Civilization 1, 2 Or 3?

[Unknown Hero]

Did you ever played civ 1 or 2? Have you ever played say, Call to Power?


Civ. 3 has:

1)Dumb AI
2)Bugs, lot of them
3)Amount of corruption beyond belief, absolutely stupid.
4)Brings nothing new, (Mainly that!) it's clearly cash cow milking.
5)+You have to watch AI moves. I *dirty word* hate that, it just takes too long...
6)Small diversity in AI levels. Either too dumb or cheating.
And list could go on...

Best strategy game ever? Yeah right...how many strategy games have you played?
First, I played all Civilization games and the first game I personnaly bought (around 14-15) was Colonization, which is a sequel to Civilization (but not really in the same way). I played Civilization and CIV III to the death and I own CIV II on my playstation. I know of what I am talking about and I experiemented all the games we are talking about here.

I can assure you that:

1) The AI is far from dumb at higher level (I always play at Regeant level because I don't like to have the computer "cheat" on me on the higest levels). The only noticable case of stupidity from the computer is when they start a war with obsolete units. However that's usually either because they are too far to reach you in time or because they did not get to war from a long time and never build new units. This is, up to a point. kind of realistic.
2) I never encountered a bug in CIV III. I would be glad that you can even tell me one.
3) The point of the corruption is that you don't own half of the planet and manage without a problem to get all your cities running top notch. And it is very realist. It also bring a very big dimention to the management part of the game. That's a big plus on my side.
4) If you can't manage to spot what is different in CIV III than you are plainly blind. Just the cultural border is such a big improvement, you just can't miss it. In a lot of my games I managed to grap cities (and sometime even almost entire civilizations) to my neighbors simply by concentrating on developing culture in the border cities first. No need to say that it often brought some wars along but that's surely not a bad point. Second to that, everything on that game is candy for the eye. I'm usually not keen on new graphics, but they managed to improve the isometric view even better than in CIV II. The whole world (maximum size) is also very huge. The games I prefer to play is on the huge map with all civilizations starting at point 0. I am pretty sure that you could not play 25 civilizations at once on CIV II. I could also continue but I hope you get the point.
5) You can turn the options off so you don't have to see your ennemy moves. But it would be clearly stupid. You would need to tell me how you wish to be able to counter an ennemy invasion without seeing them move first... I don't think I would be able to.
6) You can bet it wasn't better in the previous versions.


So I still say CIV III is superior in all aspect to CIV II. And that Civilization is still supperior to CIV II. I would not play CIV II if I could be playing the first one.

I have found foundation of my topic here (up of here)! I prefer Civ 3, and dislike Civ 2! :ph34r:

[Rogue]

I like all 3 parts, but number 3 is much superior to any other. (I got also Colonization, TOT, Alpha Centaury and Call to Power to, but Civ3 is much better then any of them)

[evilded]

Civ2=Wicked cool :ok:

[Sebatianos]

Well I guess it's the mater of personal opinion, but I'd go with CIV2. It's just my fav. Liked others too (I think the worse in this series was actually Alph Centoury - but even that one had nice features!).

[Dream]

Ehm no I can not turn it off, I turned it off yet I still have to watch enemy moves as long as they are in my field of sight if you know what I mean. Another bugs are mainly about sounds, it happens to me that in modern age some of units don't do any sounds and others use sounds of other units.

Tell me about any other improvment than cultural broders that wasn't been in Call to Power. I can not think of one, well except the graphics...

Of course it's here to prevent me from owning planet, the corruption, but it's far too overdone, the amount of it is simply ridiculous.

And yes this is what I don't like, AI doesn't upgrade it's units because it doesn't gets to war, also Romans get always beaten up by someone else just as Russians. I never saw these two nations accomplish anything and otherwise these oponents repeat themselfs in every game.

[Yamcha]

Its definetky Civ 3.I'm a civ series fan and I can say that they aren't that hard...after two weeks of playng you'll became a master :ok:

[FreeFreddy]

So far I only played Civilization 1 and Civilization 2 on the collection-CD called Test of Time. There was Civilization II + extended version of original game + The world of Midgard (Fantasy) + The Universe of Lalande 21185 (Science-fiction far in the future). And I liked it very much, perhaps with exception of the Science-fiction addon, so I voted for Civilization II. ;)

[Razor2]

Civ 3 is by far better than 2.

By the way civ 2 was bug ridden when it came out. It had quite a few graphic corruptions at that time, on the other hand civ3 had only one serious bug, i'm aware of: it freezed when played from the second CD-drive on a PC with 2 CDs, but that has been corrected with the first patch.

[wormpaul]

CIV 1 is absolute the best...

Many great gameplay options without getting too difficult :ok:

[The Niles]

Civ 1 for me. The other two are better game but Civilization is the classic and civ2, 3 are not.

[Unknown Hero]

I agree in some way! I couldn't even compare Civ1 and 3 as they were very diverse, but still I voted for Civ3!

[Rorture]

Voted for civ2.

Civ 3 had some great features, like the diplomacy (I loved the freedom of choice in that - especially when negotiating treaties i.e. russians proposal: me: peace treaty. them: peace treaty, my proposal: me: nothing, them: GIVE ME EVERYTHING HA HA HA!!! :twisted:). But it wasn't the improvement I wnted it to be. $30 down the drain.

[Eagle of Fire]

So I still say CIV III is superior in all aspect to CIV II. And that Civilization is still supperior to CIV II. I would not play CIV II if I could be playing the first one.Eagle of Fire,
I agree with most you say about Civ3, but can't understand that you think civ 1 is better then civ2. In which way is better?


It is simple. Civilization is a gem and is the first of it's kind. You can't say the same for CIV II. If that is not enough, the gameplay from Civilization and CIV II is the same than if you compare CIV II to CIV III. However, Civilization was a fast paced game which could easily be completed in 8 hours in the harder difficulty setting, while CIV II is a long, bothersome and micro as well as macro managing game that I disliked from the start. The graphics were better but I found them cheesy and hard on the eye (when it got out) and I sure disliked the fact that I felt like the game was "incomplete". CIV III fixed that. I am about sure that if it wasn't for the cultural border novelty I would have thought CIV III boring too and not worthy to even be better than Civilization. But it add a complete new aspect in the game.

All the new things in CIV III makes the game move playable and lovable. However, Civilization did not need all that fancy work to be really good, so while I prefer CIV III I still consider Civilization to be a very high ranked game which outclass CIV II easily.

[N17R0]

I'd have to say it's a tough call between 1 and 2. I remember wasting a LOT of time to the 1st one (we even had it at my elementary school!). The second one I found really awesome, but it didn't hold my attention as long as the first tho.

[Eagle of Fire]

Sounds like a lot of people never even tryied Civ III yet... :not_ok:

[N17R0]

For some reason, I just did not get into it, no clue why. :/

[Rogue]

Second civ got all changes we wished in the first game. Bigger, greater, nicer graphics, better sounds, wonder movies, and gold edition got couple other adds, like multiplayer (never tried it), and fantasy and SF games. This game was moded a lot, and it has a lot of great scenarios.

So I would say that works the same way: civ 2 is better then civ 1 same way civ 3 is better then civ 2.

It's great series.

[Titan]

the BEST improvement must be the fact that you can get you workers in AUTO-mode if you and in for an easy game and don't feel like micro everything..

Nah.. i must say, i concider every cent i spend on civ3 serie well invested.. costed me little over 100€ until now, but man.. all the fan-addons from civfanatics REALY gives you a new game every week!

Oh.. saw Civ for mobil under development.. i guess me and Kosta will get them for our Moto A925's once it's finished :)

Sid iz da MAN! Worship him!

[Rorture]

Actually, in the civ2 i got, which was the special edition one with the add-ons and the multiplayer option, you could automate your settlers.

[Rogue]

All civ2 versions have automated settlers. (One you had is Gold Edition)

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Titan@Nov 28 2004, 10:52 PM
Sid iz da MAN! Worship him!
:kosta:

Just saw new Pirates! Will wait a bit to buy, as right now costs $50-$55.

[Rorture]

The one I got before that had no automated settlers

[Titan]

More like the settler/worker concept is just realy good.. i increases the difficulty somewhat..

Not to talk about the resources.. both strategic and luxury..
If you can put your hands on 5-6 luxury, and just get market-pace goings, you'r in for a good game... Corruption is what's needed to hold you back, just enough..

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Rorture@Nov 29 2004, 09:13 AM
The one I got before that had no automated settlers
Check if you had latest update installed.

I'll check it tonight when I got home.

[The Niles]

I never thought of Sid Meyer as the best designer in the bussiness. He makes good games for sure but he was very late to jump on certain new developments and somehow all him games lack basic features i would want in them. Multiplayer is one thing Sid has never been able to get right, graphics is another. In Civ the borders not being added until the third edition is bad. I wont say his reputation is completely undeserved but he is overrated.

[Unknown Hero]

Originally posted by Titan@Nov 29 2004, 04:52 AM
the BEST improvement must be the fact that you can get you workers in AUTO-mode if you and in for an easy game and don't feel like micro everything..

Nah.. i must say, i concider every cent i spend on civ3 serie well invested.. costed me little over 100€ until now, but man.. all the fan-addons from civfanatics REALY gives you a new game every week!

Oh.. saw Civ for mobil under development.. i guess me and Kosta will get them for our Moto A925's once it's finished :)

Sid iz da MAN! Worship him!
AUTO-mode is the worst thing! Play at higher difficulties and you will see how important is to control workers by yourself, or to pick an excelent spot to build a city!
I don't use AUTO-mode even when I have more than 100 workers! - yes you heard well one hundred workers!

[Rogue]

I never used auto workers either, as mostly I like to get some things done first. But in Civ3 I used command to build road and then improve land or make a colony. It's nice addition!

[The Settler]

Auto worker is no good if youre not a skull above the other. When there is thight games and youre not the biggest or best civ, you should control the workers yourself. The corruption is maybe high, but if you think of the realism in the game vs. the real world, then you will se that corruption is a big problem when having large areas to control.

:kosta:

SID

[Shambler]

Civ II is the best, as far as I'm concerned. It has better graphics and gameplay than the original, and it plays much better than the third installment.

[Chef Boyardee]

Eh, I kinda like Civilization III although I never really played the others. I think it's got great gameplay, great graphics, and just about everything is great. Except for me, I'm pretty awful at it.

[Eagle of Fire]

it plays much better than the third installment.


This is completely false. Unless you have a cheap computer, then you would be right...

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Rorture@Nov 29 2004, 09:13 AM
The one I got before that had no automated settlers
You right! :ok:

Original Civ did not have it. TOT has auto eng.

[Fenris]

I only played the first part and the collector's edition of the second part, so i didn't vote but I prefer the second because it really has an improved gameplay, and there were a lot Add-Ons for it.

[Unknown Hero]

And they say Civ2 is better!?!?!
How could they know?

Hey people! Buy Civ3, try it out, and then vote! :ok:

[Roes5000]

I played all three...and lots...just got a rush from playing one....only lacked multiplayer.
Civ2 was also good.

So my vote goes for Civ1

[holyman9]

When I first played CIV3 I really disliked it. I found everyone too agressive, I did not like the influence-zone thing, I found too few units, bugs and I officially stopped playing when my tank was destroyed by a warrior...
Becasue I am a big fan of the series (Civ1 + Civ2 in particular) I decided to give the game another chance a few months later. I did... and again, I stopped playing when my tank was destroyed by a warrior....
Like an addict, I gave the game another chance a few months later, and this time I managed to get further than before (I actually won a game), but then it got boring...

Sigh... For those who dont yet know, the rights for Civilization have actually been sold to an unknown buyer (most people think its Activision who loaned the rights when they made Call to Power) so maybe we can finally have a solid sequel to the first Civ, or maybe the entire series is going to the wolves.

My favourite? CivNet. I played it with my friends until our eyeballs fell out from exaustion. Favourite feature in this one was creating your own character!

[auhsor]

Well I've played Civ 1 quite a bit, and also Civ 3. I don't know Civ3 didnt'really drag me in as much as I thought it would. I think I shall give it another go another time. So yeah I voted Civ 1 in the poll.

[Eagle of Fire]

and I officially stopped playing when my tank was destroyed by a warrior...

First, rank of unit really give an advantage against another unit. For example, an Elite unit would have 100% defense bonus agaisnt a regular (if I remember well). This bring your warrior to defense: 2.

Next, if you attack from the side of a river and your target is at the other side, it gives the defending unit 50% defense. Defense 2.5.

The warrior would undoubtly be fortified. +50%. Defense 3.

There is several buildings which can be built to increase the defense of a unit when defending in a city. First, the unit get +50% for defending a city or village even if there is nothing built yet. Then walls add a wall bombardment defense of 8 and +50% defense to all defending units. Defense 4.

So, if your Warrior finnaly get a defense of 4, would it be against a unit with 8 or 16 or attack, there is always a mathematical chance that it win. Would it be only one time per game, then it's not happening that often to my humble oppinion.

[Fawfulhasfury]

I haven't played any of them. I don't really like strategy games. They make me think, like *shudder* educational television.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Dec 7 2004, 10:18 PM
and I officially stopped playing when my tank was destroyed by a warrior...

First, rank of unit really give an advantage against another unit. For example, an Elite unit would have 100% defense bonus agaisnt a regular (if I remember well). This bring your warrior to defense: 2.

Next, if you attack from the side of a river and your target is at the other side, it gives the defending unit 50% defense. Defense 2.5.

The warrior would undoubtly be fortified. +50%. Defense 3.

There is several buildings which can be built to increase the defense of a unit when defending in a city. First, the unit get +50% for defending a city or village even if there is nothing built yet. Then walls add a wall bombardment defense of 8 and +50% defense to all defending units. Defense 4.

So, if your Warrior finnaly get a defense of 4, would it be against a unit with 8 or 16 or attack, there is always a mathematical chance that it win. Would it be only one time per game, then it's not happening that often to my humble oppinion.
:ok: And whole this makes a sense if you know a bit more about history and wars. Just take for example Soviet Union occupation of Afghanistan. (Maybe somebody helping those damn warriors :whistle: :D )


Fawfulhasfury,
This game is indeed educational. :sneaky: :D

Let's sing along:
:max:

We don't need no education
We don’t need no thought control…


:band:

[Mucman]

I love all 3 for different reasons. Civ 1 mainly because it's a classic and the first game to keep me up all night.

I have mixed feelings about the automated settlers. In the real world, a leader doesn't have time to micromanage everything in their empite. Trusting the AI to control your settlers/workers is the same as a leader who trusts the civil engineers of the country. I know... a massively stretched out abstraction, but that's still the way I think about it. What I wish for is queue of jobs for workers. I would love to tell them to build a road from coordinates A to coordinates B. It would then allow me to choose each square or let the AI choose. Lastly, I should be able to assign sentries for these workers if I anticipate them going into dangerous land.

Honestly, I think if everyone's ideas for the Civilization series were implemented, the game would pretty much play itself! It's all about balancing the micromanagement with gameplay. Some people love micromanagement others doesn't. It's always a tough call.

[Unknown Hero]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Dec 8 2004, 04:18 AM
and I officially stopped playing when my tank was destroyed by a warrior...

First, rank of unit really give an advantage against another unit. For example, an Elite unit would have 100% defense bonus agaisnt a regular (if I remember well). This bring your warrior to defense: 2.

Next, if you attack from the side of a river and your target is at the other side, it gives the defending unit 50% defense. Defense 2.5.

The warrior would undoubtly be fortified. +50%. Defense 3.

There is several buildings which can be built to increase the defense of a unit when defending in a city. First, the unit get +50% for defending a city or village even if there is nothing built yet. Then walls add a wall bombardment defense of 8 and +50% defense to all defending units. Defense 4.

So, if your Warrior finnaly get a defense of 4, would it be against a unit with 8 or 16 or attack, there is always a mathematical chance that it win. Would it be only one time per game, then it's not happening that often to my humble oppinion.
Let's say that only bombs, guns and other tanks can destroy tank!
In that case if you discover tank, you will be able to conquer the whole map!!!
I think this doesn't make sence, so I will once more have to agree with Eagle of Fire! :ok:

[Eagle of Fire]

It doesn't make sense indeed. Even warriors could jump on the tank and get inside, then use the tank on the other tanks just like I seen in a movie not too long ago.

In the movie I am talking about, they improvised "bombs" by using their socks, soaking them with tar and placing inside some bomb charges, then thrown the socks near the wheels moving the treads. Then they made it blow up so the tank could not move, rendering it hopelessly defenseless...

After all, that's what Elite military personel is about. It's almost like commandos.

[Unknown Hero]

Did you ever play Call of Duty? There is one mission where your soldiers open german panzer, and throw granade inside! Pisssss! The tank is gone! :bleh:

[Eagle of Fire]

Yeah. But anyways, the point is that a Tank is nowhere a unbreachable fortress on wheels... Sh!t happens, and sometime they can lose to seemingly stupidly lower forces.

[holyman9]

hahaha, obvioulsy my math was poor!

I suppose it both makes sense and doesn' t make sense. I mean, the Germans RAN over the Polish cavalry in WW1 with their tanks, and a few gunmen (plus disease, but that is another topic in itself) killed so many native south americans (how many people died in peru? a few million. how many spanish invaded? a few hundred thousand).

But yes, a single person could take over a tank if he snuck in, I agree. But for me, it was just a foul smelling cherry on a already-sour cake... Just my opinion, of course. If you enjoyed the game, that's all that matters, and if you did not, go try it yourself and see what you think :D :D