GameBanshee Forums

I recently came across a Facebook fan page which invited people to vote on their favorite Civ game. Now, it's one of those ancient unwritten pieces of knowledge that Civ 2 is the best Civ game, but everyone was voting for Civ 3. There could only be two reasons for this...

1) They had not played Civ 2.
2) I was missing something in Civ 3.

Civ 2 lasted me months of gameplay. I never really got bored of it but eventually just deleted it from my drive in some vain attempt to 'cure' myself of my addiction. Civ 3 however got me bored relatively quickly and only lasted about 2 weeks on my hard drive, if that.

So I scoured the internet for what I was supposedly 'missing' and rebooted for a more open minded few sessions.

But alas, it's still leaving me cold and somewhat confused as to how so many people can get so addicted to it's nauseating structure. I am aware it is a different game to Civ 2 and needed to change to be a different game, but for me it just can't help but feel like a rip-off of the Civ series rather than a Civ series bona-fide product.

Major factors ruining my experience:

1) Resources. Yes, this was an excellent idea. Both in the role-play and 'reality' sense, having each Civ restricted by their available resource does, on the face of it, make for much more fun gameplay. You might have horses, but I have Iron ha-HA etc.

But in reality, the way it's implemented, it's just another 'tool' to enable the AI to frustrate you and actually bears very little resemblance to reality. If you start on Cheiftan then your first city has Iron right next to it, but if you start on regent it will be 2 large cities away right next to a rival civ. In terms of 'reality', you can start the game entirely surrounded by rolling hills and mountains, but still the nearest iron, on regent, will be 250miles away on a random small hill inbetween you and another civ.

The roleplay aspect also fails due to the fact that the AI will of course routinely trade with it's own civs for all of them anyway, making a mockery of the whole point of having resources as a varied civ concept.

2) Trading. The diplomacy screens have always been the worst aspect of all the Civ series. Even Civ 2 was laughable in this respect - "Give us all your gold"... "er... no"... France declares war on the Spanish. And they made zero improvement on this for Civ 3 and actually, by some miracle, made it even WORSE! Lol. At least with Civ 2 a tech could be swapped for a tech in a like-for-like trade, but woe is you, in Civ 3 you now have to offer double what they are giving or they are 'insulted', even if it's just wines for dyes or iron for horses. What a crock.

3) Culture. This is probably the best improvement over Civ 2. At least with Civ3 you no longer have to spam pointless one square cities just to stop the AI civs from building in your territory, you just have to wait a few turns for your border to fill the gap, and even if they do sneak a city in behind your lines it will quickly revert to your culture. So, so far, so awesome.

However, the concept dies a horrific death when you try and invade someone. Unless you can take out an entire civ in 3 or 4 turns (normally unlikely) then any city you take can and probably will just revert back to it's original civ without so much as a scuffle from the 14 tanks you left to defend it. All 14 of your tanks will be lost and the city and it's sole musketman will need to be re-conquered. So when it says "you better station a large army here to quell the resisting citizens" it's actually lying. This is the exact opposite of what you should do because even if the city is conquered, happy and sorted, it will just revert back in x number of turns. This adds nothing to the game other than a time delay and frustration delay which, regent and onwards, can even be a game killer.

4) Pollution. The pollution in Civ 3 is impossible to stop. No matter what you do, as soon as you discover industrialisation, each of your cities will have a single pollution triangle and constantly pepper your cities with a splodge of orange every 10 or 11 turns. Even if you keep your city at size 12, add zero production enhancements and get all but 2 of your citizens working coastal areas, build a recycling plant and build mass transit, you will still keep the one yellow triangle of pollution.

So, basically, your workers can never rest and never disband or go join a city and you will have to micro-manage the city screen every single time the pollution hits as it automatically shifts the citizen to work an icecap square or, worse still, end up swapping worked areas with adjoining cities, completely messing you around.

A really fun roleplay aspect of Civ 2 was the part where it said "the game's over, do you wish to continue a few more turns" to which you clicked yes and proceeded to then mould your dominated world into the world you wanted it to be. But no, for Civ 3 this just becomes an exercise in pollution chasing which gets very boring VERY quickly.

5) Workers. Workers are so lame in comparison to Civ 2 as to be one of Civ 3's most backward and revolting changes. They never upgrade to engineers but rather just assume different functions as the game progresses, and these functions are limited to the absolute basics. No longer can you transform grassland to plains or transform a mountain into a hill. None of it. Zero terraforming of any kind. Oh wait, you can plant forests. That's it.

Shaping your environment was a huge aspect of Civ 2 and, I thought, one of the key aspects of the whole point of a Civ game. The fact that this aspect of the roleplay had vanished was a major factor in my dislike.



These are the main bones of contention for me, but I'm sure I've missed a few.

Please feel free to add to the list, or, if you're sure Civ 3 is a better game, please tell me why because try as I might, and I really have tried, I just can't see it.

It certainly was easier to get into the plumbing of Civ 2 and change various parameters to keep it say stuck at one tech level if you wanted to see what a medieval globe looked like.

I've played an replayed every iteration of Civilization over and over and there's one thing I can say: Civilization 3 for me was the least memorable.
I liked the borders and culture mechanics, and resource scavenging, and I was disappointed by trade handling and absence of caravans and terraforming, but I can hardly argue other points, as I can barely recall any of them.

Civ 4 - with both expansions - certainly offered the widest array of possibilities (culture, religion, espionage, corporations, vassal states, etc.), but weighting in an immeasurable quantity of nostalgia, I'd probably pick Civ II as the best one too.

Well, Civ3 (Conquest) is always been my absolute favourite game but i have to admit that i've played Civ2 very little, don't remember exactly how it was..
I've never found a game better than Civ3, for longevity and fun, played for hours and hours and never get bored..maybe only chess..but i've played Civ4 and 5 and can say i'm very disappointed by the 5..very beautiful the fourth although different in many ways from the others but very disappointed by the fifth..don't know why, it seems to me that loose the spirit..
but if you swear that Civ2 is better than Civ3 i have to find it, surely i don't care shining and spectacular graphic..

but if you swear that Civ2 is better than Civ3 i have to find it, surely i don't care shining and spectacular graphic..

Some game mechanics to bear in mind when switching from Civ3 to Civ2 are the following:

The tech tree is totally based on quantity of beakers generated in Civ2 whereas in Civ3 there is an automatic restriction to advancing too quick regardless of beaker production.

This then effects your choice of advancement because in Civ2 such weaponry as aeroplanes and boats deliver full attack damage rather than simply bombarding.

In Civ2 it is therefore highly advantageous to maximise beaker production whereas in Civ3 one is often left fairly non-plused and unexcited by the vast number of relatively useless and time-consuming advances which, should you lack a resource, become even more pointless and 'timewasting'.

This gives Civ2 a much more frenetic race-to-the-finish feel compared to Civ3's more sitting-around-and-waiting-for-your-opportunity approach.

The sense of 'reality' of either of the two is equally debatable, but Civ2 certainly has more immediate gratification for pushing your Civ in a certain direction and therefore a more exciting game mechanic if you are able to adjust to the sheer quantity of minor differences between the two games.

ricksog wrote:but if you swear that Civ2 is better than Civ3 i have to find it, surely i don't care shining and spectacular graphic..

This might be the link You're looking for: [url="http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page"]Freeciv[/url].
It's a GPL licensed engine for civilization games, that comes with Civilization 1 and 2 rule sets (and it's own default custom rules). Basically: free Civ I & II games packed into one (You choose the rules when You start a new game). I haven't dived into the rules too deeply, but as far as I've seen they're pretty accurate.

The only downside is, it doesn't come with the super-awesome World Wonder videos from the original Civilization II.

Edit: And it supports multiplayer.

sesobebo wrote:This might be the link You're looking for: [url="http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page"]Freeciv[/url].

Downloaded..very nice program, light and functional..very very well done, thank you for the link..
you see, there is no need of a ninja-computer to have fun, it's enough a good idea..All Hail the king Sid for what he left us, his games remains a milestone in videogames universe..

I was surprised the title of this topic was not "Civ 5 - a Civ too far?"...

You might want to give a try to the other Civs. Civ4 has LOADS of excellent mods : Fall from Heaven, Rise of Mankind, and if you don't fear the complexity and have loads of RAM, A New Dawn and Caveman to Cosmos. Alpha Centauri has one the best voice acting and immersion of any game, not just the civ series...

IMHO from best to worst in civ games:

Alpha Centauri
Civ 4 Modded
Civ 4
Civ 3 & 5

(I haven't played Civ 2, off-put by the old graphics and interface.)

Alpha Centauri isn't a civ game. Colonization is a civ one, which got a 2008 remake.
And next to that, the civ games are turnbased strategy games and not role playing games. So actually this thread should be in Speak your mind and not in General RPG discussion.
Have only played civ 4 myself so far.

Alpha Centauri isn't a civ game

That's just being ultra-pedantic on the verge of being wrong. The main factor about Alpha Centauri which makes it different from the regular Civ games is the way it actually got closer to a proper role-playing experience and not just exclusively a strategy game.

the civ games are turnbased strategy games and not role playing games.

This is true, but as stated in the Opening Post, the whole point about Civ 3 was it's outward attempt to add genuine role-playing aspects to the general strategy experience and, in fact, make the game even more of a role-playing experience than a strategy experience...

...the problem with the game being that these elements were it's biggest failing as well as it's biggest novelty.

this thread should be in Speak your mind and not in General RPG discussion.

That it turned out to be just another turn-based strategy game belies it's original intention. This is why it's in the odd-bod ground of general RPG discussions rather than the abstract speak your mind discussions.

Have only played civ 4 myself so far.

You seem very opinionated about the entire series for someone who has only ever played Civ 4 !!! :laugh:

LastDanceSaloon wrote:Alpha Centauri isn't a civ game

That's just being ultra-pedantic on the verge of being wrong. The main factor about Alpha Centauri which makes it different from the regular Civ games is the way it actually got closer to a proper role-playing experience and not just exclusively a strategy game.

the civ games are turnbased strategy games and not role playing games.

This is true, but as stated in the Opening Post, the whole point about Civ 3 was it's outward attempt to add genuine role-playing aspects to the general strategy experience and, in fact, make the game even more of a role-playing experience than a strategy experience...

...the problem with the game being that these elements were it's biggest failing as well as it's biggest novelty.

this thread should be in Speak your mind and not in General RPG discussion.

That it turned out to be just another turn-based strategy game belies it's original intention. This is why it's in the odd-bod ground of general RPG discussions rather than the abstract speak your mind discussions.

Have only played civ 4 myself so far.

You seem very opinionated about the entire series for someone who has only ever played Civ 4 !!! :laugh:

Also have played Alpha Centauri. And again, it isn't a civilization game. It isn't part of the franchise. It's a seperate game. Saying it's a civ game is like saying that every car is a toyota. You're wriong yourself. That it use the same mechanics as civilization doesn't make it a civ game.
And adding some role playing parts doesn't make it a role playing game. Then you can also say that Grand Theft Auto is even a role playing game. Which is offcourse not true. Fact is that Civilization is a turnbased strategy game and nothing else. Even if they add role playing parts the core of the game is strategy.

Also have played Alpha Centauri. And again, it isn't a civilization game. It isn't part of the franchise. It's a seperate game. Saying it's a civ game is like saying that every car is a toyota. You're wriong yourself. That it use the same mechanics as civilization doesn't make it a civ game.

Also, you just saying it isn't doesn't mean it's not. Your analogy is also bad, comparing media franchises to car manufacturing is the very definition of comparing apples and pairs.

To name but one of countless examples of media franchises which also include non-franchised editions among their list of accepted surrogates is the film Never Say Never Again, a James Bond film made in the 80s. It was a remake of Thunderball but returned Sean Connery to the lead role (Roger Moore had been the 'official' Bond for years).

Not part of the franchise but long since accepted as a bona-fide part of the series by any Bond fan or collector.

And adding some role playing parts doesn't make it a role playing game.

I never said it does.

Then you can also say that Grand Theft Auto is even a role playing game.

Some people do.

Which is off course not true.

I have no doubt you will now confirm exactly and precisely in legible English exactly what constitutes an RPG in unbreakable detail...

...of course you wont, no-one can, not even the person who invented the phrase. So, obviously you then spout:

Even if they add role playing parts the core of the game is strategy.

To which I have no argument, but why are you complaining that attempts at RPG elements in strategy games are not discussed on a general RPG discussion board. Seems like the ideal place to discuss any general RPG related topics.