Tweet
I think the point is still missed about this game.
Civ III was made this way, because of the way people played Civ II for the most part, always talking about them conqueoring the other Civ's.
For the rest of us that played it differently, Civ III is not that much different, but still different enough to be genuine update to a Classic game.
Civ II was still different when it came out, Sid, I am guessing had to teach the computer to make roads and railroads, and other things were added to the game, and a lot of work was done.
I still think Civ III is better out of the box to begin with, and yes one may need a faster computer. But this is nothing new. I verily remember Civ I but still I have that and I think some people are still talking about Civ when it was out in MS-Dos.
Civ III is very different, but then it is different because of the way that people in the Past have played the game.
It is tougher, because of that, and because it seems to involve more animated figures that are needed for todays games.
I think the game is funnier now, although it wants to bite at you.
But as someone said, 'If I wanted an easy game after beating Civ II on Deity, then I play Civ II'.
So, it does not bother me to play on Cheiftain level if needed with Civ III, since with Civ II, I play a long time on Warlord before going up the ladder to different levels.
I still would not play Civ II on Deity, and I probably will not play Civ III on Deity.
I plan the play the game on a level that I enjoy and leave the competiveness to other people.
If multiplayer, who would be the people you would play with?
Ones that traded with you or interacted with you the way you want, or more like the computer plays in Civ III.
If you were winning, would they not try and stop you?
Have a Cigar, you'll go far!
Shine on you Crazy Diamond!
(Pink Floyd song)
Civ III was made this way, because of the way people played Civ II for the most part, always talking about them conqueoring the other Civ's.
For the rest of us that played it differently, Civ III is not that much different, but still different enough to be genuine update to a Classic game.
Civ II was still different when it came out, Sid, I am guessing had to teach the computer to make roads and railroads, and other things were added to the game, and a lot of work was done.
I still think Civ III is better out of the box to begin with, and yes one may need a faster computer. But this is nothing new. I verily remember Civ I but still I have that and I think some people are still talking about Civ when it was out in MS-Dos.
Civ III is very different, but then it is different because of the way that people in the Past have played the game.
It is tougher, because of that, and because it seems to involve more animated figures that are needed for todays games.
I think the game is funnier now, although it wants to bite at you.
But as someone said, 'If I wanted an easy game after beating Civ II on Deity, then I play Civ II'.
So, it does not bother me to play on Cheiftain level if needed with Civ III, since with Civ II, I play a long time on Warlord before going up the ladder to different levels.
I still would not play Civ II on Deity, and I probably will not play Civ III on Deity.
I plan the play the game on a level that I enjoy and leave the competiveness to other people.
If multiplayer, who would be the people you would play with?
Ones that traded with you or interacted with you the way you want, or more like the computer plays in Civ III.
If you were winning, would they not try and stop you?
Have a Cigar, you'll go far!
Shine on you Crazy Diamond!
(Pink Floyd song)
.
Comment