«

[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!