Am I the only one that thinks Civ 3 is better than Civ 2?

[MattHiggs]

There is a lot of people moaning about the bugs. Most of the bugs aer ones that noly the player can exploit so if you don't want to exploit them don't.

It seems people want Civ 3 to be the perfect game, and it won't be as everybody's ideas of the perfect game are different.

Maybe this is just a rant of an old civver but I beleive Civ 3 is a great improvement.

[Robert]

of course it's better.
I won't play any civ2 anymore (pherhaps once in a while like I do with civ1, just to get that old feeling again )

civ3 has everything civ2 had, except firepower and the sentry option. Oh well..... I like the new combat system ! unpredictable like a war should be !

[MattHiggs]

I know it's much more challenging I used to be able to win uite easily on Civ1 and Civ2 on Deity level. In Civ 3, now I am learning the game. I find it quite difficult to beat the AI on Warlord.

I think the game is perfect as it is. All this moaning about Air units is a load of dangly bits. Sure the air units should be able to sink boats, well maybe specialist air units should. But not ground units. Take Afghanistan for example, air units could only weaken them. But it's the ground units that are required if any real damage wants to be inflicted.

[jbavon]

I agree I think CivIII is the best so far. And I don't consider civ2 all that great either, its more like civ1.1


As for changes:

I just wanna see Fighters and Bombers that can sink ships, and thats pretty much it.

[Crom]

You're right, Civ III is the best game I've played for ages.

Just wish I could pick specific starting points for all the Civs.

[dannyevilcat]

Civ3 IS better than Civ2. Without question IMO. Although it ain't really "innovative" (many of the new features I've seen in other strategy games), having these new features combined with what is still good ole Civ is damn sweet.

I really hated the AI in Civ2 after a while. And I mean HATE! Especially in scenarios where europeans would sneak attack china with nukes, and have no real objectives or strategies.

NOT ON TOPIC BUT I have a question, though. Since there's this air power bug, I haven't bothered to play that far yet, I must know-- do they still go all crazy with nuclear weapons? Because unlike most warmongers, I can't stand the things, and yet I don't wanna disable them, because heck, they ARE the ultimate weapon. I just hope they are at least sorta responsible with them... have a real deterrent factor. (even though I do hear they got watered down)

[raiseupx]

i think civ 3 is an excellent game, far better than civ 2 ever could hope to be, the beauty about civ games is being able to be the leader of your own civilization and make history as you see fit. and civ3 is by far more realistic than any other civs.

[MattHiggs]

Since there's this air power bug

Explain further?

[Malleus Dei]

I am having issues with Civ 3.

Most of them have to do with the games rigidity - the fixed rules and seups and the inability to customize the game.

Right now I don't like it nearly as much as I liked Civ 2 when I was the same amount of time into each game.

Time will tell. But I don't think that Civ3 will pass the test of time unless Firaxis gets off their ass and does a better job than they have so far.

And I don't think that they either listen to or care much about what we think.

[randomturn]

Civ 3 will be better. At the moment, some things are way better: the AI (in general), the graphics, and the maps to name a few. Some things are -- for the moment -- inferior: mod/scenario tools are almost totally absent, combat has been much documented and needs some tweaking, wonders are unbalanced, play balance in general (including the game play "forces" that tend to force your games to be similar to one another). These things are all fixable, and I am confident that the good people at firaxis will make Civ3 as good as it can be, which is very very good. After all, it took a few years, multiple patches, and 2 expansion packs to make Civ2 as play-balanced and mod-friendly as it was.

[Th0mas]

It is so personal....

Originally posted by Malleus Dei
....Right now I don't like it nearly as much as I liked Civ 2 when I was the same amount of time into each game.....

Most of the rows in the general forum are between people with different perspectives about what CIV as a genre should be.

I think it is about 'suspension of disbelief' if you are the type of person who's perception of CIV is of a Strategic game with tactical elements your opinions of CIV III will vary from someone who views CIV as a Tactical game with Strategic elements.

For example the former would prefer CIV III's combat model and the latter CIV II's combat model. Modern units losing to ancient units can be explained way relatively easily from a strategic perspective, but from a tactical perspective this is certainly not the case.

Tank losing to spearman on plains:

Tactical -----> "NO WAY, spears would just bounce off, the mounted machine guns would decimate the spearman formation"

Strategic -----> "War is attrition, more troops/vehicles die/destroyed through malnutrition, disease, Cold, poor communication, poor leadership etc than by actual fighting, The Tank could have run out of fuel supplies as happened to Rommel"

Neither perspective is wrong..personally the strategic perspective IMO is the correct one for CIV III. I'm enjoying myself

Personally I am getting that old CIV I feeling playing CIV III, something that did not happen with CIV II(didn't stop me playing it over Civ I though).

....or SMAC....maybe I just prefer the non-brian Reynolds versions ?

[MattHiggs]

Yeah that's it. I get that Civ I feeling when playing Civ 3!

It must be good!

[MisterMuppet]

Civ3 is certainly a better game than Civ2. It is also a very good game in its own right. Given enough time it came become a great game.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by MattHiggs
Yeah that's it. I get that Civ I feeling when playing Civ 3!

It must be good!

I Just could never really get the same connection to CIV II, don't get me wrong I really enjoyed playing it..But not like CIV I.

It got worse with SMAC and SMACX, I think I only ever completed one game. This was particularly odd as I used to love reading all the forum posts about it (especially Vel's guides). I would then get a rush of excitement, go home, install SMAC and then....3-4 hours later lose interest

..this was especially true if I had to take more than a 2 day break away from a SMAC game - I just couldn't maintain the connection.

THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED WITH CIV III....yet

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by MisterMuppet
Civ3 is certainly a better game than Civ2. It is also a very good game in its own right. Given enough time it came become a great game.

...Always room for improvement