 |
| |
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
i hope there is room for the opinion that both are good.
Yes, its generally accepted that Civ3 had some serious problems when it was released. I got Civ3 soon after the release date, played it five or six times and went back to Civ2.
However, I did go back to Civ3 after the second patch for Civ3. I bought C3C and i don't see myself playing Civ2 for awhile... I loved Civ 1, but when Civ2 came out, I think I went back to play Civ1 once or twice just for old times sake... Civ3 didn't advance Civilization from Civ2, like Civ2 did from Civ1.
I must admit, there is something about the Civ2 interface that is still better than Civ3. It's easy to move units around, see what's going on, etc. You can fire up a game of Civ2 superfast...and really get right to it. Civ3 has the feel of a slow start that builds momentum.
I'm intriqued by Ming's proposal that Civ4 be based on the engine of Civ2, but updated with some of the features and enhancements in Civ3, PTW and conquests. That would relegate Civ3 to the sidelines currently populated by Call to Power.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
I'll probably draw some heat for this but...
ShogunGunner:
quote:
I must admit, there is something about the Civ2 interface that is still better than Civ3. It's easy to move units around, see what's going on, etc. |
The same keyboard commands you know and love from Civ2 work the same in Civ3, plus there are new ones to do things like move units in a stack, build a road/rail from point A to point B, move to a polluted square and work on it, and many many more. Screen scrolling in Civ3 is by mouse movement now instead of clicking. No more accidently clicking a settler and stopping him from working (also fixed if you do click him).
quote:
You can fire up a game of Civ2 superfast...and really get right to it. Civ3 has the feel of a slow start that builds momentum. |
Indeed. This is one of the things I like best about Civ3. In Civ2, the ancient age is over too fast. And since the AI is better with ancient units, this provides more of a challenge.
STYOM:
quote:
- the piecemeal AI attacks
- the arbitrary limits on Civ #s, units, cities
- the assorted cheats
- the brutal diplomacy |
Mostly fixed in Civ3. The very first time you encounter an AI SOD (stack of death), you'll be awestruck. Most of the limits and cheats are gone too. Diplomacy is improved but could be better.
Grigor:
quote:
the faux trendy (read muddy) civ3 graphics would send me back to Civ2 where my computer screen looks like it can deliver decent resolution |
IMHO Civ3 graphics are much better than Civ2 however this is clearly a matter of personal taste. If you have an old monitor, Civ3 won't look as good as the bright pastels of Civ2. The Civ3 map is slightly darkened in areas you've explored but don't have current knowledge of, i.e. no units in visable range.
quote:
But I remember how long it took to get a computer to play a decent game of chess. And, since civ2 is just as deep in terms of number of variables to consider per turn, finding an algorithm to evaluate the position correctly is a fascinating porblem which has yet to be conquered |
I would argue that any Civ version is a much deeper game than chess: more kinds of units, build decisions, gold, tech, lux, more territory, multiple opponents and lastly, and perhaps most important, imperfect knowledge of your oppenents' position.
quote:
... numerous other ploys which insure a human winning percentage of about 100% |
Alas, you've nailed the #1 reason why I no longer play Civ2. It was a great game, revolutionary for its time, but now it's just too easy. I don't have the time for multi-play although I do play the occasional SP scenario from time to time. The classic game otoh I just don't bother with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
but the day I heard that you could capture cities in civ3 and have them revolt back to the enemy automatically... I said 'no way'. |
They only flip back if you neglect them. This is surely more realistic than the Civ2 model wherein a large ancient city with strong cultural ties to one civ is instantly and permanantly converted to a new civ upon conquest. You don't even need to station one single unit in the city to hold it. I know there are times when I've done the rolling conquest thing, leaving behind a string of empty, yet happy and productive cities. Both the Mongol and Soviet empires required an extensive military presence to control their conquests. Remove the military and they reverted back to their old ethnicity.
Alternately Civ3 lets you to show your good intent by building cultural buildings to appease the conquered masses. Both Rome and Egypt are models of this. Or you can be more Machievillian: turn the populace into slaves and bring in your own people to repopulate the city. A combination of a strong garrison, enslavement and building will ensure that you keep that city. In any case, you have to do more than roll over it and then expect it to produce Howitzers with no other consequences.
IIRC, Civ1 also had cultural flips.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
|
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
Well, I'm a total Civ3 person for awhile now.... (doesn't mean I love Civ2 any less, or even Civ1 for that matter - it was great when it first came out!), but that's not exactly what I meant about the interface of Civ2. Of course, you were right about your points gunkulator. However....
I don't know if I can explain it, I love Civ3 (graphics, gameplay, new rules, etc), but Civ2 has that....how do you say....maybe it's the tempo, maybe it's the crisp look. Ah, now I recall one detail...
In Civ2 you can zoom the map with "z" or "x" to get the perspective to the level of detail you want to work at. Well, sorry, in Civ3, you got two settings: "z" zoomed out and "x" zoomed in. At first I didn't like that, but eventually I got used to it. I still think the level of detail is a bit on the small side, but I think I'll fix that by purchasing a new, larger monitor.
There might be some other things that I still prefer in Civ2 (caravans for sure, but that's beating a dead camel)...if I can recall some specifics I'll post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flipside
|
|
for Sean Marcelo
Jun 2003
time: 05:31
|
|
I was brought here by civ.2 .
I play both 2&3 at a weak diety level and the things that I love most about 2 are:
1)The scenarios
2)The "must play on" nature.
3)The sheer brilliance of how you can examine the game in detail and then find your own style of playing, that can STILL 1) Define yourself and 2) Be successfull.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
flipside
|
|
for Sean Marcelo
Jun 2003
time: 05:31
|
|
I mean I am a weak player at 2 but no matter what your level is, or inclination, you can find a way of playing you enjoy.
The other thing I love about 2 is that, as a lurker, the boys here that I read, enjoy their game and try to help anyone that asks.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-12-2003 20:54
|