How does civ2/3 transition compare to civ1/2 transition?

[TCO]

For the people who saw all three games, reach back and consider how the transitions compared.

A. Amount of different concepts.
B. Ability to win.
C. Annoying things fixed (e.g. RR on ocean)
D. eye candy appeal
E. engagingness...how much you want to play.
F. Wether you have to "work" to like the new version.
G. Bugginess (remember Civ2 took several patches)
H. missing features (remember loss of palace, replay and the Civnet fiasco)
I. Other things

[Schnitzelnator]

Easy.

Civilization 1 --> Civilization 2 = Good

Civilization 2 --> Civilization 3 = CRAP

[Simpleton]

I say the transition from Civ1 to Civ2 was definitely easier. Civ2 had many of the same screens that Civ1 had but just with better graphics. Most of the gameplay was the same just with some enhancements.
Civ3 has thrown in many new concepts as well as a new interface, all of which need to be learned. I personally have struggled at times with the way things are layed out but I'm not frustrated yet. I realize and accept that Civ3 will just have a longer learning curve than either of the other Civ's. That being said, I believe this learning curve will only exist for long time players of Civ1 and 2 not for Newbies. Why? Well the game itself is layed out great it's just so different from Civ1 or 2 so a Newbie knows only that the game is great not that it's any different from the others.

[old dog]

The move from Civ1 to Civ2 was relatively simple. My main memories of this were:
1) Pyrmaids no longer being the "must have" make or break Wonder.
2) Settling on a "no shield" grassland (or river, which was a crapshoot in Civ1) no longer left your city center without a shield.
3) Far, far fewer surprising combat results.
4) Weird looking continents

These mattered, but I remember winning my first Civ2 game at a medium level without any great trouble.

Civ3 is a whole different experience.

[TCO]

This is the question I wanted Ming to answer in the supercool newbie thread. If he would just stay on topic a little more...

[Seeker]

Civ I to Civ II
-I remember way back then there was some grumbling 'cause it looked so 'Windows-y'
-Some of the graphics turned some people off, bannana yellow, the skiing through deserts + jungles
-The wonders changed the game totally. MC, leo's became really important in Deity
-Many believe the AI actually became worse, because the old Civ the AI could launch amphibious invasions with a big stack, in Civ 2 the AI only attacks in 'dribs and drabs'
-What we liked: so many new civs!!! So customizable!!! and then...the scenarios, Red Front, World War 2, etc.
-Battleships became less of a super unit. The AI's infinite cruise missiles, the introduction of Hit Points meant that you could just cruise the coast with a few BBs and a chariot and take every coastal city.
-HP/FP: this really changed the game. In Civ I your legions and chariots made a good army for a very long time, Civ 2 definitely favours the defense over the offense.
-I remember occasionally being able to conquer the whole world with one chariot, as the Russians, if I was lucky enough to have all the enemy in Eurasia
-The map. Isometric view and no softly lapping tides?? No marching into the city?? Silly advisors?

Civ II -> Civ III
-Obviously major major changes. The AI tends to sprawl and gets huge 'hidden advantages'
-most people are in favour of the new trade/resource system. It's probably the best part of the game. Unfortunately there is no real 'market' like Imperialism, they tied it soley to diplomacy.
-And then the major complaint.....total lack of REAL customizability that we got used to with Civ: Fantastic Worlds (events, in game graphic editors, almost everything editable)
-There have been a lot of criticisms of unprofessionalism. The LE for example, the missing or non-functional features...(I mean come on, they could have told us at least that the editor they were releasing was essentially non-functional)