«

I was also dissappointed with civ 3. When it first came out, i expected it to be a huge, and i emaphisize huge, because i heard that civ 2 was a huge improvement to the original.

I liked the mandatory resources for units, but the wimpy part is that you only need one of each to support as many of the units as possible. (I build like like 50 swordmen out of an iron hill which unreasonable). also i miss the movies too and especially the funny advisor conflicts. Graphics were great, but I dont think they should have put a great deal of work in this part. The game was mostly played because of its addicting gameplay and i think the producers let us down (as I think someone said b4 me).

What i do like about civ 3 is that it adds leaders and when you have a stack of units and its another person's turn to attk, they destroy one of the units in that stack and the entire column is gone (or wait is that just a flaw in civ 2?).

I would rate civ 2 5/5 for its time, but civ 3 4/5 for its time since it still adds some new concepts but not as much as you would expect from a sequel.