No announcement yet.

Civ 2 veterans....

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Civ 2 veterans....

    I'm just wondering how many people here are Civ2 veterans?

    I'm one of those who just got Civ3 and got smashed in King (Monarch) even though I only play on deity in Civ2 and consistently beat the computer. It's quite a different game now, and I still have to get used to it, sigh....

    I think what I'm not taking enough care of is locating/taking the vital resources like luxuries and strategic resources. Of course, sometimes that's just luck, but at the same time, I think when I see something I want, I need to go right there and make a city, however far. It kinda goes against my Civ2 ways of expanding organically. Since you don't get techs stolen if a city is lost, there's less risk of having a small outpost out in the middle of nowhere now.

    Another thing is, I almost never traded techs with the AI in Civ2 unless it's a good trade (i.e. i'm giving something not that important away for something that I want). Now I think I have to trade constantly, because the new science cost system makes it very difficult for one Civ to dominate science without requiring trade.

    These are just some preliminary observations by a guy who played years of Civ2.... I'm just wondering what everyone else thinks.

  • #2
    I'm a vet of the whole Sid Meier 4X series of games.

    I much prefer Civ III to Civ II.

    I find the emphasis on diplomacy is good. The presence of strategic resources is important now, so are the luxuries for that matter. There's a lot else here that pleases me as well.

    The only weak point for me is in the espionage functions. They're all inferior to Civ II in my opinion. I like the theory of "no-spies" and doing it all from a large screen, but the implementation is weak. Everything except for investigating a single city is just way to expensive to ever be worth doing.
    Cool sigs are for others. I'm just a llama.


    • #3
      From my reading of the post here, most have played Civ2 and still are. I had a tough time in my first two games until I dumped all my civ2 thoughts. I was not much on diplomacy in civ2, but now it is a big part especially trading. Expanding was important in civ2, but iit s do or die to do it fast now. No more one unit defenders and upgrade them to get by. I found that more wars and nearly non stop troops building is required to keep the AI in check, especially before they start making MPP and RoP's with everyone. You can not get out in front with tech so easy now, unless you reduce their numbers.


      • #4
        Yeah I know, learned the hard way with my first few games. I've always been more or less a pacifist for the first few thousand years, generally disliking war early on because it slows me down for building wonders and the like. Now if I don't build military units, I get bullied and eventaully screwed over.

        There's no way one player can get all the techs fast enough like it used to. I am still adapting to that aspect of the game by trading more. I am still reluctant to give away key techs for anything, such as monarchy or other such things.

        I think one problem with the emphasis on resources is that sometimes it's pure luck whether you land in a place with lots of or no luxuries, etc. You're in a great disadvantage if you get boxed in by geography and the guy next to you have lots of luxuries. Of course, it can go both ways, but it makes things a bit unreasonably tough in certain games.


        • #5
          My god, can this be my old friend MarshalN?!?! If so, remember your warning to me? You were there at the beginning when I first started this thing and look what has been wrought! This has been about the only thing I have done since the old days, but you knew that would be the case. If you want to know what some of us hardcore Civ2 players think, please go to Civ2-MP and check out the "first to falter" thread.


          • #6
            So true, you can no longer get all of the wonders and must accept that fact. Pacifist is defeat now, the AI will treat you like a dog.


            • #7
              My oh my, it's a small world after all

              Yes, this is the same MarshalN you knew from your RRT2 days. I told you Civ2 is addicting, didn't I?

              I'll certainly check out that thread. Tried another game just now, playing as French again. Killed the Germans with some hard work, but the English declared on me (because i didn't want to give away Republic) and I couldn't fight them off quickly enough before war weariness set in. Sigh. Gotta restart and maybe just trade republic to them for something. Since I'll have chivalry in a few turns and they're nowhere near.... I'll kick them then.

              This is a serious pain though. I hate warring, it's so inefficient and wastes my precious production in a totally unproductive way.


              • #8
                well i just got my first win on emperor level and it was a simple rush the ai via vet archers and swordsmen..... the latter coming just when i needed it.

                Religious civs are good to play as are militaristic for the unit upgrades..... and possible leaders though in this game i just got one....

                i was sandwhiched between eveyrone and although there were two powerfull civs left on either upper flank of myself, they couldn't agree to fight a war against me and i gradually wore them down.

                it ended with a calvalry rush that they just couldnt' withstand...

                i only built one wonder ten cities and razed all but the capitals of my opponents...

                The enjoy building the five star ring of cities with the cap in the middle.....

                key is to do the same but on a smaller scale and add another four cities to fill the gaps from the diagonally first four....

                fast growth , and if you find iron, you can crush two civs in no time..... i had so many units from rushbuilding everything ...

                once the roads were set i just put the workers in the city and rushed new vet units....

                only wonder i built was pyramids with a leader which i finally got when i brought the great russian bear to its knees....

                although the ai will recover from a loss of one or two cities early, they don't sufficiently enough to withstand continual pressure...not only that they will give into your demands while you take down another rival.
                Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!


                • #9
                  I know you can rush them with units early and win, but that's really the boring way to do it I think.... every game you just kinda build a few cities, crush them, and that's it. I prefer letting things run... and win through some other means.

                  Like culture victory.... I want to try it, but I haven't been able to play without getting nailed by an alliance of AIs yet.


                  • #10
                    i totally agree..... but you need to learn warfare anyways so why not learn it first. As i become more aware of the game mechanics and such my strategies will "evolve" into a more peacefull way

                    i always preferred conquering the world to building the spaceship... but in doing my conquering, i felt it was necessary to build up my lands as welll.....

                    I hate the trash the ai till he has one city, surround him and build the ship.....

                    i like wars....followed by lengthy peace...rinse repeat!

                    Diplomatic victory is anticlimatic...... the culture victory is most appealing to me
                    Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!


                    • #11
                      What I used to do in Civ2 is to build a completely dominating lead in tech. I play peaceful for the most part, and make sure I have Great Wall or UN to make forced peace when necessary.

                      Then once I know I can crush them (usually when I get armour and they're still stuck on pikemen) I go crush them. A few turns, a bit of an army building, and the game's over. It's not like I played on easy either, it was always deity.

                      Just have to adjust to a new game, sigh.


                      • #12
                        That is exactly right, my friend. That had been my Civ2 strategy as well, a perfectionist builder until I'm ready to clobber under fundy, even at the deity level. But Firaxis took to heart the criticisms of such Civ2 strategies (and laughable AI), as well as listening way too much to the SMAC and CtP players, that they vowed to make Civ3 a really different game, strategic-wise, from Civ2. They did succeed and old vets like war4, xin, smash, rah, ming, bird, you, myself and others have to learn to adapt. As I had said in that thread, I think we would rather be complaining about the frustrating AI than about how easy and predictable the Civ3 AI is.

                        Good to have you around, don't forget to check out the Civ3-Stories forum here. I hope you might be able to use your great writing skills to conjur up a story or two.


                        • #13
                          I never liked SMAC, and I think right now, Civ3 is leaning dangerously close to SMAC for my taste.

                          The problem is that now there's no way to avoid a war, unless you're virtually paying tribute to the AI. Whereas war was always an option that you don't have to take in Civ2, war is now a necessity. I don't have a problem with it in terms of playing wise... I can easily adapt and am already doing so, but at the same time, I hate it when game makers make decisions for me.

                          It's true that most civs in the real world had to fight a war or two with other civs in their early times, but more often than not, the scale of the world is far too big for civs to come into real conflict anything before 1700. China and Japan had a few small wars, but not until 1800s did conflicts really escalated into national warfare. The East and West had basically no contact other than some occasional envoys. In this game, however, if you aren't ready for war at all times, you're screwed.


                          • #14
                            I think geopolitics can help in that. I'm not that familiar with all of the civs and their attributes, but I believe you can choose those opponents that perhaps will be less incline to militarism the political). Also, choosing a larger map with fewer civs can help to grow in isolation (the geographical). If you have 2 or 3 civs occupying the same relatively small continent, it is impossible to expect to not engage in both offensive and defensive wars, unlike in Civ2. In my first, I cleared off my continent really early on and then I was free to build however I wanted. I prefer to win by conquest because that involves all elements of the game, from expansion and building to culture and diplomacy. To me, those are the means to accomplish the goal. The same can be said in reverse, wars (however they are abstracted at the civ scale) are the means to accomplish cultural, diplomatic or space goals.


                            • #15
                              I'm a veteran Civ2 player who now loves Civ3. I still play Civ2 but it has been a couple of weeks since the last time I played Civ2!

                              Anyway, I think one way to avoid war (if you love being a peaceful builder) is to not neglect your military. Have a stong military and the AI will not pick on you so much. A strong military and a high culture rating should earn you the respect you need to not have the Ai declare war on you for the slightest reason.

                              My 2 cents.
                              signature not visible until patch comes out.