Love PtW. Is CivII worth having?

Aramis · March 15, 2003, 22:15

Just a BTW thread:

PtW then CivII? Sounds backwards, I know. I stumbled on CivIII about a year before PtW came out. I bought it blind--knew absolutely nothing about it. Sounded interesting as I read the box. Turned out to be fascinating, and with PtW obsessively fascinating.
Now I find I can pick up CivII for a song. I notice in many threads here in the PtW forum that many of you have been enjoying the Civ franchise since the start. And I notice a certain fondness for CivII (

).
So my question: Is it worth having? Enough differences? I play only SP so I don't need any MP expansion of it.

Let me know, if you feel like letting me know. If you don't want to let me know, that's cool too.

Bye--Rob

Willem · March 15, 2003, 22:59

IMO it would be a step backward. If you like Civ III stick with it, it's a much better game overall. The only advantage I think Civ II has is the ability to create more complex scenarios, because of the ability to use events scripting.

Once, while I was waiting for a Civ III patch to come out, I dusted off my old Civ II:Test of Time disk and started to play it. But I could no longer get interested after playing Civ III. The graphics alone were enough turn me off, they looked clunky and amateurish.

And I would never want to let go of the AI in Civ III, it can actually beat me from time to time, something that didn't happen in the other games once I learned the basic mechanics. It's much more of a challenge now.

vmxa1 · March 15, 2003, 23:39

I have to agree with Willem, you do not need civII.
If you just want to check it out, get Test of Time. It has the original Civ2 and offers some improved graphics and interface as well. It includes all the addon for Civ2 and some new stuff. I played the heck out civII, but do not fell much need to go back.
Moo and Homm were games that I do play the old and new versions.

Alex · March 16, 2003, 08:33

Yes, stick with Civ3. I had a lot of fun with Civ2, and I still reserve a place for it in my "best games of all time" list, but you'll find its graphics pretty bad, and the unbalancing is pretty evident too (conquer the world with a tank and a howitzer, overpowered spies and diplomats). Also, Civ3 AI is better than Civ2's.

Civ2 still has some more interesting things, such as the wonder movies or some more detailed info screens, but, overall (I never thought I'd say this), Civ3 is a better game.

Andemagne · March 16, 2003, 13:36

forget Civ3 and PTW. Civ2 is the best game in the series!

Sava · March 16, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
forget Civ3 and PTW. Civ2 is the best game in the series!

Even though I just started playing Civ3 again, I agree! Civ 2:ToT is definitely better than Civ3 and probably the best version of Civ ever created. And if you are proficient in modding in any way, you can make some kick ass modifications. I recently put photo-realistic military units in the game and they are much prettier than any of the Civ3 graphics.

Plus, ToT is only like 15 bucks now. It's definitely worth it.

Juha Karlsson · March 16, 2003, 19:45

If you learned civ3 quickly from no prior civ playing, you will probably beat civ2 AI´s instantly. Civ2 AI´s are very simple minded and predictible. To get any challange from the game you have to jack it up to diety level. But at diety level the AI´s cheat is so obviously the game lost its fun.
But I admit feeling little nostalgic hearing the, hm... "different" music in civ2.
Anyway, its a bargain. Try it.

Reinhard-Baer · March 16, 2003, 20:23

Well as CivIII is clearly better in terms of graphic (of course given the release-dates) I've to say that Civ II is worth for ONE important thing:
!!Scenarios!!
There are sooo many scens out there ranging from the two WW to the age of colonization, to the medieval and so on. Hundreds of good scens can be found everywhere around the web. I have to admit that the standard Civ-game got boring to me. Start always the same: build your empire,... But with the scnes it was a so called rebirth. I'm an enthusiastic Civ player again. Now plz excuse me I have to guide the Germans to victory in WWI. For the Kaiser

ToeTruck · March 16, 2003, 20:39

I started playing Civ2 maybe three years ago, right about the time the MP-Gold package started hitting the bargain bin. And...I played it to death. Loved it.

However, aside from a trip down memory lane, I wouldn't go back. I liked many of the game dynamics, but it was just too easy to beat. Way too easy.

And it was seriously easy to abuse. Anyone remember the food caravan glitch?

Civ3 is definitely a major step in the right direction, the AI is tons better, diplomacy is much more involved, resource distribution is far less patterned. Plus, you can't engineer-transform mountains to grassland. That was a goofy concept.

The only downside to Civ3 as I see it is the Editor. No scripting makes historical mods difficult (read: impossible) to create. That said, I have seen some superb mods. Check out the Double Your Pleasure mod. The latest version is compatible with PTW and adds about a zillion techs, units, and governments.

Stick with Civ3.

- TT

wilbill · March 17, 2003, 02:42

I've played most of the Civ series games and have fond memories of them, but would never want to go back.

Maquiladora · March 17, 2003, 05:17

Go back if only for the great scenarios available, and it plays in a window so you can actually switch tasks without it crashing.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 10:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Go back if only for the great scenarios available, and it plays in a window so you can actually switch tasks without it crashing.

I have no problems with Civ III crashing while running other things, so maybe there's something wrong with your system. I just hit Windows Key-D to minimize it and I can run almost anything, provided it's not a CPU/RAM hog. Though usually it's just the editor I have going. If something screws up it's always the editor, not the game.

Todd Hawks · March 17, 2003, 10:53

The only reason to play Civ II is the scenarios.

You should be aware that most people who love Civ II do it because they have known it before Civ III. If you go "back" now, you will be disappointed.
Alone the fact that there are no borders bothers me to no end every time I try to play a game of Civ II again, not to mention the bad (cheating) AI, less diplomacy and the ugly graphics.

If you can afford it and it's the full pack with scenarios, get it but don't expect wonders.

Maquiladora · March 17, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I have no problems with Civ III crashing while running other things, so maybe there's something wrong with your system. I just hit Windows Key-D to minimize it and I can run almost anything, provided it's not a CPU/RAM hog. Though usually it's just the editor I have going. If something screws up it's always the editor, not the game.

I prefere to play civ2 because i can easily do other things, with civ3 its slooow alt-tabbing. If civ3 worked in a window, didnt hog all my memory and had decent scenarios id be playing that while doing other stuff, civ2/freeciv is perfect for this.

Jawa Jocky · March 17, 2003, 13:19

I couldn't go back either. There are more things to micromanage and you have to go through more menus to do simpy tasks.

Inverse Icarus · March 17, 2003, 13:52

can't go back. i tried for a tad of nostalgia, didn't work very well.

first off, being able to right click to do basic city tasks is the best improvement ever. in civ2 you had to enter the city to change production / etc.

the resource system rocks. i love it.

the AI is much better.

culture is good (not awesome). borders are awesome.

there are a lot of things i wish made it in to civ3 though, sigh.

Inverse Icarus · March 17, 2003, 13:53

oh, but the scenarios are better in civ2

Yahweh Sabaoth · March 17, 2003, 14:37

Rob_S!

If you want an older civ, get the very first one!

It's only advantage to all its successors is the diplomacy screen... the advisors in the background of the leader to whom you speak were hilarious!

CivII "de-PC'd" diplomacy by replacing this little advisors with some lame 3D ambassadors that didn't even work. Civ3, with its leaderheads, is an improvement, but still not as funny (and accurate) as the original.

IMO.

Aramis · March 18, 2003, 14:37

so, what I gather is this:

Balancing pros and cons, CIII is mostly preferred over CII. While CII has its fans, mostly it's regarded as a fond memory.
I like the graphics in CIII. I learned to play (fairly) quickly. Getting beat on low levels really irritated me--I had to learn how to win quickly (but still can't win above regent, and rarely there). So no point in taking a step back.
But since I can get it for a song, even playing it a time or two--just to see what it would be like--would probably be worth it. Or maybe not.
Now it depends on what song I have to sing

Thanks for the thoughts.--Rob

BlueWaldo · March 18, 2003, 16:58

CivII is hands down the best game of all time. With that said, CivIII is a better game than CivII. However, it does not come close to replacing CivII as the best game of all time.

Jon Shafer · March 18, 2003, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueWaldo
CivII is hands down the best game of all time. With that said, CivIII is a better game than CivII. However, it does not come close to replacing CivII as the best game of all time.

What?

I basically agree with everyone else here. The Civ 2 scenarios were awesome, but I wouldn't want to play Civ 2 for any other reason.

Chronus · March 18, 2003, 22:20

Quote:

What?

My exact thoughts.

Dis · March 18, 2003, 22:46

what the? do I even need to answer that question?

if you don't mind the outdated graphics, then yes.

Although you may not like it as much as us going in reverse. There were things in civ2 that annoyed me that I'm glad are gone. The first being able to stack units in a square without fear of losing the whole stack to an attack. And the second is unit support being empire instead by the city and the associated unhappiness problems. Trying to support a caravel which had an attack of 1 from a size 4 city was impossible for me in civ2. I had to keep my caravel in port all the time until I could upgrade it to a galleon.

Dis · March 18, 2003, 22:50

I have to disagree with Test of Time having improved graphics. I hated them

. I wish I hadn't bought that game.

Unless there is a mod that converts TOT graphics to the old civ2 graphics. That would be cool. I should look for one.

Another thing about civ2/civ3 is borderrs. While borders in civ3 aren't as good as SMAC, they are more realistic than smac. And definately better than no borders in civ2.

But you get zones of control which are cooler than the wimpy pot shots your units take in this game.

Verto · March 18, 2003, 22:59

You gotta get Civ 2 - and 1, for that matter, if for no other reason than bragging rights! Tell your friends, I'm sure it'll impress 'em.

Dis · March 18, 2003, 23:01

It's worth getting real cheap.

I should get civ1 for that matter. I have never played it.

Where could I find civ1?

Aramis · March 19, 2003, 09:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
It's worth getting real cheap.

I should get civ1 for that matter. I have never played it.

Where could I find civ1?

Yeah, cheap as it was I got it. Haven't installed it yet. I'll do that when the urge for the novelty of seeing what it was like for those who came before hits again. I've seen CivI in hole-in-the-wall hobby stores, way up on the dusty top shelves. (Saw CtP for $7 in one)

Was Sid Meiers involved in anything after the original civ? I know answer is no for III and PtW--but all that in between stuff?

Verto · March 19, 2003, 12:47

I got Civilization II at Sam's. I got Civilization I way back when, only place I can think to look for it is online.

Andemagne · March 19, 2003, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Reinhard-Baer
Well as CivIII is clearly better in terms of graphic (of course given the release-dates)

I have to disagree.
3D graphics are not so easyly made but users, while 2D graphics are. so you can make your units look like what ever you want, instead of having to look those same old sprites (or what they are called) all the time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Todd Hawks
You should be aware that most people who love Civ II do it because they have known it before Civ III. If you go "back" now, you will be disappointed.

I have played Civ3 and then gotten back to Civ2, and I have not been disappointed. Civ3 is slow, retreating enemy units, corruption, less techs and other minor faults irritate me. surely civ3 is a great game, but Civ2 is just..... better.

vmxa1 · March 19, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I should get civ1 for that matter. I have never played it.

Where could I find civ1?

See if you can get it from Computer Games. Issue 131 had it on their CD and you probably an get it from them.