Civilization is not for 3 year olds.

[Maquiladora]

I dont think civ3 is so much for 3 year olds but its too simplified, I dont understand this as details would have been easier for the player. Like has been said, with a city list to easily manage many cities at once... like CtP.

[Tassadar500]

Stop trolling Tassadar.

[FrostyBoy]

SMAC is not a civilization series.

And Civ2 is not worth playing anymore.

There is hope for cIV, but very little.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sn00py
SMAC is not a civilization series.

And Civ2 is not worth playing anymore.

WHY?

[Jon Shafer]

These days he just seems very pent-up with hatred towards everyone and everything.

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Heresson


WHY?

Because Civ3 is in most regards better than Civ2.

[Adagio]

I agree, they should start making the game more complex... if they created a game based on Civ and SMAC it would be great... SMAC has the complexity that Civ needs and Civ is about Earths history... mixing those two games would be as perfect as it gets for the time being

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Sn00py


Because Civ3 is in most regards better than Civ2.

1) No it is not

2) Civ2 has great scenarios. My love for that game comes from playing them, not the original game, mostly

[FrostyBoy]

That's your personal opinion Herresson.

But I spoke of a general vote.


I personally don't know which of the two is better.

[realpolitic]

With millions of copies being sold, why not create a simple and a complex version?

I think Civilization has an brilliant design feature, it starts off simple and as technology improves, becomes more complex, so players don't get overwhelmed when they start. If they want to emphasize it to the newbies, then they should mention it prominantly in the book that comes with the CD.

[Straybow]

But in Civ3 they killed trade. That limited it to little more than a wargame preceded by an exploration exploration and building phase.

To me that dumbs the game down.

[realpolitic]

After reading these posts, I'll probably drop my allegence to civ. The only major improvement from civ1 to civ3 was making the evolution of military in civ2 more continuous. (Once you could produce legions and catapults in civ1 you could take over the world) .I'll miss the global and historical features of civ, though.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Agreed...the realism and sophistication is important to me.

well said indeed old chap

[Mace]

Originally posted by Straybow
But in Civ3 they killed trade. That limited it to little more than a wargame preceded by an exploration exploration and building phase.

To me that dumbs the game down.

Very good point. I've played Civ since 1992. In Civ3 it seems as though it's more difficult to play as a peaceful builder civ. It's geared towards being a wargame...look at all the units. Look at the C3C box--it's got maces and swords and axes on it. I hope Civ4 takes into account ALL playstyles. After all, Civ4 can either be "civ" or it can be "warcraft" or "dune2". Which will it be?.....