«

[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!

[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 k:

[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 k:

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 k:

[The Niles]

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