Comparing Civ III to Other Games

[aschatz]

Hi all. I don't want to delineate problems with this game - I think they have been detailed by numerous people. There are so many great ideas, but the whole thing seems like it was released 6 months too early.

I must admit, I'm not a gamer... the only games I ever play are Civ related, first Civ, then Civ II, SMAC, and now Civ III. Thus, I'm thinking of expanding into similar games.

I wanted advice from players who play a lot of strategy. I understand this genre seems to have moved from turn-based to real-time. I am curious if players can compare and contrast Civ III to the following other games, so I can think about what to buy next:

Empire Earth
Europa Universalis III
Age of Kings

Advice on other turn-based would be swell too.

Thanks,

Aaron

[Willem]

Re: Comparing Civ III to Other Games

Originally posted by aschatz
Hi all. I don't want to delineate problems with this game - I think they have been detailed by numerous people. There are so many great ideas, but the whole thing seems like it was released 6 months too early.

I must admit, I'm not a gamer... the only games I ever play are Civ related, first Civ, then Civ II, SMAC, and now Civ III. Thus, I'm thinking of expanding into similar games.

I wanted advice from players who play a lot of strategy. I understand this genre seems to have moved from turn-based to real-time. I am curious if players can compare and contrast Civ III to the following other games, so I can think about what to buy next:

Empire Earth
Europa Universalis III
Age of Kings

Advice on other turn-based would be swell too.

Thanks,

Aaron

You should add the Command & Conquer series, by Westwood, to that list. It's strictly battle based, no building of an empire, but there's a lot of strategy involved. There's also a large online community that you can play head to head with. Very good games IMO.

[Seeker]

RUN, don't walk, to get EUII. Never played EE. The others are shallow.

check out: www.golemlabs.com

[SixArmedMan]

If you're into fantasy turn based strategy, Disciples II is looking to be really really good. The demo's out. 103MB download or something like that... Couldn't hurt to try. Unless you're doing 56k...

[aschatz]

Let's try this again.

I am curious if players can compare and contrast these games. How are are they different from Civ III. What is better, what is worse.

Thanks.

Aaron

[SixArmedMan]

Pfft... You're turning a message board experience into actual work.

[Allemand]

I can tell you about EUII. It's a good game, but you never know all the rules (and they are not published). So you will do a lot of "beta testing" with that one.

By comparison, the CivIII rules are well documented.

[Willem]

Originally posted by aschatz
Let's try this again.

I am curious if players can compare and contrast these games. How are are they different from Civ III. What is better, what is worse.

Thanks.

Aaron

Why don't you search around to some of the game review sites, or the home site of the games you mentioned? That would probably give you a better idea as to whether you'd like the game than getting some subjective analysis. You could probably find some demos to try out as well. Then you'd know first hand.

[aschatz]

Hmmm. I did do that... but the problem with game review sites is that they play the games a little bit and then write a review. The only review of Civ III that is at all reflective of the problems of the game is the Wargamer one. I bought the game after all those rave reviews only to discover none of them mentioned the game's problems, such as the nonexistant ability to mod and make scenarios, the fact that a number of items from Civ II are gone, the fact that the corruption prevents large empires, even though large empires are required for higher scores, etc. etc.

So I trust gamers more than review sites.

Aaron

[Libertarian]

A wise man you are, Aaron. Welcome to Apolyton.

[Willem]

Originally posted by aschatz
Hmmm. I did do that... but the problem with game review sites is that they play the games a little bit and then write a review. The only review of Civ III that is at all reflective of the problems of the game is the Wargamer one. I bought the game after all those rave reviews only to discover none of them mentioned the game's problems, such as the nonexistant ability to mod and make scenarios, the fact that a number of items from Civ II are gone, the fact that the corruption prevents large empires, even though large empires are required for higher scores, etc. etc.

So I trust gamers more than review sites.

Aaron

A good person to ask for comparisons would be Velociryx. A gather he's the resident strategy expert and really seems to know a good game when he plays one. He's probably the one who could give you the most informative analysis. I'm not sure whether he's played the games you've mentioned, though I suspect he has. He's a strategy game junkie by the sounds of it.

[Thrawn05]

I like playing Rebellion by LucasArts. Not too many people like this game, but I do... a lot! If you get this game, i suggest you find the program RebEd on the internet, and with that you can edit that game moreso then Civ3's editor, and its free too! I think Rebellion was worth the $20.

[ACooper]

Never played EU so I can't say.

Empire Earth and AoK are very close to the same thing so i'll combine those two together. The biggest difference between those games and Civ3 is they are "real time" and Civ3 is turn based. I found EE to be basically a game of constant battling with building and resource collect as only a complement to the war effort. There are no real negotiations with other empires. And advancing to the next era is a mostly a function of gathering resources. For the way I play (and for the time I have to play) I prefer the slow Civ turn based style of play. There are many more mouse clicks in RTS games and they need alot more constant attention. Star Wars Galactic Empires is just like Aok but set in the Star Wars universe.

Other games of this sort that I would recommend looking into is Star Wars Rebellion (already mentioned) and Star Trek: Birth of the Federation. ST:BOTF is a very underrated game. It does a great job with minor civs, simutaneous multiplayer moves, and strategic and tactical battles. The interface varies by which race you chose to play and each race has unique qualities and units. I highly recomend this game especially as you can pick it up cheap.

It all comes down to turn based or real time. I have found that most RTS games are similar and most turn based games are similar.

For my money any one of the Civ games is superior to any of the others I have tried, but your mileage may vary.

[Zachriel]

Re: Comparing Civ III to Other Games

Originally posted by aschatz
There are so many great ideas, but the whole thing seems like it was released 6 months too early.

I much prefer playing the game now rather than waiting. In six months they can release an upgrade. I'll play that too.

[yin26]

I've played all the games you listed (well, EU1 instead of 2). I was at one point a rather competitive AoK player until I got too busy. I didn't play EE too much and for the same reason: Too busy.

First and foremost: Do you like real-time strategy? You are on a TBS forum, after all. I can say that the same thrill of founding stuff and exploring are common to both genres, but after that superior tactics and multi-tasking are the order of the RTS day. For my money, AoK is still the more easily accessible game.

In the TBS relm, Civ3 is essentially the same 10 year-old Civ with some new clothes. If that doesn't bother you, go ahead and play it. But if you want something (IMO) far more challenging and true to history, put your money down on EU2 without hesitation. Just be prepared to get past the learning curve. I hated EU1 until I gave a second and third try. And the game can sometimes feel more like a history lesson than a thrill ride.

Overall, Civ3 is just a simple game. Not much to tax your brain. A kind of expensive screen saver.