I've played Civ 3, but I'm back to Civ 2 - Why?

[Ming]

Yeah... Civ III just doesn't have the excitement and feel of Civ II. And I don't even want to talk about the MP

[player1]

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah... Civ III just doesn't have the excitement and feel of Civ II. And I don't even want to talk about the MP

Yeah!
That feel of taking out stupid AI with Howitzers.

Or playing nice looking scenarios which are so easy becasue of so bad diplo/unit moving AI.

No, I don't miss it at all.


P.S.
Although it does feel nice to take out enemy Pikemen with Tanks.

[player1]

Still MP is pretty OK, if you hose rule BAN of Diplo units.

Man, they are more powerful then nukes.

[War4ever]

if you what??????

[SCG]

Originally posted by War4ever
if you what??????

I think he's saying to use a house rule to eliminate certain diplomat abilities

[War4ever]

oh, sorry i didn't understand from his post..yes that is a good idea, dips are overpowered

[ellie]

civ2

I still play civ2. Its a great game, although diplomacy is tooo predictable.

Im pretty hoked on alpha centauri as well atm.

I got civ3, and i was amazed it managed to slow down my husbands high spec pc!!.

I was also disgusted the first time a samurai cut my tanks to pieces.

Personally i think with civ3 presentation and general graphics got precedence over more important issues.

Ellie

[Static Universe]

Re: civ2

[

Originally posted by ellie

I was also disgusted the first time a samurai cut my tanks to pieces.

Just reading this one sentence, I am suddenly so glad I never bought this game when it came out. I came pretty close too.

Of course, I sent my Civ III money on The Sims, which I played for about an hour.

[DrSpike]

Civ3 is no classic like Civ2.......but it's playable, unlike the Sims.......arrggghhh.

[PDifolco]

I see much complaints here about the crappy Civ2 AI... undoubtly rightly !
Is Civ3 AI much better, or does the AI just cheats more and crank units at unaffordable rate (like MOM did so well that I was eliminated in 3 games out of 4 during the first 50 turns with my paltry sorcerer and its couple of units vs hordes of heroes-commanded armies and summons ) ?

[gunkulator]

Overall I like Civ III better:

Civ III AI is better. AI plans invasions, protects attackers with infantry and masses units for attack.

Civ III gets rid of the unbalancing Diplo/Spy units.

Trade and diplomacy are better and more realistic. For instance, you can't establish trade with a civ you are at war with. In fact, all trade is lost with an enemy civ.

Strategic resources add a new twist to the game. You have to trade for or conquer any resource you don't have.

Newly captured cities resist your invasion for several turns instead of rolling over in one turn.

Wonders are scaled down. With CivII, once you got Mike's Chapel or SOL or Sun Tzu, you pretty much knew you were going to win.

IMHO, combat is better. My biggest complaint with CivII is that combat is just way too predictable. Once you have that killer unit (Crusader, Dragoon, Cavalry, Howitzer), it just rolls over the AI. In fact, most AI civs can be completely mopped up in 10 turns or less. CivIII makes you plan out your invasion very carefully. You need an overwhelming number of units to succeed.

[ColdWizard]

i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

[PDifolco]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

And that you could indeed make scenarios also ..

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

Will civ3 MP still have any players left in 5 months, let alone the 5 years that civ2 has survived?

[player1]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
i heard that in civ2, MP actually works

And in civ2, thanks to AI, SP doesn't work.

Exept for begginers.