americans (growing fast, different continent).

I wiped out the Indians and Vikings with vet Knights and diplos. I built an absolute swarm of Ironclads, about 50 by the end, so many that I could not keep a sufficient convoy of galleons with city-taking ground troops to take all the cities I bombarded. The US and the recently discovered Greeks built almost all their cities on the coast.

The only drawback was that I got so bored moving Ironclads around my large map, that I was tempted to give up, as nobody else was close to discovering Gunpowder, the only thing that could stop me (I had resisited discovering it so that it could not be stolen from me).

So I can still have fun at Civ2, whilst struggling to survive the Middle Ages in Monarch on Civ3!!