Civ2,I'm sorry,will you take me back?

Smash · December 1, 2001, 18:05

My dearest,
I have been a fool.Her attraction was....shallow,lustful.She is cheap and tawdry.You are true...I see that now.How could I have been so foolish?.I threw away years of bliss for a few nights of empty passion.I tryed to love her,but it was you that was on my mind.She is a CtP,SMAC whore!
When they made you,they broke the mold.
You're the best baby..that mp thing you do....nothing comes close.
The way you shake your OCC....
Forgive me darling,I am empty without you....give me a chance to prove my love....

Always,
Smash

>it is worth picking up(3),just make sure its not the only game you have

War4ever · December 1, 2001, 21:06

ROTFLMAO........ that sums up exactly how i feel about civ3...and my betrayal of civ2 for her two week affair

this is a classic

Scouse Gits · December 1, 2001, 23:42

Sob, sob …gulp…wipes tears from eyes…. and I thought I was the only one to think like that

I have had little time to play recently but Civ 3 has not grabbed me! Part of this is related to computer problems. Running the game on a Pentium 350 with only 64MB of memory can be slow punctuated with frequent crashes!

My main criticism of the game is this. I don't feel I'm running an Empire.
Playing Civ 2 I could make things happen, not wait for x number of turns to have some plastic faced cultural advisor to tell me that the borders of my estate were rolling forward. In the terms of another game I love … Bridge … it's like playing without being able to trump an opponent's ace.

I believe the designers of Civ 3 have been reading Apolyton too much! They have made a list of the tactics and strategies we use and thought, "We won't let them do this and that". The result is a random mess that doesn't pass as a strategic experience. Civ 2 allowed your nation to focus on the needs of the hour, like counting every beaker to ensure Monarchy in 6 turns not 7! This was real, controllable and great fun. If I wished to build a civilisation with less culture than a yoghurt pot I could!

Too many nuts and bolts of the original game have gone. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water.

What I think many of us wanted was twofold. Firstly, we wanted a better AI. There is much evidence that the Civ 3 AI is improved, but we wanted to challenge this power within the parameters of Civ 2 and not in a game so totally different. Secondly, we wanted the bugs and cheats in Civ 2 removed. (The Oedo years, the Hanging Gardens bug, the incremental rush buying … etc.) What we end up with is Civ 2 removed! I want caravans, diplomats, zones of control and the essentials of a great game made greater by modern and improved programming. I want

Civ 2.75.

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

SG(2)

SandMonkey · December 2, 2001, 00:34

It's really funny, i was going to post a thread very similar to this!

Due to some conflicts with drivers and civ3, I can't beconnected to the internet and play at the same time. So the other night I started a game of civ2. I was BLOWN AWAY by the speed in between turns. Wars were fun again. I admit, I really do like certain aspects of civ3 (culture, borders, civ-specific abilities/units, resources), but you just can't beat civ2. As a whole it's more well rounded; graphics that serve their purpose, fast enough to keep me interested, and so on. Sure, we all know how to beat it with our hands tied behind our backs, but sometimes maybe I WANT a war where I can just obliterate someone else.

Oh, and just to hit on the obvious: When I enter into a battle I should win, I do just that! No more of this losing modern units to ancient ones (civ1 anybody??).

Civ2, I

you

Smash · December 2, 2001, 03:47

hehehe.....well she ain't dead yet.Not by a long shot.

I kinda remember posting if 3 was a beefed up 2,it would fail miserably.Now I'm not so sure.
There is some good stuff in it.As mentioned,strategic resources go along way to keeping the later game somewhat interesting.You don't just research and build it.You need the raw materials.I like that.I can be way ahead in tech,but can't do anything with it unless......something that breaks up late game doldrums.
Animated units are nice to look at.
But...there are dam fine things in civ2 that have all been removed from 3.Namely Trade and espionage(so $$$ in 3 as to effectively remove it from play).
I also don;t get that empire building/managing feeling I did in 2.There is alot of "nothing really to do this turn" in 3.Many turns early are more or less -press enter.
I don't think you can win so many different ways like in civ.Not the win,but getting to it.
It is a war game with a little building thrown in.The improved diplomacy actually becomes a pain in the a$$.Buy and sell techs...the more civs,the more boring it gets.
I don't think the ai is any better or worse tactically.It just has a different set of rules to work with.Like no ZoC.This actually hurts the ai more than helps at times.They march units deep inside your land bypassing garrisons...but then they are just easy pickings...

They did spend too much time here.They just took out everything that a civ2 player uses.There is only a remnant of civ left.The rest is Ctp,SMAC and even some Age of Empires.

Give me civ2 with strategic resources,a few of the ai expansion cheats from 3, and I think I'd have something.

shade · December 2, 2001, 07:37

Sniff,sniff, that was touching...

looks like this civ2 forum will outlive the Civ3one.

Shade

Gatekeeper · December 2, 2001, 16:57

Smash, et al.:

A most fascinating look into the mind of one who was seduced by the shallow whims of the Civ III streetwalker.

As others have said, Civ III has some great things — resources, culture, UUs and borders — but it's too bad that couldn't have been incorporated while retaining more of the Civ II "feel."

CYBERAmazon

Blaupanzer · December 3, 2001, 14:54

I'm especially dismayed by the stretches of turns with nothing to do. Not only at the beginning, but at other times when the all the relevant buildings are built or being built and there is no war on my borders. Also, the massive disincentive to expand/conquer due to the extent of corruption that simply cannot be alleviated. On the plus-side, teaching the AI to ICS, creating an incentive to stack units, the idea of borders and using culture to expand them are real breakthroughs. However, eliminating the camel and the spy, forcing linear science paths, and forcing the player to fill in every empty square with useless cities or have the AI do the same were not advancements. The unit progression system is good, better than Civ 2's, although leftover longbowman and swordsman options in the days of armored vehicles seems a poorly thought out consequence.

Being a quinticential micro-manager, two other changes really bother me. One is that I can't see the progressive effects of various influences on citizen happiness. Two, I cannot determine how likely a city is to switch cultures, or what measures on my part prevent mine from going or provoke the AI's to join me. The Civ 2 sense of being the master of my empire by choosing how to spend the marginal dollars has been undermined. As a simple example, does it bother any of you that you can't see the contribution of specialist scientists on any of the screens? Or that you have to open negotiations to see info on the AI civ and existing trades you have with them, even though that would be a logical realm for your advisers?

I thought Civ 2 was too much the war game. Seeing Civ 3, I'm not yet convinced that the alternative proposed is really better. The bugs (no air superiority for the humans, silly city trades, 9999999, etc) will be fixed. But play will be the same as now if you ignore the bugs. And play alternates between tedious and interesting based almost solely on AI reactions to the player's actions. Tedious is always bad.

DaveV · December 4, 2001, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
does it bother any of you that you can't see the contribution of specialist scientists on any of the screens? Or that you have to open negotiations to see info on the AI civ and existing trades you have with them, even though that would be a logical realm for your advisers?

Yes, I really miss the F3 embassy reports in Civ2. The whole business of talking to every AI on every turn is unbearably tedius (so I don't do it

). And I'd like to see more details on citizen happiness.

I'm still having fun with Civ 3, though; maybe I haven't played enough to get bored with it yet. I do remember writing a long time ago that if the Civ 2 AI knew how to manage early-game expansion, that by itself would make it competitive. Civ III's long-term future, I think, depends on how well a scenario editor and MP is implemented.

rah · December 4, 2001, 13:25

Yes *sigh* I miss a lot form civII, especially the impact of specialists in the city screen. It bugs me that I switch it and nothing changes on the screen.

I am enjoying III though and it has a lot of potential with a few fixes, but it's just not the same. (HAVING MP WOULD HELP IMMENSELY)

Without MP I fear the replayability will be hurt considerably and it will join the stack of old games in less than 6 months. (better than a lot of games, but not as good as II )

RAH

Blaupanzer · December 5, 2001, 14:43

Be careful what you wish for. MP is going to be a real hassle, with the different civs and all. Late UUs will be useless.

Deity Dude · December 5, 2001, 21:21

I'm looking forward to civ iv.

Until then civ ii MP is the best game i have come across. i won't even bother to discuss my feeling towrds civ iii. they've all been said above and elsewhere.

SandMonkey · December 6, 2001, 20:56

well, i have ran smack dab into one of the shortcomings of civ in this game...

It's 100 AD and all of the AI's have allied against me already! It actually started in BC times, but has now encompassed all of the AI's. Kinda sucks. If the CivIII AI (which i have to admit is much better)

VetLegion · December 6, 2001, 22:16

Smash

Blaupanzer, yes, the progressive effect on hapiness bothered me too, and other things mentioned here. reputation is useless... and I dont like difficulty levels. the AI bonus should have been a slider, so players can change it from positive to negative. this way, AI is as smart on regent as it is on deity, just the bonus jumps up. but I dont want to rant here.

I just think that civ2 was a great game, a great sucessor to civ1, also a great game. how good is civ3 will be seen from the amount of time people spend playing it... I for one stopped.

DaveV, yeah. I think I voted the 'modifiable AI' in the list of fixes/suggestions for civ3. AI in civ3 is not modifiable either, and that is not the way to make a classic. patch support will end some day.

Rasputin · December 6, 2001, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Be careful what you wish for. MP is going to be a real hassle, with the different civs and all. Late UUs will be useless.

simple, dont use UU, i havent played a single game with them on ywet !!!!

solo · December 8, 2001, 17:04

I like the CivIII goto command better than the CivII goto command! It works! Add this and a few of the cool new features of CivIII into CivII and I'll start to salivate.

Seriously, I miss many of the details of CivII which vanished from the more homogenous CivIII, plus all the things mentioned above. They may be able to "fix" CivIII, so I will wait and see, but in many ways, the CivII experience was hard to improve upon. We may have had unrealistic expectations.

It looks like the main purpose of CivIII was to thwart ICS, so it is ironic that the most efficient strategies so far use a grotesque pop-rush version of ICS to beat that design bias. Which is better, an extreme strategy, or being herded like cattle to play only the way the designers wanted. Playing style was matter of free choice in CivII, with notable successes coming in many different and surprising ways. It's what made the game great.

Smash · December 8, 2001, 20:55

hehehe....I tryed to tell them their changes were just going to make ics even better than in civ2....oh well......this game definitely rewards the war mongering expansionist.Perfect for lots of small cities fast.Since you get obsene pollution from anything over size 12 it makes even more sense to cram them in.

Maybe they'll get it right again in Civ 4

shade · December 9, 2001, 07:03

It looks like the civ3 rush is wearing out.
(did a poll and got a 50/50 result (like/dislike) )
and ppl will come back here 'en mass'.

Shade

Lars-E · December 9, 2001, 08:40

That's right shade.

I'm back for civ2 too.

Bought civ3 the 17th of Nov - the day after it's release in Scandinavia, but haven't really looked much into it. So I guess my opinion isn't very qualified. Anyways here's my first impressions:

Don't like those little scrolls with info. Scrolls seem to be a trend/popular thing in new games. Unfortunately civ3 had to go along..And the unit graphics - nice movement and all - but too tiny!!

I'm sure the game would have been more appealing had Sid Meier had a hand in making the game - not just lending his name.

Civ2 is still great and will be for a long time..Did the same guys develop civ3??

Maybe we can hope for Sid Meier's active participation in civ4

?

I see that the civ2-strategy archives have been deleted? Anywhere I can access them?

solo · December 9, 2001, 11:21

Lars-E,

I believe the archives have been temporarily shut down because of the big slowdown on the servers here. I know for sure that use of the search function has been suspended for this reason.

In my book, every opinion has equal weight, too, and equal value. I think Sid did some playtesting, leaving most of the design decisions to others. He seemed to be more interested in his Sim Golf project.

Smash · December 9, 2001, 17:14

I've seen him say several times in print that he was done with the Civilization series.He wants to move on,blah blah blah.He has other interests and projects,blah blah blah.

Now he can say "Hey I didn't make the game"

No.Civ3 is not made by the same gang.Microprose and Firaxis.I don't know if any of the staff were involved with Microprose.By the looks of the game,I'd say there were some former SMAC and CtP people involved.

Carolus Rex · December 10, 2001, 05:29

...but I couldn't help finding the following a sad testimony of Civ 3's greatness.

Quote:

Originally posted by solo
I like the CivIII goto command better than the CivII goto command!

Heh, heh, heh! How's that for an improvement of a great game... Maybe something to put on Civ 3's tombstone? "At least it had a better goto command than Civ 2..."

Again, I should hold my silence forever or, at least, until I have played the game...

Carolus

Smash · December 10, 2001, 07:13

...and brian reynolds left just as,or just before the ball got rolling.This could not have helped the civ2 players hopes for civ3.

drake · December 11, 2001, 10:03

Rest assured my love....I have been loyal to you

La Fayette · December 11, 2001, 20:36

The best of friends is:
solo.
He sent me the game over the Atlantic (and that was badly needed since there is no civ3 coming to France before 2002).
Now I haven't even got acquainted with the goto command (...remember those bras with hidden buttons?).
Much too soon for me to say a word about pros and cons. civ3 is in front of me like a newborn infant: don't know at all whether the eyes are going to turn blue.
Anyway I never planned to throw away civ2 (so many scenarios left, and my friend Marquis is in the HoF now).
...and LOL@smash: that was nicely worded.

oedo · December 11, 2001, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
...but I couldn't help finding the following a sad testimony of Civ 3's greatness.

Heh, heh, heh! How's that for an improvement of a great game... Maybe something to put on Civ 3's tombstone? "At least it had a better goto command than Civ 2..."

nono. the tombstone will remain empty. even the goto command isn´t better. in civ2 after entering ´g´a window pops up, where you can choose the destination city.
in civ3 you will have to scroll to your destination, since there is no such window.

but you should give it a try and play a game, once you have 150 hours left

Ming · December 12, 2001, 09:52

While I like Civ III... it still has a long way to go still. And I wonder if it will ever be ready for MP. It has a lot of nice features, but it truely is a different game that just happens to have a lot of things similar to Civ II.

Maybe it's time to take a real hard look at Free Civ again. While I have not yet given it a fair chance, many indicate that it is closer to what many of us are looking for than CivIII. Plus, it's possible for them to make MANY changes still to Free Civ based on what people want.

Hmmmmm....

Smash · December 12, 2001, 18:22

has anybody had a good look at Clash?

Jaguar · December 13, 2001, 00:05

Haven't bought Civ3. I intend to though. Civ2 for 5 years was worth more than 29.99. I'll give 3 a try.

Julius Brenzaida · December 14, 2001, 08:32

Ming, you’re right on target : civ3 is a great game, too. I like it, good graphics, some nice ideas (commerce, diplomacy, golden ages), tough to play. But it should not be compared too much with civ2. They’re different, that’s it. It’s not because I play civ3 that I won’t play civ2 anymore. Hmm, spies, caravans, wonder movies, scenarios ...
Yesterday I saw civ3 to a friend and he was overwhelmed. I really think the civ2 community dreamed too much ... And there should be some times before we discover some great original strategies (at least I hope so),
Anyway, if I am still in this forum it is to enjoy civ2 and not criticize civ3. I think that civ fans should give a try to civ 3, it’s a good game and it will make them love some aspects of civ2 still better.
But, remember that perfection does not exist.
And that as Smashed put it very nicely, love lives forever.