Civ 2.42 is better than Civ4

[GePap]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Then you'd be wrong. There is not a single facet of the game where 3 outperforms 4.

I think that Civ3 without player modding replicated modern war more realistically than Civ4 does.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap


I think that Civ3 without player modding replicated modern war more realistically than Civ4 does.

yep, if you include the conquests expansion

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by GePap


I think that Civ3 without player modding replicated modern war more realistically than Civ4 does.

I only accept gameplay arguments, sorry.

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by harryhoho


Well looks like a previous poster was right on with the POS comment about you.

First of all, nobody needs to rely on the special ore resource to exist, finding none will only have a marginal impact on your final score. Normal Hills yield enough ore, and they do not deplete. Being lucky with landscape generation is much much more crucial in civ (just think of strategical resources), especially as you can really quickly change your starting location with the ship.

Second, micromanaging resources is only a problem if you dont use traderoutes. Usually, you should have one large road net connecting all your cities, and plenty of wagons doing all the transfer tasks for you.

And ore becomes really important only later on. In fact, Colonization nicely models the transition of an economy that exports raw materials, slowly shifts to producing trade goods out of these materials at home, to a fully autarch country that produces all manufacturing goods at home.

I do agree that the small number of units makes its military system a bit too simplistic compared to civ, but then its economy is so incredibly deeper...

In an instance of synchronicity, I stumbled across my Colonization CD and installed it. The game was as fun as I remember, though I had to adjust to the fact that you had to micromanage more, and on Windows XP it's a little buggy (like not being able to move colonists around and having to restart the game to clear it).

I would love a remake or sequel, or barring that, an ingenious Colonization mod for Civ 4.

[Senethro]

I would like any new colonisation to have greatly reduced micromanagement as that made the game hard to play. What made the game impossible to play was the cheating and stupid AI.

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally posted by rah
I always have a soft spot for II from an MP perspective, and we still play it a few times a month due to hardware limitations.
BUT, we're playing more IV mp, and it's a better experience. More variety.

Yes I still have a soft spot for Civ2 MGE as my first Civ MP game. And I still remind my Civ4 peers that Hotjoining is not a new phenominom just because Civ3 didn't have it :P

CS

[CanuckSoldier]

Originally posted by Solver
Civ4 is Civ3 done right. Civ3 is only worth it now if you like using exploits - at lower levels, there was the possibility of using several different strategies, at the higher levels, you just had to use the same one over and over. And the AI was very gullible diplomatically - you could easily be friends with AIs you needed to be friends with, you could easily get almost every civ to attack someone you want and, worst of all, if you had a tech lead, you could run 100% research with a great income, funding your economy entirely through the AIs.

Well from a MP perspect Civ4 is mostly better than Civ3 but there is still room for us to improve some espects. The biggest complaint from those that have played both is that warfare in the big picture is less exciting(in Civ4) because there are fewer fast moving units in the early eras and because cultural borders and seeing in boats makes susprising your neighbour hard to do, something that makes Civ3 games exciting even though Civ3 has many problems on it's own.

CS

[rah]

Seeing into boats has been removed.

[Arrian]

That one caught me by surprise in a recent game. I'd seen it in the patch notes, but forgot about it. Heh.

-Arrian