16-12-2001 10:16									#1
	CIV1 to CIV3 Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Please play Civ2 if you can't stand Civ3. I know a few people who played Civ1 and now play Civ3. No complaints at all!

I have played Civ2, but Civ3 is much better. I did not like the wonder movies, and the game is smooth! Reminds me of Civ1 when I first played it.

Civ2 is over-rated in my opinion. Very simple customization was allowed.

	16-12-2001 10:43									#2
	Support Apolyton

It's not a coincidence that Civ III shares more in common with the original Civ than with Civ II.

Dan

	16-12-2001 11:07									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: It's not a coincidence that Civ III shares more in common with the original Civ than with Civ II.

A simple equations to understand that would be:

Sid = Civ1
Brian = Civ2
Sid = Civ3
Civ3 = Civ1

	16-12-2001 11:33									#4
	Got spare money?

I agree that Civ3 & Civ1 > Civ2 from a gameplay perspective. Civ2 is just way too easy.

But why limit the game so much? Will Civ4 be essentially the same game, with more 'features'? It would be nice to have a game with more techs, more wonders (Brian), but with balanced Gameplay (Sid).

	16-12-2001 13:45									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I always liked Civ1 better then Civ2. Still plays it, especially CivNet.

	16-12-2001 19:26									#6
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Gramphos I always liked Civ1 better then Civ2.

Same here. Civ 2 was missing a certain something... not sure.
It just didnt hold as much fun for me as Civ 1 did.

	16-12-2001 19:50									#7
	Tired of ads?

Civ 1 held my attention for some time. Civ 2 never did, but I could never explain why.

Trouble is, Civ1 is 10 years old ... that is one hell of a long time in the computer world. I think I would have liked to have seen 10 years of evolution in Civ3, jes?

	16-12-2001 22:55									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS It's not a coincidence that Civ III shares more in common with the original Civ than with Civ II.

Well, y'all nailed the Civ1 Phalanx/Battleship combat system to a tee...

Venger

	17-12-2001 00:54									#9
	Support Apolyton

-and colonization is also related to Civ 3
Which was also by civ
and was made in 1994- thus if you want something newer than Civ I

	17-12-2001 00:58									#10
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DarkCloud -and colonization is also related to Civ 3 Which was also by civ and was made in 1994- thus if you want something newer than Civ I

Colonization was by Brian. But I have to admit that is was great. It was the first game to use the Civ2 text-file-format.

	17-12-2001 04:33									#11
	Remove this text

quote: Well, y'all nailed the Civ1 Phalanx/Battleship combat system to a tee...

c'mon, we all use that line,
and we all talk about civ3 'tank vs phalanx'problems,
but how many of us did REALLY experience it ?

To not even speak about that it happened often.

When I have tanks none of my enemies has any phalanx around anymore. And the hitpoint system makes sure that a phalanx must win at least 3 times from a tank to defeat it completely.

I think it's just a famous thing to shout while it hardly happens in reality. And even if it does.............. so what if you lose a tank once in 200 battles with phalanxes.

If you do really have to battle phalanxes that often with tanks........ you're either briliant or playing at chiefstan.

	17-12-2001 06:50									#12
	A question to Dan Magaha :) Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS It's not a coincidence that Civ III shares more in common with the original Civ than with Civ II. Dan

Dear Dan,

I'd be most interested to hear why Civ3 is closer to Civ1 than Civ2/SMAC? I have read countless of posts here at Apolyton where ppl are complaining about some great Civ2/SMAC features that are lacking from Civ3. I think that most of us were expecting Civ3 to collect all the best parts of all the previous civ games. Plus adding something new and intriguing.

There really are many new exiting features implemented which I like and I enjoy playing Civ3! For example, I prefer the new trading system compared to moving those countless caravans around the world. I've already spent countless nights developing my empire.. For me it has been worth the money I invested in it.

I'm just wondering why the desing team has left out some very basic commands that have existed in all other civ games? A very good example of this is the "sentry"-command. It really is nearly as important command as "fortify" and I'm quite sure that nobody objects my claim. I could write a very long list of all the things many of us vet civers are missing from older games, but it's not necessary here.

I got yet another friendly request, Dan. Would it be completely impossible idea if you could compile some info to your web site www.civ3.com about the future features that have been most wished for and what are decided to implement? I don't mean any complex and detailed list here, just "topics" would be better than nothing. ANY "official" info would be greatly appreciated! Ppl are posting here about the same issues over and over again and one essential reason for this behavior is the lack of the official info.

You see, right now about every day is a new thread generated where ppl ask for "sentry"-command or stack movement and so on. I am really afraid that some very good suggestions and ideas are getting buried under tons of the new posts about the same old issues. This surely is a very frustrating situation for everyone of us trying to follow these Civ3 forums nowadays.


In conclusion, 'official" info would greatly reduce the amount of redundant posts and in the end everybody would be happier!

	17-12-2001 06:59									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

"Dear Marko Polo:

What you suggest sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. You see, when we act in a professional manner, this only helps to raise people's expectations of us.

And since we barely meet sub-standard expectations, I really find nothing to be gained in acting in a more professional manner.

Thanks, though.

--Dan"

	17-12-2001 12:25									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Who said sid was better than Brian? Who made Age of empires? And anyone who says civ1 is better than civ2 needs to go hide their head in the ground. What's worse is that the firaxians actually agree. The end of the civ series is at hand.

	17-12-2001 12:33									#15
	Support Apolyton

Expressing your opinion is fine. You can watch videos of wonders all day if you like, but only Multiplayer saved Civ2. Maybe re-release Civ2 again ya think?

I prefer more substance, and the alternatives to war. Civ2 is all about constant wars.

Anyway I hope you get more fun out of Civ3 than I found in Civ2! It's got more meat if you read the manual.

	17-12-2001 13:09									#16
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by EnigmaticGod Who said sid was better than Brian? Who made Age of empires? And anyone who says civ1 is better than civ2 needs to go hide their head in the ground. What's worse is that the firaxians actually agree. The end of the civ series is at hand.

Civ1 had many cool little things that made the game good. The newspaper and the replay to name two. No such things were back in Civ2. Civ2 only had better graphics, the gameplay is mush better in Civ1. I can say that I liked Civ2, but I loved Civ1. I can't come up with all the arguments I've had for this right now, but can you try to tell me why Civ2 is better then Civ1, and why I always, after I played one game Civ2 played two games Civ1, after the early Civ2?
Civ2 also had a very unrealistic feature, that you always knew when a wonder was being built, and when it was one turn from finished. It would have been okay for the levels up to prince, but then it shouldn't have been there.

	17-12-2001 15:22									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by EnigmaticGod Who said sid was better than Brian? Who made Age of empires? ...... The end of the civ series is at hand.

Eye's

Personnally I prefer Sid's 'Turn based' Strategy games to Brian's. this of course is subjective.

..and from an enjoyment, fullfilling, 'one-more-turn' perspective I think Civ 1 was better than Civ 2. Having said that I stopped playing Civ1 once Civ 2 came out. I also have stopped playing Civ 2 now that Civ 3 has come out - in fact I haven't really enjoyed a game of Civ2 for years (although I still carried on playing it).

Civ 3 has brought back that civ1 feeling and that, for me can only be a good thing.

So the civ series may be at an end for you... but don't worry there are lots of good RTS games out there for you.

	17-12-2001 18:28									#18
	Support Apolyton

I have also noticed the similarity to Civ1. when Shaka contacts me for some reason, he looks just like he did in Civ1, except he blinks. those heralds were the only bit of fluff from Civ2 I turned off.

then when I build a wonder, I just get a message, like in Civ1. No more Civ2 wonder movies. no more high council, either. they are just the mute heads I had in Civ1.

So from the game screen, Civ3 feels a lot like Civ1. But the gameplay is all it's own. the gameplay was virtually unchanged from Civ1 to Civ2.

	17-12-2001 20:17									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I would just like to note that CivI was much much much much easier than CivII. You did not to switch governments at all, you did not need to build many city improvements you did not need to build any world wonders etc. and emperor was actually easy (at least for me).

In that sense I think CivIII is more like CivII ... or not?

	17-12-2001 20:19									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast I have also noticed the similarity to Civ1. when Shaka contacts me for some reason, he looks just like he did in Civ1, except he blinks. those heralds were the only bit of fluff from Civ2 I turned off. then when I build a wonder, I just get a message, like in Civ1. No more Civ2 wonder movies. no more high council, either. they are just the mute heads I had in Civ1. So from the game screen, Civ3 feels a lot like Civ1. But the gameplay is all it's own. the gameplay was virtually unchanged from Civ1 to Civ2.

I agree and disagree

In certain respects the gameplay has not changed in CIV 1 2 or 3.
Some of the common features being:
Tiled Map;
civilisation size =no. of cities;
population growth vs production;
happyness-tech-money triangle;
Stratigic combat (Trade) modelled by tactically moving representative units;

Both civ 2 and civ3 have added game play features but the majority of cases these are just different implementations on the basic civ model (excluding trade and culture).

From my personal perspective I think the biggest impact has been the change in combat between civ2 and civ3. In Civ1 you were never sure whether unit x would be able to defend against unit y. The combat decisions you made were 'risky' and an unlucky result at the wrong time could cripple you war effort.

Civ 2 removed this aspect, and in hindsight I missed it. Civ 3 has brought this back to a certain extent and maybe this is why it feels more like Civ 1 to me?

	18-12-2001 01:20									#21
	Remove this text

Civ2's strengths were multiplayer (when Gold came out) and the Editor. Once I became tired of Civ2, I just played scenario after scenario, and it took awhile to get tired of those. Fantastic Worlds and Test of Time was some great stuff!

But if you compare the single player game, out of the box, Civ1 was far superior. Of course Civ1 was written for DOS and Windows 3.1, so naturally the graphics, etc. aren't nearly as impressive as its successor.

I was able to beat Civ2 my first time playing (on Warlord) by conquest. That's saying a lot, and has only been the case with CTP and SMAC. The AI was predictable as can be even on Diety, and the game balance was poor.

Gameplay: Civ 3 > Civ 1 > Civ2

Graphics: Civ 3 > Civ 2 > Civ1

IMHO