NationStates Jolt Archive

. . .for it was narrow and engineered towards a game of conquest.

DISCUSS!:D

Blaspheme!:eek:

Civ 3 was pretty good IMHO, but Civ 2 and Alpha Centuri had superior mechanics. Then Civ 4 came and reintroduced the great systems of Civ 2 and the good things about Civ 3, then added some stuff to top it off.
So, I guess I would have to play Civ 1 to find out if 3 was worse, but Civ 3 was the "worst" (relative cause they were all amazing) of those that I've played.

Civ 3 was pretty good IMHO, but Civ 2 and Alpha Centuri had superior mechanics. Then Civ 4 came and reintroduced the great systems of Civ 2 and the good things about Civ 3, then added some stuff to top it off.
So, I guess I would have to play Civ 1 to find out if 3 was worse, but Civ 3 was the "worst" (relative cause they were all amazing) of those that I've played.

Alpha Centuri was an awesome game but the colour scheme was sooo dull

Aimed at conquest? I seem to remember a game where late-era wars would mean you waiting a gazillion minutes per turn while the enemy smashes his armies against your cities. And where marines were nothing before the power of the bronze age spearman and his sharp stick...

. . .for it was narrow and engineered towards a game of conquest.

DISCUSS!:D
I disagree. Cultural victory was far easier, especially on larger map sizes.

Who cares of Civ 3 was moral or not! Games aren't suppose to be moral, they're suppose to be fun, which Civ 3 definitely was. I haven't played Civ 2 or 1 so I honestly can't say how good it is in comparison, but Civ 3 is definitely a fun game.

Who cares of Civ 3 was moral or not! Games aren't suppose to be moral, they're suppose to be fun, which Civ 3 definitely was. I haven't played Civ 2 or 1 so I honestly can't say how good it is in comparison, but Civ 3 is definitely a fun game.
Who said anything about morality? Some of us just don't like the workings of the game, because it made it less fun.
And if you haven't played any of the others in the series, can you really answer the question posed by the OP?

Civ III was ok. The second was the best I've played but Call to Power was the worst.

And where marines were nothing before the power of the bronze age spearman and his sharp stick...

I cite precedent: native Filipinos versus Japanese troops (were they SNLF?) in WWII.

I like CIV 3 , my pc can't play CIV 4 I here its good, as well though, too bad, I love those games.

Civ 1 with network addition rocked so much. Pain to set up but yet so much fun!

Plus when you can defeat a frigate with a phalanx you know your onto a winner there :D

Plus when you can defeat a frigate with a phalanx you know your onto a winner there :D

The Greeks were well known for their phalanxes on foam rubber shoes

Insert some far side like image here


Back on topic:

Never played Civ 3, but Civ2, 4 and alpha Centaurai I liked. Civ 1 was too slow for me though. Went really fast at the beginning, and then were still stuck with musket men in the 2050s. Really what was up there? Civ 2 seemed to have the oppsite problem, but it narked me less.

The Greeks were well known for their phalanxes on foam rubber shoes

I was thinking more waiting for sailors to come into the town then spear em to death but yeah, whatever floats your boat :D



Or sinks it in this case... :p

You're right. But I don't think Civ 4 is that much better. Both are good games, but neither satisfied me completely.


Never played Civ 3, but Civ2, 4 and alpha Centaurai I liked. Civ 1 was too slow for me though. Went really fast at the beginning, and then were still stuck with musket men in the 2050s. Really what was up there? Civ 2 seemed to have the oppsite problem, but it narked me less.

Are you kidding? I routinely have musketmen by 0-200AD in Civ 1.

Do you realize what you just did to my Religion? http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/big/firemad.gif

Are you kidding? I routinely have musketmen by 0-200AD in Civ 1.

Yeah, thats what I mean by going fast at first... for some reason I would then be stuck with them for about 2000 years or so...

I like CIV 3 , my pc can't play CIV 4 I here its good, as well though, too bad, I love those games.
Mine neither, which I found out after I bought it. http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/crying.gif

But I downloaded a patch, and now it works O-KAY. http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/lilly/hmm3grin3thumborange.gif You oughta too.

Yeah, thats what I mean by going fast at first... for some reason I would then be stuck with them for about 2000 years or so...

I've never had that problem, unless i've played on emperor difficulty and found myself unable to expand.

It (Civ 4) does have a problem in later stages of chugging over for about 5 minutes,and at the point you wonder if it has frozen it starts doing things again.

I've never had that problem, unless i've played on emperor difficulty and found myself unable to expand.

Hmm... cant know what I was doing wrong then.

Also had the problem that for some reason I couldnt save, so I would have to sit there for hours to try and finish the game... though that was due to my computer fucking around, rather than the game.

Is Civ4 out on Macs yet?

Civ III was ok. The second was the best I've played but Call to Power was the worst.
Lies, Call to Power was very good. One of the few Civ games I could really get into when the mood took me. And it wasn't even a Sid Meier game.

have only played the first civ game.


tell me, is it even worth getting any of the sequels since i still have the first? or is the first still the best?

Civ III (with patches) is much better than I & II - graphics, game play - everything

It (Civ 4) does have a problem in later stages of chugging over for about 5 minutes,and at the point you wonder if it has frozen it starts doing things again.
The patch speeds things up a lot. I'm running it on a minimum spec laptop, and it's made things a lot easier.

I've loved absolutely every installment of civ thus far. In particular, Civ III introduced the culture and resource mechanics, which made the game far more appealing in my view. I was slightly disappointed in the simplistic government styles after playing Alpha Centauri however. And the first time I lost a huge stack of soldiers due to culture takeover was absolutely infuriating.

Civ IV is plain awesome. Eagerly anticipating Warlords expansion, and download goodies off of civfanatics on a regular basis.

have only played the first civ game.


tell me, is it even worth getting any of the sequels since i still have the first? or is the first still the best?

Personally I thought Civ 2 was... well I dont want to say the best, but "Best for its time".

The patch speeds things up a lot. I'm running it on a minimum spec laptop, and it's made things a lot easier.

Ooh... good to know. I will look that up.

Age of Empires.

I win.

Age of Empires.

I win.
*falls about laughing*

*falls about laughing*

Hey, I like it. Although the only CIV game was CIV 3, and I have every AoE...

Remind me to get my hands on the other CIV games.

Hey, I like it. Although the only CIV game was CIV 3, and I have every AoE...

Remind me to get my hands on the other CIV games.
Eh, I've played them all, and I prefer Civ, hands down. Civ 3 was the weakest of the four as well. But, to each his own.

I've loved absolutely every installment of civ thus far. In particular, Civ III introduced the culture and resource mechanics, which made the game far more appealing in my view. I was slightly disappointed in the simplistic government styles after playing Alpha Centauri however. And the first time I lost a huge stack of soldiers due to culture takeover was absolutely infuriating.

Civ IV is plain awesome. Eagerly anticipating Warlords expansion, and download goodies off of civfanatics on a regular basis.

Haven't played the latest one, but I would say that Civ II is my favorite. Civ III has interesting dynamics, but the problem is that those dynamics can be wildly unbalancing for game mechanics. If you start your civilization on a flood plain, for instance, you are just screwed. Similarly, the resource function can wreak havoc with your ability to compete with your opponents. If I'm behind the tech tree in Civ II, I can find ways of competing in spite of this fact. If I don't have any readily accessible saltpetre, however, I've pretty much just become marked for conquest, and that just doesn't sit well with me, however historically accurate it might be.