Why Civ2 is better than Civ3

DrFell · January 26, 2002, 12:07

I posted the following in Civfan in a Civ3/Civ2 poll (civ3 was winning) I'd like to see what you all think of this, I don't think I included all the problems but it expresses my general feelings:

A lot of people here seem to be the kind who played civ2, but never played MP, or who are new to the game. For this reason I'll resist the temptation to scream my head off at the results of the poll, and will go through a couple points that I feel make civ2 the far superior game.

1 - Strategic flexibility: Civ2 presented the player with many options all throughout the game. What government to go for? What techs to research? Who to attack, what cities to attack, where to explore, where to expand, how many cities to build, what units to build, what wonders to build, when and which improvements to build, and many more. Civ3 includes many of these choices, but others have been removed or the impact of choosing one over another has been dulled.

For example, now, when a player's capital is captured, it automatically moves to another usually nearby city. In civ2, the only way you could do this is if you had at least 1000 gold - it cost to relocate after your capital was captured. I have devastated many a civ and won many games by capturing my opponent's capital. It gives an important city to go for in an attack, one that can cripple the opponent if they lose it and thus a lot of strategic planning can go into taking and holding an opponents capital city and/or his wonder city. In civ3, it'll just relocate, so the only strategically important cities are the wonder cities. To make matters worse, cities culturally swap so easily that there will be no point trying to hold the city, it is far better just razing the city instead, thus the strategy involved in holding the city is removed too.

Second, wonders have been limited too. In civ2, a lot of planning went into making sure you have enough caravans to build a wonder when you get the tech for it. In civ3, now there is no such choice. The only way to plan for a wonder is to prebuild some shields towards the wonder. Even doing this it just means the person who got to work on the wonder first is going to finish it, unless you get really lucky and get a great leader. So basically it means the person who is in the lead in tech is going to finish wonders first, and a lot of that can go down to luck in start position. Not good.

Another strategically limiting factor is the lack of choice in techs. Now tech is split into several ages, artificially limiting the number of choices that you can make. As an example of what I used in civ2, in 2x2x small map duels, my tech path was horseback riding -> ceremonial burial -> alphabet -> code of laws -> monarchy, and afterwards in some cases warrior code -> feudalism -> chivalry. Now in civ3, the latter two techs would be put into the medieval era, thus I could not choose to research them. Thus, my choice of tech path is being artificially limited by the game, I need 15-20 other techs just so that I can go for these! An artificial limit with no reason behind it. And tech research is so slow, I am going to be forced to research a lot of techs that I have no use for whatsoever simply to get to what I want.

Another to look at is governments. In civ2, monarchy/republic were huge improvements over despotism, and the early game choice was to go for either monarchy, or republic. It was a long time before it was decided which government was the best to go for, and as it happens, it matters on the situation that you are in. However, in civ3, there is no reason to ever go for monarchy, as despotism is a far superior wartime government. Republic is not a very good one to go for either, due to the amount of time it takes to get there, due to the fact that you still have enormous corruption in it, and due to the fact that you cannot go to war without huge unhappiness penalties, even in a defensive war. Thus your choices are being hurt right from the start.

Another problem I will go through is roads. Roads are important in both civ2 and civ3 for transport and trade. They were also useful in attacking a civ - take control of their roads in an attack and you can capture cities much faster. However, in civ3 even this has been removed. Now you cannot use roads very effectively in an attack regardless of what the opponent does, because it's in his culture boundary. Thus the opponent can just sit there, taking no precautions, and be secure in the knowledge that you cannot blitz through his civ unless you have hundreds of fast units. Not a good thing in my opinion, because it has again taken some of the planning and strategy out of the game. Many games I have won and lost by taking or losing control of my road network.

Yet another problem is cities. In civ2, it was generally a good thing to have more cities. There are ways of building up a few cities to large size and high trade/production rapidly, but generally the best way to win is to have plenty of cities. It's your call weather you build 20 or 100. In civ3, there is no such flexibility. There is a fixed number of cities which is ideal depending on the size of the map, or if you're in despotism all you have to do is build hundreds of cities and rush out the units/improvements.

A final problem I will go through is culture. Culture is a great idea at first glance. Playing the actual game though, you realise there are problems. Why bother capturing a city when three turns later it's going to revolt? Why bother garrisoning a captured city with ten units when it can still revolt and you can lose virtually all you army? There should be no way a city with half as many military units in it never mind with twice it's population in units should be able to revolt - how would the population pull this off? The game should be called Genocide 3 really, as all I do when I go to war is raze cities unless I can blitz through my opponents empire in a few turns! Sure I feel like I'm controlling an empire, the Mongol empire or the Huns, not the Babylonians or Chinese! Not like in Civ2 when an opponents captured empire would be very beneficial to my production and it generally wasn't a great thing to destroy all their cities. Culture could be implemented well, but in my opinion it should be done in such a way that undefended cities are the only ones that can flip, and other cities generate partisan type units appropriate to the technology of the invaded civ (for example warriors, archers, knights, etc). This would give you a reason to garrison cities and slow down invasions without making city capture pointless.

2 - Suitability for MP - Ok, civ2 wasn't the most ideal game for multiplay. A lot of people might find it slow/boring although certain settings can help alleviate that problem. A lot of people here seem to think that civ3 is going to be a great game for multiplay. However, in my opinion this is not going to be the case, for several reasons.

First, the game is slow. I've played 7 player medium map games in MP, and the wait between turns can become almost unbearable. There's nothing worse than waiting a few minutes in the early game just to move a couple units, and waiting 10-20 minutes in the later game waiting for players to move. Civ2 ran like the wind on my pc, but civ3 is slow even in single play. There was a simultaneous play option, but it was poorly implemented (the host players units could move faster and wipe out your army before you even got a chance to move) and required a few modifications to the game files. I dread to think what multiplay will be like in civ3 - I don't want to be waiting 20 minutes in the early game!

Another problem is the lack of strategic choices - the way the game is set up there is much less of a gap between good players and beginners, which is a bad thing in my opinion. Look at the previous section for examples of this.

Strategic resources cause a problem now too. Too much of the game now goes down to start position alone, which is really bad. Start positions were a major source of complaint in civ2, but now, imagine the advantage if you by chance get control of all the iron on the map. I for one would never trade it, I'd simply build hundreds of swordsmen and start conquering. There is nothing my opponents can do about it either, I will dominate the game early on. And it is harder to catch up in techs too, because diplomats have been removed. That's okay in SP, but disaster in MP as without trading there is no way to get the techs you need.

Summary: Civ2 in general offers far more choices to the player than civ3. Although civ3 offers many new features, most of them are not implemented well and thus they do not add to the game and in some cases can seriously detract from the enjoyment. Because of how slow the game runs and because of the limited strategic choices and poorly implemented features of the game, it will not without considerable modifications be viable for multiplay.

DrSpike · January 26, 2002, 13:30

I am enjoying civ3, and I think I will play it for a few months yet. However, I have to agree with virtually all your points comparing propensity for strategy in the 2 games.

One further point which isn't in your extensive discussion: some civvers didn't like the power of ICS, and some didn't like the power of wlt*d. It often seems to me that there is little realisation of the balance between these two factors. In civ2 the choice is between a smaller builder empire and a larger, less advanced empire (as you mention), with no out of context evaluation of the better of the two strategies possible. Civ3 tries to remove both (ICS through corruption), to retain balance. However a cursory glance a the mechanics of the game will show ICS is alive in spirit through pop rushing, with no corollary in terms of the builder game. In SP you can play as you like, if you want to enjoy the game fully you can choose not to rush your opponent into oblivion. In MP rushing will be the only option. I am open-minded about civ3 MP, and will try it when it comes out. But I too don't see how it will work.

Dinkeldog · January 28, 2002, 06:24

Hmmm, I'll have to disagree wholly.

Civ 2 bores me to tears. I can't stand to play more than 10 minutes without turning the game off in disgust. Civ 2 doesn't give me a strategy game, it lets me win <=> I have grassland with some hills for mining. Terrain in the game is always a penalty. In addition, there's really only one strategy--go out and beat up anyone near you and take their cities. If you get bored moving units around to wage a mindless war, keep building a huge army and go for spaceship. Otherwise go for a conquest victory. Civ 2 isn't a good wargame, but insists that it is.

Not that Civ 3 isn't without problems, but it's far superior to Civ 2 in the ways that matter to me.

PS, if you're having problems with culture flipping, try building up some libraries and temples in your own cities.

DrFell · January 28, 2002, 09:19

'it lets me win'

Not in multiplay it doesn't. Give me a game, I can guarantee you will lose. However good you are, in multiplay there is always someone who can at least challenge you. Anyone can beat an AI.

'Civ 2 isn't a good wargame, but insists that it is'

No it doesn't, it doesn't even call itself a wargame. And civ3 is not better. What do you need for conquest in civ3? A bunch of fast units, like horsemen, knights, or cavalry. Just go out and start conquering, you lose only a couple units destroying a whole empire. At least civ2 you had to worry about stacking and defending your troops. In civ3, just pile them all outside the city, NO defensive units needed. Plus conquering an empire in civ3 is just a case of going through city by city razing each one. In civ2 you had targets like the capital to go for.

'if you're having problems with culture flipping, try building up some libraries and temples in your own cities.'

I rush temples and libraries in my building up phase. My strategy is much simpler than what I used in civ2. Just build up cities and culture, build barracks and units, then go kill the nearest and weakest empire with the best land. After you've done that, you're the top civ in the world with most land, assuming you're trading techs with everyone then you are richest and most advanced too. Civ3 is not a difficult game.

DrFell · January 28, 2002, 09:22

And why was this moved to this forum? No one's going to read it here.

Th0mas · January 28, 2002, 09:26

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
And why was this moved to this forum? No one's going to read it here.

.....This smells of Conspiracy!

DrSpike · January 28, 2002, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dinkeldog
Hmmm, I'll have to disagree wholly.

In addition, there's really only one strategy--go out and beat up anyone near you and take their cities

This just isn't true. Despite the dearth of victory conditions in civ3 it is much less flexible. You _have_ to fight an early war to keep up on the higher levels in civ3. Good players can beat deity in civ2 with 1 city or 100, with most (certainly not all) of the early landings from perfectionist players.

I agree civ2 deity is easier to beat (certainly at the moment, but we have had 5 years or so), but this is just due to the simplified nature of the gameplay. Also, MP civ3 looks unpromising.

ColdWizard · January 28, 2002, 13:30

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
And why was this moved to this forum? No one's going to read it here.

all game comparing threads belong in the Apolyton/Community forum (by decree of the Admin)

DrFell · January 28, 2002, 16:08

Yes, but it's written for Civ3 players about Civ3, and since none of them come here none of them are going to see it, so it belongs in Civ3 general.

ColdWizard · January 28, 2002, 21:51

i agree with you, but the owners have made up their minds on this issue (though you could attempt to persuade them).

at this point, i would like to post back on topic, as i wouldn't want it closed due to this side issue. however, i have very little to add to what the two doctors (DrFell and DrSpike) have already posted.

civ2 seems to have numerous paths to a limited choice of victory, civ3 seems to have few paths to numerous choices of victory.

Ironikinit · January 29, 2002, 01:07

Well, Dr Fell, should I cross post my responses to your post?

To another doctor:

"You _have_ to fight an early war to keep up on the higher levels in civ3. Good players can beat deity in civ2 with 1 city or 100, with most (certainly not all) of the early landings from perfectionist players."

I do believe that the one city challenge on deity level in Civ III has been met. While winning on deity (and all levels, for that matter) via early aggression is certainly popular, it is not the only way to win. How are you supposed to do it if you're the only one on your continent, anyway?

DrSpike · January 29, 2002, 08:21

Good points. OCC has been done, though to my knowledge only on the smaller maps. You need to consider that Ribannah, Solo, Samson and the others landed in civ2 in approx. 1500AD with one city. This rivals most players multi-city landings. It's just not the same with civ3 due to the tech cap, and I suspect it never will be. OCC is still fun, but there can be no argument that 20 cities beats 1 in civ3.

Also, my point was mostly to dispute dinkeldog's claim that being a conqueror was the only way to play in civ2. Despite it's roads to victory IMO civ3 (at least at the higher levels) is less flexible (as Drfell and I have previously posted). Perhaps time a greater skill will show more flexibility, but I don't believe it will reach the level of flexibility in civ2.

Aeson also opined to me (quite correctly) in another thread that early conquering wasn't absolutely necessary. It helps a great deal though, even if conquest/domination are not your goals. And as for the island thing I can't comment, I lost the only deity game I started on an island.

Not sure whether that shows the correctness of my earlier post or my ineptitude as a civver. I'm sure technique will advance, and deity island starts will be won (mine was room for 5 or 6 cities, with no little islands in range for the early naval vessels - navigation is a long way away), but the one sure conclusion is that they make it a hell of a lot harder.

DrFell · January 29, 2002, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I'm sure technique will advance, and deity island starts will be won (mine was room for 5 or 6 cities, with no little islands in range for the early naval vessels - navigation is a long way away), but the one sure conclusion is that they make it a hell of a lot harder.

Island starts on deity are extremely difficult, because you cannot trade techs, if you can't trade techs then you are going to fall hopelessly behind. Yes, of course you cannot go for navigation either, which is ridicuolous. I'd like to know why construction, currency and horseback riding are neccessary for navigation? It doesn't make sense at all splitting the tech tree into ages. That was a great thing about Civ2 - if you wanted to go for war techs, you could. If you wanted to go for explorers and ships, you could. If you wanted to go republic/monotheism etc you could. You could tailor your civ much more to fit the situation. But thanks to the new limitations in civ3, you cannot, and if you start on an island by yourself on deity, you are basically doomed.

Ironikinit · January 29, 2002, 10:18

I don't play on deity, but I've scored the Lighthouse on emperor.

Since the OCC has been done, maybe a deity island start is the ticket for those who enjoy such things. Should be quite a challenge, don't you think?

Hey, does anybody hear a broken
record?
record?
record?

Why was warrior code needed for iron working in Civ II? What does gunpowder have to do with electricity? How does pottery + engineering = sanitation? If you're going to rip on Civ III for its tech tree, you might take a critical look at Civ II's.

The ages thing... limits the cheap exploits players pulled in civ 2. You know, like knowing how to make gunpowder but not how to build a bridge.

DrFell · January 29, 2002, 13:19

'Why was warrior code needed for iron working in Civ II? What does gunpowder have to do with electricity? How does pottery + engineering = sanitation? If you're going to rip on Civ III for its tech tree, you might take a critical look at Civ II's.'

Sanitation = *Medicine* and Engineering - that seems logical considering sanitation allows you to build sewer systems, requiring engineering, and the connection to medicine is obvious. Pottery is not needed.

Electricity = Metallurgy + Magnetism - This seems perfectly logical, if you look at the way the first batteries were made, and how electricity was initially generated. Gunpowder is a prequisite for metallurgy, which is logical too.

Iron Working = Warrior Code + Bronze Working - perhaps slightly less logical, but it's only one tech extra needed to research, as opposed to going down three different unrelated tech paths just to get to navigation.

'The ages thing... limits the cheap exploits players pulled in civ 2. You know, like knowing how to make gunpowder but not how to build a bridge.'

What's wrong with that? The Incas build fine buildings, had a huge empire, advanced farming techniques, and achieved many remarkable things all without writing or an alphabet. The native americans started using gunpowder weapons before they ever had construction certainly. What is stopping a civilisation from knowing how to make gunpowder, if they can't build bridges? All the examples you gave above in civ2 were reasonable as the technologies were required as a stepping stone to acquire previous techs. Face it, the ages system is unrealistic and unneccesary.

DrSpike · January 29, 2002, 15:01

I don't think there's much point opening up any realism debates. Drfell's point as it stood earlier seemed to be that flexibility was hampered, reducing propensity for skilled decision-making. I would have to agree with that.

Martinus Magnificus · January 30, 2002, 12:39

I have to agree with DrFell.

If only civ2 had better graphics, a political/military border system, a more complex diplomacy system, a more advanced combat system (where units could retreat out of combat) and a diplomatic victory option........

What I'm trying to say is that I (and many others) hoped for a game that would incorporate all the good stuff of civ2 and SMAC, and add some great new features. Civ3 as it is, is not like that at all. It's basically CTP 2a. And I'm not even talking about the unfinished editor, no flat maps, no fixed civ starting locations on earth maps... etc. etc. (see the other threads for these things).
That's not my point here. It's that civ3 is NOT civ2+.
(I realize that some of you never wanted civ3 to be an enhanced version of civ2, but I do!)

Maybe I'll ask the dark side for a member pass soon......

No, serious, I don't think that I will be playing civ3 much longer (and I'm only playing it for a month now!)....

Trifna · January 30, 2002, 15:14

Personnally, I think that the more evolved of all civ-type games is Alpha Centauri. For many reasons such as the way political system worked. But SMAC is close to a gaidan (a title exterior to the series) if we compare it to History-like civs.

Seeker · February 2, 2002, 23:29

What I wanted out of Civ 3, was, essentially, Civ 2 but fixed.

Fixed so that the AI can use carriers, subs work more realistically, fixed so that units besides howitzers are necessary, fixed so that the AI will attack in groups, no more suicidal destoyers/knights...bigger maps, more civs to choose from, more techs, more units, more everything!!

Well I got LESS of everything, + culture flipping, + no historical starts, + stupid air units, + no scenarios, + turns that crawl...

Some awful people wanted more revolutionary changes:
-simultaneous turns for MP
-resources.
-market economy.
I think Civ III should have essentially copied the Imperialism model for trade and resources. But instead it's like this: There is 3-4 sources of steel. Get one and you supply all your needs. Miss it, and your out of luck.

MP: I also see Civ III MP being really bad. The turns will be really long, and there is almost zero chance of a player in 2nd place beating or getting an advantage over the strongest player. He can't sneak a wonder. He can't pursue a funky tech path to give himself an advantage in a particular area.

Why would you stick around in a game of Civ III once someone has more cities, more resources, and a 2-3 tech advantage? Maybe something stupid like you suddenly have the only uranium in the world...but that's retarded.

I love SMAC. SMAC would've made a great Civ III, especially if they added simultaneous turns.

Case · February 3, 2002, 01:15

For me one word sums up Civ 2's superiority over Civ 3: scenarios Civ 2's got 'em, Civ 3 dosn't

Skanky Burns · February 3, 2002, 04:33

As it stands now, I would (unfortunately) have to give the title to Civ 2. It actually fosters a community - what with scenarios, multiplayer, etc.

However, when Firaxis actually get around to finishing the game, Civ 3 will easily claim the title

Henrik · February 3, 2002, 04:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Case
For me one word sums up Civ 2's superiority over Civ 3: scenarios Civ 2's got 'em, Civ 3 dosn't

Agreed!
I will probably never get civ 3 for this very reason...

DrFell · February 5, 2002, 09:54

'What I wanted out of Civ 3, was, essentially, Civ 2 but fixed.'

Me too, and a lot of MP players/long time civers were thinking the same thing, it seems.

'MP: I also see Civ III MP being really bad. The turns will be really long, and there is almost zero chance of a player in 2nd place beating or getting an advantage over the strongest player. He can't sneak a wonder. He can't pursue a funky tech path to give himself an advantage in a particular area.

Why would you stick around in a game of Civ III once someone has more cities, more resources, and a 2-3 tech advantage? Maybe something stupid like you suddenly have the only uranium in the world...but that's retarded.'

Exactly, and the main problem I have with civ3. I had so many tactics in 2, which won't work now. That in itself isn't bad, but there isn't much flexibility in the game as it is. In civ2 in most cases I went horse->monarchy->trade->chivalry. But not always, in some games you won't get the wonders first, so go horse->monarchy->chivalry instead. Or even to math and catapults. Or seafaring for explorers to walk into my opponents undefended cities. Or diplos to steal his techs. But there aren't anywhere near as many choices in civ3.

Dr Strangelove · February 6, 2002, 10:08

The corruption factor for civilizations with more cities than the permissable limits is a major drawback. Firaxis might just as well have removed the "victory by conquest" option, because unless a player manages to conquer all the other civs at a very early stage of the game the level of corruption in the extra cities he conquers will eventually bog him down, since maintainence in the conquered cities will have to be paid by his own cities. Let's face it, many of us play Civ to satisfy our "inner megalomaniac", so without world conquest Civ looses its appeal.