HJey guys, lets start a multiplayer civ2 game. :D
Printable View
HJey guys, lets start a multiplayer civ2 game. :D
Noone wants to pway multiplaya civ2? infidels!
me me me. BTW, I read the whole post and found that lots of stuff that was said was false... i'm not going to respond to all of them except 2. Someone said he never got to nuclear war because they never lasted that long... try diety.
second of all the best strategy is NOT to build a big empire and then attack. While you build your big empire the other civs expand too. what you must do is make 1 or 2 cities (depending on how much settlers you start off with) then you make legions and archers fast fast fast and you take over the first civ you see. now you have 4-5 cities and one less civ.
always keep at least 3 fortresses in your cities AT LEAST. and whenever a civ wants peace, always try saying no before yes... like that you have a chance they give you 1000 gold!!! dont forget to ask for a tribute aafter each audience...
now who wants to play multuiplayer??????
Yeah, OK....:rolleyes:
that just doesn't sound fun nemore lol.
OK! Ill play multiplayer... but we need to set up a time when we all meet. How about tomorrow at 6:00 PM EST ?Quote:
Originally posted by Alien_poo
me me me. BTW, I read the whole post and found that lots of stuff that was said was false... i'm not going to respond to all of them except 2. Someone said he never got to nuclear war because they never lasted that long... try diety.
second of all the best strategy is NOT to build a big empire and then attack. While you build your big empire the other civs expand too. what you must do is make 1 or 2 cities (depending on how much settlers you start off with) then you make legions and archers fast fast fast and you take over the first civ you see. now you have 4-5 cities and one less civ.
always keep at least 3 fortresses in your cities AT LEAST. and whenever a civ wants peace, always try saying no before yes... like that you have a chance they give you 1000 gold!!! dont forget to ask for a tribute aafter each audience...
now who wants to play multuiplayer??????
EST is that mtl?
for me, civ2 is all about that. CONQUERING, CRUSHING OTHER CIVS, KILLING INOCENT LITTLE CELTS AND SPANISH AND GREEKS AND CARTHAGINIANS.... MWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! WHAT A JOY TO SEE A BOX COME UP AND SAY "YOU HAVE KILLED THE EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION". WHAT JOY IT BRINGS TO MY HEART!!!!!!.............Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
that just doesn't sound fun nemore lol.
You get me dont u?
yes ... I think I felt something similar when I was a kid burning ants :D
WHat is your AIM, so we can set up a Civ2 game over the net?Quote:
Originally posted by Alien_poo
for me, civ2 is all about that. CONQUERING, CRUSHING OTHER CIVS, KILLING INOCENT LITTLE CELTS AND SPANISH AND GREEKS AND CARTHAGINIANS.... MWAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! WHAT A JOY TO SEE A BOX COME UP AND SAY "YOU HAVE KILLED THE EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION". WHAT JOY IT BRINGS TO MY HEART!!!!!!.............
You get me dont u?
^_^
Look guys,
I loved CivII. I played until the cows came home (and then some) and I'm not knocking it.
I'm just saying that most of the critisisms you've levelled at CivIII are either present in CivII (but worse) or else, they simply aren't valid.
That's actually not true. They will build (in my experience) a mixture of terrain improvements dependant on the cities needs). However, I will acknowledge that there are limitations with the automation mode (most of which have been fixed with the latest patch).Quote:
Though what you point out is true, it is also true that you need a lot more workers than in Civ2, if you automate them they will irrigate everything - whereas sometimes it's better to have mines - and wipe out every forest square!
The finely grained control you have over your governments is vastly improved over CivII. What you are saying happened in CivII; with a choice between Domestic, Military or Both, it's hardly suprising. I have found the governers very useful in managing citizen's moods (taking away a lot of later game tedium) and building precisely the sort of improvements/units I want them to.Quote:
The Governors suck, because they tend to build units you don't need, and then you are forced to disband them because they deplete the kingdom's treasury, when you could be building value structures according to your civ's traits (library if you are scientific, temple if you are religious, barracks if you are military, etc.).
Being unfamiliar with Civ in multiplayer, I can't really comment. All I know is that building caravans and freight in CivII and traversing them to the far corners of the map was one of the more tedius aspects of CivII.Quote:
Trade is nice, though the resources will surely be a headache in MP. Diplomacy is also nice. But all it has that SMAC hasn't is to trade resources.
I have to accept this is a bit of a problem. I think it is a realistic feature, it should just happen a lot less frequently (and you shouldn't lose your units).Quote:
And while I agree that enemy cities settling inside our territory is stupid and partialy fixed in Civ 3 through culture, you also have the problem that if you make a blitzkrieg into enemy territory, your newly acquired cities will flip back into the original Civ despite the huge amount of your units inside of it, losing all 5, 50 or 500 units you had inside.
Perhaps in some ways...but the AI of the computer players is so superior to that of CivII, it's really not as bad as you would have us believe.Quote:
Civ 3 was rushed. A lot! It was badly hurt with Brian Reynolds & team left to found BigHugeGames, and the newcomers weren't really able to continue the Civ tradition.
In all that, you only pointed out one genuine critisism of CivIII (that isn't present, yet worse, in CivII). There are many advantages. I suppose if the multiplayer factor is important to you, that being absent is always going to overshadow all the other benefits of CivIII.
Sooooooo, Simon, you wanna play MP with us? ^_^
What, so you guys can gang up on me and teach me how badly I misunderstood CivII? ;)
Unfortunately, I will have to decline. Perhaps I will take you up on it one day in the not too distant future...
The only Civ 2 that supports MP is Test of Time, so I'll have to pass. :(
I tried to download the MGE version from Kazaa but it has a crc error in the ziped file (at 100%, go figure). :rolleyes:
Besides, I love ToT! :cool:
I have always loved playing civilisation since 10 years ago, I have played, Civ1, net, 2, CTP and 3, and I guess mostly civ 2, but so much I got tired of it, I've been playing a bit Civ3 lately, I've got battleships and tanks built ready to attack russia and then march into england. But although it seems like a lot of things are improved since civ2, it seems like there is a bit of fun that is taken out in civ3:
1. Leonardos workshop isn't that useful anymore
2. you can't terraform (this was fun, but also one thing which made civ2 boring, suitable terrains for new cities didn't mean too much in long term)
3. spying was more fun
4. food caravans
5. using caravans to speed production
6. trading with caravans (I actually think this is more fun, gives much pleasure driving in a freight from a huge city into another at the other side of the world)
7. engineers go 2 steps
some things i like about civ3 though:
1. workers work cumulatively
2. you can use workers to speed production in small cities by planting forests and cutting them down (best in industrial civilisations)
3. the specific advantages of the civilisations
4. the golden age
5. the special resources (although i hated that they removed caravans)
I guess i need to play more civ3 before making any comparation but these are the thoughts at the moment. The combat thing is also better and I've noticed significantly better AI, although I still can trick it to for instance not put a city at certain places before me.
Kedaman
How you doing? Ready to take over at Diplomacy yet?
Anyway, regarding CivIII.
I guess they thought it was too useful to the civilisation that built it. Automatically having all your units upgraded to the latest technology is incredibly advantagous. Still, in CivIII, halving the cost of upgrading is still a big help considering the huge cost that would otherwise be involved.Quote:
1. Leonardos workshop isn't that useful anymore
I suppose I agree with you there...Quote:
3. spying was more fun
Well, it does make it more of an achievement when you actually build a wonder. Although, if you get a leader, you can use it to complete it instantly.Quote:
5. using caravans to speed production
Man, I hated it. And you didn't really get anything out of it at the end except for a gold bonus. I much prefer trading to gain luxeries and strategic resources. The incentive to trade is much greater, indeed, it has become a necessity (rather than an optional extra thing to do in CivII).Quote:
6. trading with caravans (I actually think this is more fun, gives much pleasure driving in a freight from a huge city into another at the other side of the world)
Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
How you doing? Ready to take over at Diplomacy yet?
Nope Simon, he's still away :(... so you are stuck with me for another turn;)
Dragonfly
That's no problem. You've been doing fine so far and I'm sure Kedaman will be happy with your progress when he returns. :)Quote:
Nope Simon, he's still away ... so you are stuck with me for another turn
I have original Civ and Conflicts in Civilization expansion, what version do I need to play MultiPlayer?
I don't have aim anymore, I can download it, or if you have msn.
Bull****! Civ2 Multiplayer Gold edition support MP!Quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
The only Civ 2 that supports MP is Test of Time, so I'll have to pass. :(
I tried to download the MGE version from Kazaa but it has a crc error in the ziped file (at 100%, go figure). :rolleyes:
Besides, I love ToT! :cool:
LUKE,Quote:
Originally posted by macai
Bull****! Civ2 Multiplayer Gold edition support MP!
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO SWEARING AT HIM JUST BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW IF THE GAME HAD MP SUPPORT OR NOT:mad:
Simon
I suppose you are right, I haven't played for a while again, so far i've been taking over most luxury and strategic resources I need, I only once had to trade for them. But its still something I liked in civ2, with the extra gold you could quickly pay for having used up almost all for science.Quote:
Man, I hated it. And you didn't really get anything out of it at the end except for a gold bonus. I much prefer trading to gain luxeries and strategic resources. The incentive to trade is much greater, indeed, it has become a necessity (rather than an optional extra thing to do in CivII).
I haven't had leaders before, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, I'm not talking about wonders specifically, you can change the production of wonders to something else and thereby using the 50 shields fully on some other improvement. In later game you can't be arsed to wait for your newest cities to slowly grow, so spending caravans on them was good for completing improvements fast. In Civ3 I found out you can do this with workers planting forests and cutting them down.Quote:
Well, it does make it more of an achievement when you actually build a wonder. Although, if you get a leader, you can use it to complete it instantly.
I didnt mean anything by it, just a common toungue. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
LUKE,
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO SWEARING AT HIM JUST BECAUSE HE DIDN'T KNOW IF THE GAME HAD MP SUPPORT OR NOT:mad:
Yeah:)Quote:
Originally posted by macai
I didnt mean anything by it, just a common toungue. :)
Then why did you freak out over it? lol
Just letting off steam:)