I've played Civ 3, but I'm back to Civ 2 - Why? - Page 2

Ming · January 25, 2003, 04:12

Yeah... Civ III just doesn't have the excitement and feel of Civ II. And I don't even want to talk about the MP

player1 · January 25, 2003, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah... Civ III just doesn't have the excitement and feel of Civ II. And I don't even want to talk about the MP

Yeah!
That feel of taking out stupid AI with Howitzers.

Or playing nice looking scenarios which are so easy becasue of so bad diplo/unit moving AI.

No, I don't miss it at all.

P.S.
Although it does feel nice to take out enemy Pikemen with Tanks.

player1 · January 25, 2003, 09:10

Still MP is pretty OK, if you hose rule BAN of Diplo units.

Man, they are more powerful then nukes.

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 17:28

if you what??????

SCG · January 25, 2003, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
if you what??????

I think he's saying to use a house rule to eliminate certain diplomat abilities

War4ever · January 25, 2003, 18:39

oh, sorry i didn't understand from his post..yes that is a good idea, dips are overpowered

ellie · February 2, 2003, 22:09

I still play civ2. Its a great game, although diplomacy is tooo predictable.

Im pretty hoked on alpha centauri as well atm.

I got civ3, and i was amazed it managed to slow down my husbands high spec pc!!.

I was also disgusted the first time a samurai cut my tanks to pieces.

Personally i think with civ3 presentation and general graphics got precedence over more important issues.

Ellie

Static Universe · February 12, 2003, 22:17

[

Quote:

Originally posted by ellie

I was also disgusted the first time a samurai cut my tanks to pieces.

Just reading this one sentence, I am suddenly so glad I never bought this game when it came out. I came pretty close too.

Of course, I sent my Civ III money on The Sims, which I played for about an hour.

DrSpike · February 13, 2003, 06:25

Civ3 is no classic like Civ2.......but it's playable, unlike the Sims.......arrggghhh.

PDifolco · February 17, 2003, 13:09

I see much complaints here about the crappy Civ2 AI... undoubtly rightly !

Is Civ3 AI much better, or does the AI just cheats more and crank units at unaffordable rate (like MOM did so well that I was eliminated in 3 games out of 4 during the first 50 turns with my paltry sorcerer and its couple of units vs hordes of heroes-commanded armies and summons

) ?

gunkulator · February 20, 2003, 10:59

Overall I like Civ III better:

Civ III AI is better. AI plans invasions, protects attackers with infantry and masses units for attack.

Civ III gets rid of the unbalancing Diplo/Spy units.

Trade and diplomacy are better and more realistic. For instance, you can't establish trade with a civ you are at war with. In fact, all trade is lost with an enemy civ.

Strategic resources add a new twist to the game. You have to trade for or conquer any resource you don't have.

Newly captured cities resist your invasion for several turns instead of rolling over in one turn.

Wonders are scaled down. With CivII, once you got Mike's Chapel or SOL or Sun Tzu, you pretty much knew you were going to win.

IMHO, combat is better. My biggest complaint with CivII is that combat is just way too predictable. Once you have that killer unit (Crusader, Dragoon, Cavalry, Howitzer), it just rolls over the AI. In fact, most AI civs can be completely mopped up in 10 turns or less. CivIII makes you plan out your invasion very carefully. You need an overwhelming number of units to succeed.

ColdWizard · February 20, 2003, 16:11

i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

PDifolco · February 20, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

And that you could indeed make scenarios also ..

DrSpike · February 20, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

Will civ3 MP still have any players left in 5 months, let alone the 5 years that civ2 has survived?

player1 · February 20, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

And in civ2, thanks to AI, SP doesn't work.

Exept for begginers.

Fatwreck · March 13, 2003, 05:34

the biggest problem I have with civ3 is their combat system, some say that the combat system in civ2 is predictable but I think that is better than losing a tank to a frikkin´ spearman... predictable is better than totally random, at least you know that a tank will beat a phalanx

...

rah · March 13, 2003, 10:03

Put that vet phalanx in a fort on a mountain and that attacking tank may still lose.

Fatwreck · March 13, 2003, 11:17

yeah but show me a tank that drives up a moutain

... and it´s still very rare that that would happen but in civ3 you never know

...

rah · March 13, 2003, 15:55

They're called ROADS

ColdWizard · March 13, 2003, 16:15

tanks don't need roads. and who cares about tanks anyway? just use howitzers

player1 · March 13, 2003, 20:14

Howizters.
A king of Civ2 units.

And also the most unbalanced civ unit (exept maybe diplomats and spies).

Fatwreck · March 14, 2003, 03:41

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
They're called ROADS

ok then show me roads in the Himalayas

...

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard tanks don't need roads.

do you mean in civ or in the real world?

rah · March 14, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck
ok then show me roads in the Himalayas

...

Show me a phalanx in the Himalayas

The US has quite a few highways that go pretty high up in the Rocky Mountains.

ColdWizard · March 14, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck
do you mean in civ or in the real world?

both

Fatwreck · March 15, 2003, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by rah

Show me a phalanx in the Himalayas

The US has quite a few highways that go pretty high up in the Rocky Mountains.

Maybe he was airdropped or something

...

La Fayette · March 15, 2003, 13:54

... some fine mountain highways in the Alps too

(especially in Switzerland).

What brought me back to 99% civ2 is the huge luck factor related to Great Leaders in civ3 (otherwise quite an enjoyable game ...in SP)

michaelmccarth · March 16, 2003, 16:29

How did you uninstall civ 3 from your pc? I want to uninstall the game but it wont allow me….

Mike

Quote:

Originally posted by Gunnar Thor
It's the onemoreturn syndrome. I've played both Civ 2 and SMAC for seven hours straight. Not Civ 3, and not CtP. And I was never even any good at Civ 2 (I've gotten better, I was only eleven when I started playing Civ 2 and I didn't understand all the words

).

Tomorrow, I'm going to buy a new copy of Civ 2, since I lost my old one years ago, and uninstall Civ 3. In the meantime, I'll find solace in SMAC.

CivPatriot · March 18, 2003, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck the biggest problem I have with civ3 is their combat system, some say that the combat system in civ2 is predictable but I think that is better than losing a tank to a frikkin´ spearman... predictable is better than totally random, at least you know that a tank will beat a phalanx ...

that was and still is my biggest problem with Civ3. My first game, i was having a great time, when my tank was attacked by a longbowmen, and was killed. I thought ok, this is just an unusual occurance, lol, i was wrong, happened two or three times later, plus the times that my tanks had to withdraw from a pikemen's depleted uranium antitank pike.

fix the combat system, and its a great game, better than civ2, but with it as it is, no way is it the equal of civ2.

and for those of us with macs, well, the MP thing for civ3 isn't a major deal, since we don't have it yet!!!

at least with civ2 i can customize the game easiley, and with out having to wait a year to get a editor.

Dis · March 19, 2003, 02:14

I probably should get civ2 gold. I have never gotten around to it.

In any case there are some things about civ2 that still annoy me. Unit support, stacked units all die, and lack of borders. A few units are overpowered, but that can easily be changed.

Other than that civ2 is better than civ3.

DrSpike · March 19, 2003, 05:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident stacked units all die

Sure, and I understand why people don't like this, but it does require some planning and thought. I prefer it to the mindless build stack of 30 knights and move them approach of civ3.

Something in between, like the 'collateral damage' approach of SMAC is my favourite.