Having a hard time shifting from Civ2 to 3

[TCO]

My sister has Civ3, so i tried it out. I had a hard time getting into it. Civ2 is more addictive.

[Ninot]

well, Civ3 is a different game. Different game have different aspects.

[Apocalypse]

Try at a lower level first to get the hang of it. Civ 3 is an aquired taste for some people, especially those who played thousands of hours of the previous civ games.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Try at a lower level first to get the hang of it. Civ 3 is an aquired taste for some people, especially those who played thousands of hours of the previous civ games.

buttermilk

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
buttermilk

[Capt Dizle]

This is what I always think of when someone says "acquired taste".

Buttermilk. Or beer.

Sorry that GP isn't flippin over Civ3. Its a sub-cultural thing.

[Coracle]

That taste I have is a lot less pleasant than beer.

Civ 3 is NOT the descendant of Civ 2. It is not only more flawed, with an irritating, dumb, and cheating AI, it is loaded with bizarre concepts such as Culture Flipping, Settler Diarrhea, Massive Corruption, etc. Plus it does not have vital elements such as scenario building, Multi Cheat, and others. It s also a step back historically. Civ 3 really should be called "Soren Johnson's Culture". I await a real Civ 3.

[TCO]

I liked Civ2. I just wanted it updated with tougher AI and new graphics. That's it!!!!!!!!!

[TCO]

I* misd my wonder mov8ies. Even 5 goin and tonicis won't make me feel beetter.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
This is what I always think of when someone says "acquired taste".

Ahh. Never tried it. Never really even had the opportunity to.

[SlowwHand]

ICS it at first of game, GP.
Plan your Golden Age.
Don't think with a MP viewpoint.

Now, you're ready.

[SlowwHand]

And lay off the juice.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Next thing you know GP you'll be whinin about the combat resolution.

Seriously if I were you I'ld wait a bit until PTW comes out maybe then it will have enuff bells and whistles to entertain you.

I know thats what I'm doing. But first I'll wait a bit and see what the general feeling is of PTW.

By the by, it takes 6 G&T's to make you forget the wonder movies and by that time your spelling is much better as well.

[frostycreep]

I must be the only soul in the world who thinks civ 3 is far superior to civ 2! I just think having country borders is the way forward as opposed to just having a collection of random cities. But saying that, everyone is entitled to there own opinion.

[SpencerH]

I never cared for the wonder movies after the first or second time so I dont miss-em.

[Incan_Warrior]

I too was a Civilization 2 hound....back in 1997. Then Heroes 2 took over my gaming life. With nearly 5 years in between I've forgotten nearly everything about Civ 2 -except for those great wonder movies (and I liked the human advisors as well)!! Nevertheless, I know that Civ 2 and 3 are very different games. I appreciate Civ 3 and can look past it's flaws...I also think that with patience most gamers would see it is a multi-faceted gem, a game that can be won with a variety of strategies. It can also be improved/altered with patches - so rather than moan and groan, be proactive about tailoring the game to your needs. Or just play Civ 2 and let the rest of us enjoy it. Coming on here and saying Civ 2 is better than Civ 3 is the same as my coming on here saying Heroes 2 is better than Civ 3 - they are two DIFFERENT games.

[Solver]

to civ 2, actually. It was not a new game!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by GP
I liked Civ2. I just wanted it updated with tougher AI and new graphics. That's it!!!!!!!!!

That really says it all. Based on this, I think it's unlikely that you will get into CivIII. It's not what you were looking for.

It would be interesting to see how CivII would play with the super expansionistic agressive wonder-building CivIII AI was somehow dropped in. I remember building nearly all the wonders in CivII on Diety while still out-expanding and out-researching the AI.

-Arrian

[SomeOneElse]

I say Civ3 is a HUGE improvement over Civ2, but something of a sideways step from SMAC. If only they had done more of what made SMAC so great, I would love it even more

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by SomeOneElse
I say Civ3 is a HUGE improvement over Civ2, but something of a sideways step from SMAC. If only they had done more of what made SMAC so great, I would love it even more

I agree

Now what the proof of the pudding will be is whether RoN is any good or not.

If RoN is awesome, and I mean revolutionarily awesome, then you will have the answer to why Civ3 did not expand on SMAC.

[SlowwHand]

III is a huge improvement over II as an SP game.
The only thing missing is MP capability.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich


I agree

Now what the proof of the pudding will be is whether RoN is any good or not.

If RoN is awesome, and I mean revolutionarily awesome, then you will have the answer to why Civ3 did not expand on SMAC.

I agree, I think Sid took SMAC and ripped what he didnt like of Brian's ideas out and added what he thought was cool.

Bottom Line:

CTP is Activision's Civ3, SMAC is BR's Civ3, Civ3 is Sid Meier's Civ 3.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
I agree, I think Sid took SMAC and ripped what he didnt like of Brian's ideas out and added what he thought was cool.

Bottom Line:

CTP is Activision's Civ3, SMAC is BR's Civ3, Civ3 is Sid Meier's Civ 3.

The problem with this is that Sid didn't make Civ3. He was mainly working on SimGolf at the time. The only thing Sid took from SMAC was the basis for the SimGolf terrain. Sid may work more on SMAC2 though.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Apoc,

I keep hearing references to Fir'x doing SMAC2. I thought I heard that Sid didn't want to do SMAC2. You got a better scoop on this?

Og

[dexters]

Civ 3 gives you a better feeling of being in control of an Empire. Civ 2, while very addictive, got tedious, especially with moving caravans around, and the ease of sending spies to buy off cities.

Strategically, it was less intricate than Civ 3.

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by Coracle
Settler Diarrhea

Care to explain that?

[Gangerolf]

deleted

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Gangerolf


Care to explain that?

It's a well known term, and easy to figure out.

It means the AI SPEWS OUT settlers all over the place in huge amounts, and they settle everywhere in a crazy land grab.

No one anymore believes the AI could fairly build all these settlers without a little cheating, in otherwords, freebies.

They settle on terrible pieces of land that can never be productive and are subject to massive corruption, although they suspiciously rarely Flip. They also are extremely hard to defend in war as they are so weak and isolated.

No real leader would ever do this - wasting his time and shields spewing out settlers all over the map lke chicken pox.

I know the land grab in some part results from absurdly low resource appearance rates, but those problems can be fixed.

The AI also sends settlers marching through my territory; you tell them to leave and they keep coming. When FINALLY it is "declare war or get out" time, they magically teleport themselves to the other side of my civ to open tiles they should not even know exist!! And that is another AI cheat.

Massive Settler Diarrhea, afflicting all civs, is absurd and profoundly irritating. At least in Civ 2 different civs expanded at different rates in different ways.

[Tuberski]

Excpet of course the human player. Who, as anybody can tell you, invented "settler diarrhea" in Civ and Civ 2.

The only problem now is that the AI does it as well, and they do it faster than human players used to do it.

[MarkG]

Coracle

At least in Civ 2 different civs expanded at different rates in different ways.

they what???

Tuberski

Who, as anybody can tell you, invented "settler diarrhea" in Civ and Civ 2.

no, no, no, *I* never used such expansionist tactics!!! NEVER!