Diffuculty comparison from II to III

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by The Vagabond


What I don't like in Civ3 is that expansionistic drive seems to be much more important than in Civ2. In Civ2, I used to enjoy games with a small number of cities, e.g. just three cities on a large map (and on Deity level, of course). I greatly enjoyed observing how much more efficient was my three-city empire .

Hardly an empire with 3 citys !!!!!

the thing i hated most about civ2 was people doing one city challenges..... damn those bastards ~!~~~~

I never enjoyed the micromanaging needed to win on higher levels in Civ2 it was all too fidly, all the caravan building YUKYY..


Civ 3 lets me build my empire manage it and make war if i so choose....

i prefer civ 3 in all aspects except multiplay....

civ2 still has the best feel for mp civ3 is just too slow .....

[crowatbitemedotcom]

heheheh, I thought the best thing about civ2 was the diety level OCC. still never managed to start a spaceship in 0 AD unfortunately.

civ3 is definitely much more difficult. The few games I've started at diety have been very short lived, so I rnomally start at Regent or the level just above.