Is it over now?

[H Tower]

i've kinda abandoned the civ2 forums here b/c the ones at civ fanatics have a lot more traffic...

[Deathwalker]

Yeah, in England we still are waiting for the game But given what I've read about Civ3 and it lack of scemario tools, I'm not even sure about it any more

[Julius Brenzaida]

Civ2 still lives and the forum should survive.
But the server is too busy to post ...

I think that in a few months the hardcore fans will still be there
It is not over yet

[La Fayette]

I go on playing civ2 day and night as usual (and there is no release date for civ3 given anywhere close to my place).
The lovely message 'server too busy' is the only reason why I almost stopped posting during the last fortnight.
IMO Dan and Mark have taken some drastic and useful measures to improve the availability of the access and the situation is much better now.
Therefore I am planning to start playing MP with my friend SlowThinker very soon (that's going to be an investment since I use to have about 1/2h afterthoughts before any move and I suppose he has at least 2h ).

[Laertes]

I got Civ3 recently (Sat - 5 days ago) and it is damn frustrating, so I am still playing Civ 2 when I want to have a full long game, or when I need a break.

The Civ 3 forums are pretty empty in terms of content - nobody seems to have figured a lot out yet. Lots of threads with no replies, and most with less than 10.

I guess all the Civ2 giants are getting to grips with it! I'll just wait till they figure it all out,and copy!

[The ANZAC]

Yeah, a lot has changed and is different. Some things are annoying like not being able to rush build. So it is possible to play both at the same time and I think a lot of people will until it has been figured out.

[Rasputin]

you can rush build.....

[The ANZAC]

Then is it beacuase it's the beginning of the game, I can't rush build with money, but kill people instead to complete a job. What is this?

[Laertes]

At the risk of completely being off-topic in this forum, you can only rush build in despotism by cruelly driving your citizens to complete the project, so some of them get upset and leave. This must be in the manual somewhere, because I would not have figured it out.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by The ANZAC
Then is it beacuase it's the beginning of the game, I can't rush build with money, but kill people instead to complete a job. What is this?

governments types influence whether it costs money or lives !!!

[shade]

civilized???

governments types influence whether it costs money or lives !!!

so this shows a more civilized approach in civ2 and a more realistic one in civ3.
I've already read some nasty drawbacks on the civ3 forum,so I'm getting more and more conviced to wait before buying civ3.

Shade

[Rasbelin]

Civ II is still so much more customisible than Civ III, so it apparently fits better for scenario making, at least for the moment. We have also been able to play Civ II for 5 years, so we're also much more used to it. Not to mention Civ's 10 years.

[Brian Bergs]

Civ II is alive and well at my house

Well, I've tried CIV 3. It leave a lot to be desired. Some of the graphics are very good, some like the battles are just plain dumb.

It has not sucked me in like Civ 2.

I like each civilization having some kind of competitive edge to begin with in Civ 3.

The terrain maps tend to confuse me a bit and I don't like the dull color in Civ 3.

Overall, I will still be playing a lot of Civ 2.

[MattyBoy]

When I first had Civ I demonstrated to me by an ardent, articulate fan I thought "You call that a game"
Much later, he installed it on my machine and showed me how to play it and I thought "I guess I'll fiddle with this for half an hour" and I didn't think much of it. But how come his approach worked so much better than mine did, so I saved and restarted and tried something else...

Many turns later I bought and installed Civ II and it was just Civ I with no real improvements, just more complex and the fun was diluted a bit by more technologies, more this-n-that - a pretty weak follow up to the best game ever. So, after an hour, I left it for a year or so. But when I later played it for real it turned out to be a better game with subtle improvements.

Nowadays, it looks like others are going through the same slow startup with Civ 3. Maybe in a year, I'll get a copy and give it a try.
(but then I might never want to play SMAX again )

[Laertes]

Well, Civ 2 is still doing it for me, even though I am playing Civ 3 in parallel.

I have just won a game at Deity where I decided, for the first time, to go for the Super Ironclad win, and boy did I have fun. After a good start with Rivers and Pheasants, I expanded rapidly, to about 15 cities, and got the requisite wonders with a massive caravan campaign.

I had discovered the Indians and Vikings (on the same continent, fighting each other and small) and the Americans (growing fast, different continent).

I wiped out the Indians and Vikings with vet Knights and diplos. I built an absolute swarm of Ironclads, about 50 by the end, so many that I could not keep a sufficient convoy of galleons with city-taking ground troops to take all the cities I bombarded. The US and the recently discovered Greeks built almost all their cities on the coast.

The only drawback was that I got so bored moving Ironclads around my large map, that I was tempted to give up, as nobody else was close to discovering Gunpowder, the only thing that could stop me (I had resisited discovering it so that it could not be stolen from me).

So I can still have fun at Civ2, whilst struggling to survive the Middle Ages in Monarch on Civ3!!