So...

Kyle · December 9, 2001, 02:38

Who else has completely ignored Civ3 since getting EU 2?

uglyduck · December 9, 2001, 10:22

I ignored Civ3 and EU2 hasnt been released here yet!

uh Clem · December 9, 2001, 12:42

I've been going back and forth. But leaning slightly more to EU2.

ravagon · December 10, 2001, 03:48

Quote:

Originally posted by uglyduck
I ignored Civ3 and EU2 hasnt been released here yet!

EU2 developers/testers etc don't count

Without a scenario editor civ3 just doesn't have much appeal.
EU2 I'm salivating over - or I will be when it gets here

yin26 · December 10, 2001, 04:27

While it sounds like EU2 needs to have some AI tweaks, we know one thing: Paradox is competent enough to do them and make gamers happy!

Civ3? Once they get an installer that 'grabs the right .exe,' it might have an outside chance at hitting only slightly below the marks of tedious and vapid.

uglyduck · December 10, 2001, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by ravagon

EU2 developers/testers etc don't count

Without a scenario editor civ3 just doesn't have much appeal.
EU2 I'm salivating over - or I will be when it gets here

I didnt try Civ3 because I got burnt out with playing civ2/CTP2/AC
I just couldnt see how Civ3 could be different enough to further interest me.
EU2 will hold me because it makes EU1 look like a demo!
EU3 will have to be different though - something like the Roman Empire or the Crusades.
By the time you get it in Oz it will be a lot more playable than the "too early release" version in NA.
Patch No2 to the NA version should arrive back from Strategy First next week. It makes a very big difference.............