Why Civ2 is better than Civ3

[DrSpike]

I don't think there's much point opening up any realism debates. Drfell's point as it stood earlier seemed to be that flexibility was hampered, reducing propensity for skilled decision-making. I would have to agree with that.

[Martinus Magnificus]

I want a true civ3!

I have to agree with DrFell.

If only civ2 had better graphics, a political/military border system, a more complex diplomacy system, a more advanced combat system (where units could retreat out of combat) and a diplomatic victory option........

What I'm trying to say is that I (and many others) hoped for a game that would incorporate all the good stuff of civ2 and SMAC, and add some great new features. Civ3 as it is, is not like that at all. It's basically CTP 2a. And I'm not even talking about the unfinished editor, no flat maps, no fixed civ starting locations on earth maps... etc. etc. (see the other threads for these things).
That's not my point here. It's that civ3 is NOT civ2+.
(I realize that some of you never wanted civ3 to be an enhanced version of civ2, but I do!)

Maybe I'll ask the dark side for a member pass soon......

No, serious, I don't think that I will be playing civ3 much longer (and I'm only playing it for a month now!)....

[Trifna]

Personnally, I think that the more evolved of all civ-type games is Alpha Centauri. For many reasons such as the way political system worked. But SMAC is close to a gaidan (a title exterior to the series) if we compare it to History-like civs.

[Seeker]

What I wanted out of Civ 3, was, essentially, Civ 2 but fixed.

Fixed so that the AI can use carriers, subs work more realistically, fixed so that units besides howitzers are necessary, fixed so that the AI will attack in groups, no more suicidal destoyers/knights...bigger maps, more civs to choose from, more techs, more units, more everything!!

Well I got LESS of everything, + culture flipping, + no historical starts, + stupid air units, + no scenarios, + turns that crawl...

Some awful people wanted more revolutionary changes:
-simultaneous turns for MP
-resources.
-market economy.
I think Civ III should have essentially copied the Imperialism model for trade and resources. But instead it's like this: There is 3-4 sources of steel. Get one and you supply all your needs. Miss it, and your out of luck.

MP: I also see Civ III MP being really bad. The turns will be really long, and there is almost zero chance of a player in 2nd place beating or getting an advantage over the strongest player. He can't sneak a wonder. He can't pursue a funky tech path to give himself an advantage in a particular area.

Why would you stick around in a game of Civ III once someone has more cities, more resources, and a 2-3 tech advantage? Maybe something stupid like you suddenly have the only uranium in the world...but that's retarded.

I love SMAC. SMAC would've made a great Civ III, especially if they added simultaneous turns.

[Case]

For me one word sums up Civ 2's superiority over Civ 3: scenarios Civ 2's got 'em, Civ 3 dosn't

[Skanky Burns]

As it stands now, I would (unfortunately) have to give the title to Civ 2. It actually fosters a community - what with scenarios, multiplayer, etc.

However, when Firaxis actually get around to finishing the game, Civ 3 will easily claim the title

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Case
For me one word sums up Civ 2's superiority over Civ 3: scenarios Civ 2's got 'em, Civ 3 dosn't

Agreed!
I will probably never get civ 3 for this very reason...

[DrFell]

'What I wanted out of Civ 3, was, essentially, Civ 2 but fixed.'

Me too, and a lot of MP players/long time civers were thinking the same thing, it seems.

'MP: I also see Civ III MP being really bad. The turns will be really long, and there is almost zero chance of a player in 2nd place beating or getting an advantage over the strongest player. He can't sneak a wonder. He can't pursue a funky tech path to give himself an advantage in a particular area.

Why would you stick around in a game of Civ III once someone has more cities, more resources, and a 2-3 tech advantage? Maybe something stupid like you suddenly have the only uranium in the world...but that's retarded.'

Exactly, and the main problem I have with civ3. I had so many tactics in 2, which won't work now. That in itself isn't bad, but there isn't much flexibility in the game as it is. In civ2 in most cases I went horse->monarchy->trade->chivalry. But not always, in some games you won't get the wonders first, so go horse->monarchy->chivalry instead. Or even to math and catapults. Or seafaring for explorers to walk into my opponents undefended cities. Or diplos to steal his techs. But there aren't anywhere near as many choices in civ3.

[Dr Strangelove]

The corruption factor for civilizations with more cities than the permissable limits is a major drawback. Firaxis might just as well have removed the "victory by conquest" option, because unless a player manages to conquer all the other civs at a very early stage of the game the level of corruption in the extra cities he conquers will eventually bog him down, since maintainence in the conquered cities will have to be paid by his own cities. Let's face it, many of us play Civ to satisfy our "inner megalomaniac", so without world conquest Civ looses its appeal.