 |
|
DrFell
|
|
Civ3 really sucked when it was first released, too many loopholes (like that forest trick and pop rushing). Patch 1.21 made it playable, and I'm hoping for the expansion pack to be 'the real civ3'. I'm not buying it straight away until I hear what people on here say first though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
markusf
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Hydey
It just didn't have the one more turn feel. |
Oh i wouldn't say that. I often felt, "I can't take one more turn of this"
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
markusf
|
|
civ3 is even worse, i attack and my whole army vanishes because of some rebellion! LOL
The AI is even worse then in civ2, they just hope you don't notice because now you can attack with stacks. And you can't kill off a AI stack with one unit no more.
The resource thing in MP? I just see a lot of people quiting if they don't have what they want. The game simply has no sence of accomplishment, one year is just like the next.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999 time: 23:20
|
|
Think MP, Mark. But you illustrate my point fairly well. 
Civ I was fine, until II.
SP was fine, until MP.
Civ II MP will be fine, until MP III arrives.
Which Civ would you pick? What if someone else chooses that Civ ?
They're all different. All specific strengths, be it commerce, military, religious, whatever.
Is there a weaker Civ ? Maybe.
One could make the point that Aztecs, with their puny Jaguar Warrior, is a longshot. Except the Warrior upgrades to Swordsmen.
Americans? The F15 is way into the game, but what if someone masters the U.S. play?
Different thing then.
What if you like Japan. Tooling along in the game, no iron in your land. 
What then? Try and take land with iron? Try and trade ?
What is the cause for restart in II ? Techs. That's gone.
I'm really surprised that MP people don't see all that I do, especially considering I was boycotting, and had to have it practically rammed down my throat.
The prime draw on Civ, is that every game is pretty different than the last.
Civ III takes that fact to another level.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
DrSpike
|
 |
Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Sep 2001 time: 05:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand
Ok, here are what I see as facts.
Civ III suffers, only because it's not MP. I agree.
Civ III is still vastly superior to II, when regarded in only SP terms.
Once III has been fitted with MP capabilities, it will kick the dogstuff out of II in MP also.
Why? More involved options for how to conduct one's Civ, assuming all options are available. |
As one of the few civ2MPers that has played a lot of civ3 I have to disagree with some of this. Civ3 SP has several nice features, but the fact that it is harder on the higher levels is not predominantly due to better AI but just reflects the simplified nature of the gameplay and AI bonuses. It's ironic, I have defended civ3 a lot in this forum because I have played it a bit and its fun, as long as you regard it is as civ lite. In the civ3 forums however, I find myself having to point out why the game will never be as deep or flexible as civ2. 
I really hope civ3 MP works, we need more players, but I am as yet unconvinced, as are most that have played a lot of civ3 are.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|