Comparing Civ III to Other Games

[Leonidas]

If you've played the Civ series, than I would also recommend the Age of Empires series as well. The games are top notch quality and there is a ton of campaigns and scenarios for them. There is just something special seeing Eygptian chariots rumbling across the desert.

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by yin26
Overall, Civ3 is just a simple game. Not much to tax your brain. A kind of expensive screen saver.

Charles.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley
Charles.

I don't like yams. Should I hang out in the yam forum and tell the little old ladies trading yam recipes that they are deluding themselves and are "religiously loyal" to a poor excuse of a vegetable?


As the philosopher said:
I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam.

[RickBlaine]

I have a mixed view of RTS games (and suspect that I may have be too old to adapt to their pace ). The best one I have seen, and the only one I ever finished, was Starcraft. I've played EE a bit, it is very similar to AoE (no surprise, the lead designer is the same). It has its appeal, but really has very little in common with a TBS game like Civ, which is a much more complex game.

I've been trying to learn EU2 the last 10 days or so. It has a very steep learning curve, unfortunately abetted by a poor turorial and manual. (The manual is good on history and game concepts, poor on actually how to play the game--though I have heard it is much improved from EU1). Although the box bills EU2 as a real time game (ahh, marketing), it is much more akin to a game like Civ or Imperialism--you can pause the game, take as many actions as you like and then let time pass until the next event that needs your attention.

I do not have enough experience to really comment on EU2, though it seems extremely interesting. (Caveat--I majored in European history in college, hehe). It requires possibly more micromanagement than Civ, although of a different sort, and is actually slower paced despite the real time billing.

[hexagonian]

The really nice feature about EU-EU2 is that it is different enough from the basic civ-style TBS game to give a player a sense of playing something different, but it does have a TBS feel to it due to the pause feature in it.

It actually is closer in feel to 'Pharaoh' in that regard.

Yes, the learning curve is steep in that game, and there could be better documentation for how all the game concepts work together, but at the same time, it has a very rich and deep feel to it. The official EU2 Forums is a good place for help, and spending some time there helps immensely in grasping the basic concepts - if you have the time and the game, its a worthwhile investment to get the most out of EU2.

I got both civ3 and EU2 for Christmas and have yet to have the desire to try civ3 - thanks to everyone here (Yin, Libertarian) for their honest perspective of civ3.

Eventually I will get around to trying it, and I may be suprised by civ3, but for the moment, I'm playing EU2.

[OneInTen]

In my opinion, the TBS genre has more capacity to deliver a better strategy, but currently the RTS genre is outstripping it in that regard.

The decisions in a game like Empire Earth appear, at least to me, to be more strategically important than the ones in a TBS. It's actually possible to mount a come from behind win with a bit of luck and some careful management in most RTS games. in most TBS games, once you get behind you usually just keep on falling further and further behind. In other words, the RTS is more likely to keep you interested until the end.

Possibly one reason RTS doesn't let the leader run away with it is because as you get bigger, you've got more things to manage. In a TBS that's fine, you just take more time. In a RTS, you don't have more time, so you tend to get sloppy which gives the other player(s) a chance to catch up.

There are two other aspects I think are good about RTS - the real time nature tests not only your decision making skills but also your ability to think quickly on your feet, and also you really have to prioritise - you can't micromanage everything, so you have to decide what's most in need of your attention.

Ultimately I think TBS will catch up in offering this kind of experience, and it certainly has some advantages RTS does not - firstly, you can much more easily take a quick break from a TBS, and secondly it doesn't favour a player with quick reflexes to click buttons.

It's basically a style thing though - some TBS players hate RTS, some RTS players hate TBS, and others like both. You'll have to try a few games to decide where you sit (assuming you don't already know). I wouldn't bother with AOK personally, as in my opinion Empire Earth has everything it offers and then more.

And if you're looking at coming attractions, then MOO3 certainly looks interesting, but time will tell.

[Willem]

Originally posted by CharlesUFarley




Charles.

So this is your idea of being constructive and not getting in the way is it?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the biggest hypocrite of all?

[aschatz]

Thanks all. Keep the comments coming.

Aaron

[CharlesUFarley]

Originally posted by Willem


So this is your idea of being constructive and not getting in the way is it?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the biggest hypocrite of all?

Good point. Guilty that time.

Charles.

[Locutus]

Everyone probably already knows what I'm gonna say but I'm saying it anyway

Aschatz,
Have you considerd the CtP series? It's just like Civ only without Sid Here and here are some fairly decent threads that discuss the differences between Civ3 and CtP2 (and why CtP2 is so much better than Civ3, or the other way around - depending on who you listen to).

[Rolfski]

When you buy EE/AoK you go for something completely different: instantantly rewarding gameplay, easy learning curve, fairly nice graphics, action paced, quick thinking, tactical focus, limited historical realism, multiplay. Believe me, a lot of fun but it's more about quick response than deep thinking.

EU II is much more comparable to Civ III although it plays entirely different. The game is instantly frustrating because overwhelming and poorly documented (still a 100 pages though).
You need at least 2 days of full gameplay to figure out what the heck you are doing. If you make it through those 2 days, congratulations! It's open sesame because a treasure of unsurpassed historical gameplay reveals to you.
Only then you will start to appreciate:
- The historical realism and accuracte modelling. You will actually find yourself developping a interest in history and looking stuff up on the internet.
- Endless replayabilty. Over 100 countries (and simultanuous AI's, imagine that) to be played in a dozen scenario's is enough to complety ruin your social life.
- The very deep and complex level of strategy and thinking involved. Did I mention deep?
- The clean and intuitive interface providing a very solid gameplay.
- The nummers of adjustable options and parameters at your serve. For instance with all the diplomatic options you can make Henry Kissinger look like a boyscout.
- The excellent game support and community which is besides a great information source also a guarantee that the game is constantly improved with every patch.

Find out for yourself. You can also check the Civ 3 vs EU 2 thread.