didnt you all really want SMAC on earth?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
But Civ3 is closer to Civ1 than Civ2. When I was talking with Soren the other day, he told me that they can't go too far from Civ1 and still be call it Civ. It has to stay similar to the original. More fans would be disappointed than happy if it changed a lot.

IMO only superficially more similar

Similarities with Civ1:

- Palace instead of throne room
- Leaderhead instead of portrait
- No farmlands
- hmm... can't seem to think of any other similarites other than the basic game concept which is the same for Civ1/2/3/SMAC

BTW, do you know WHY they can't stray too far off?

Perhaps because technically it is SID MEIER'S Civilization?

[WarpStorm]

You got it. Sid won't let them.

Seriously, it is 'high risk'. They know (as does Infogrames, who controls the money and the Civ name), that what will sell in a sequel is something close to the original hit title. If you keep piling on features and complexities with each new version you in fact get less and less sales as you are only catering to your hard core fans. Had they made Civ2 on steroids like many expected, it wouldn't have sold as well. It probably would have only sold a little better than SMAC did (the setting and name would pretty much guarantee more sales). Ultimately, Firaxis is a business and has to weigh potential sales into design decisions.

[pedrojedi]

That's it. Just as I said.

In the end, it is kinda common sense.

[RGBVideo]

civs with actual differences

Unlike AC.

[RGBVideo]

Of course there are some exceptions, like the fundamentalism issue (that was good I liked people believing in my holy words).

I'm actually glad that they got rid of it.

[ottok]

jaa vai silleen,Tuomerehu?

[badams52]

Originally posted by The Templar

And yes, Civ3 beats Civ2 as well - so suck it!

I went back and played a civ 2 game recently, and realized for myself what I prefer in civ 3. Real borders, an AI that REXes, better trade negotiations (no caravans) and diplomacy, luxuries, resources that appear later in the game, AI gets to use goody huts, bombardment, a challenge when building wonders post trade, units require money - not city support, units don't die when the city that supported them is conquered, workers, stacks that don't die all at once, and there are probably others too.

In civ 2, ultimate power came quick and very easily.

[pedrojedi]

Agreed; but remembering how Civ2 is feels so good... And easy to beat.

[RGBVideo]

jaa vai silleen,Tuomerehu?

No just niin!

[badams52]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
I played the heck out of Civ2 and SMAC, and I have to admit that Civ3 is a better game for a whole slew of reasons -- better trade, better AI, an editor so simple even a buffoon like me can use it, civs with actual differences, UUs, etc.

On the other hand, Civ3 isn't as fun as the other games, primarily because of the long section in the late Industrial period where there is NOTHING to build. For a builder like me, that's a searingly boring time in the game, when there's nothing to do but crank out a buttload of units I don't intend to use because I almost never declare war on anybody. If they could add two or three city improvements into that spot, I would have no problem adoring Civ 3.

Come over to the dark side. War is enjoyable.

Actually, I didn't really like SMAC that much, I played it maybe twice then got bored of it. I loved MOO, but never played the sequels. Somehow, I just became a civ fan and the other TBS games just aren't as interesting to me.

And I actually like that downtime during the industrial age when some of my cities are maxed out on improvements. I prefer macro management, and Civ 3 allows for more macromanagement of cities and workers so I can concentrate on war.

When I went back to play civ 2, I took my new warmonger self to see what would happen and I never realized before just how quick and easy a war in civ 2 could be. Overwhelming force is trickier because stacking units inherits a bigger risk, but using overwhelming force still worked well.

[Louis XXIV]

civs with actual differences

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

Unlike AC.

Ummm

Each Faction was completely unique, except for UU's.

[RGBVideo]

Each Faction was completely unique, except for UU's.

Yes, that was why I was pointing it out from other options. Heard of sarcasm?

[Manya]

You should have placed the rolleyes smiley there

[RGBVideo]

You should have placed the rolleyes smiley there

I I forgot it . Now it's edited, so no chance of misunderestanding. Hope it's not considered offensive

[Louis XXIV]

Sorry 'bout that