Printable View
AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
I sit there building my civilization up from scratch, bothering
noone, and after about 3 weeks of gameplay, the Carthaginians
come in and drop 5 nuclear missiles on my capital and take over
most of the Sioux homeland. :mad: This is the most realistically
programmed game ever...but the most annoyingly unfair one too.
play civ 3...
Civ3 sucks...it has no multiplayer!!
lol i dunno know i only downloaded a myth rip of it cause i was really bored.
The real civ2 is the best out there... trust me!!
This is the way Civ 1 was too.
Advice: build settlers like they're going out of fashion. Expand expand expand. Find another civilisation. Make a peace treaty with them, then kill them as soon as possible, probably with catapults. Keep doing this with every other civilisation you meet :)
Civ is dead easy to win early on in the game but gets tricky the further on the game goes.
With Civ2, just start a new game, and immediately open the cheat menu, and kill everyone but yourself off. You STILL get a really high score, even with the -1000 points for cheating >=).
Z.
Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
This is the way Civ 1 was too.
Advice: build settlers like they're going out of fashion. Expand expand expand. Find another civilisation. Make a peace treaty with them, then kill them as soon as possible, probably with catapults. Keep doing this with every other civilisation you meet :)
Civ is dead easy to win early on in the game but gets tricky the further on the game goes.
No... Civ 1 was WAY WAY WAY worse - not only did random **** like this happen, but the combat was ridiculously unfair, when a phalanx could beat a battleship. and the thing I hated MOST about Civ 1 - you spend 50 game turns building the frickin' pyramids, and then some other Civ acquires them randomly, having spent no time building them, thus making the game exceptionally unfair, as basically every PC player had an extra city to you whenever you built a wonder. Peace was impossible, and enemies were allowed to do things such as move into your territory without invoking war, which you couldnt' do.
Civ 2 is much fairer, although the peace is still very hard to keep. Like you say - early war is the only way to go. Once you have a big powerbase, it's easy to win eventually, but sacrifices must be made. I once had a game (in Civ 1 actually) where I and the Germans effectively owned half the planet each, and we engaged in full nuclear war - it was the most fun game I've ever had. Hard to get yourself, and an enemy to a reasonably equal position of power in that game. It's usually one or the other.
:)
Try Empire Earth (or Earth Empire?). You'll love it!:)
God even i can code better ! that is the most rushed onto shelves game ever, it was absolutly full of bugs with extremely un-balanced game play.
That game scares me.
Then of course if your just looking for fun it ok lol.
*Dugeon seige if you want role playing
*AOEII or RA2 if you want stratergy
*MOHAA if you want single player first person
(medal of honour : allied assualt)
*Battlefield 1942 if you want multiplayer shoot em up (not yet released)
ok ok i like my games a bit too much but i can list thousands more even though i don't play em... i just see what they are like.
i will play star wars galaxy when it's released because it has so much interaction with humans :eek:
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and its add on Alien Crossfire.
Essentially Civ in space. I think it was released between Civs 2 and 3, so its quite well balanced and kinda fair.
And if you like that, join the development team for Sentience ;)
RA2 that game was good but ran too slow on my system:( I didn't get very for in it before I have to take it back to the video store.Quote:
*AOEII or RA2 if you want stratergy
Is that any good? I have the demo around somewhere but I haven't played it for a while.Quote:
medal of honour : allied assualt
yeh it's sweet, i mainly mentioned them ones because they have great story lines.
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
yeh it's sweet, i mainly mentioned them ones because they have great story lines.
I reckon it would have been good if they included an editor with RA2 or RA.
they sorta did.. in RA they had a crappy dos on and with RA2 there is like a 5mb exe you can d/l which lets you edit maps
but to much effort making em look good, i left it up to others to make em and i d/led em :)
:cool::DQuote:
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
they sorta did.. in RA they had a crappy dos on and with RA2 there is like a 5mb exe you can d/l which lets you edit maps
but to much effort making em look good, i left it up to others to make em and i d/led em :)
Hey, CivIII is the bollocks!
I love that game.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed CivII, It has to be said that CivIII is far superior.
The problems with CivII were the limited diplomacy possibilities and the stupid AI of the computer players. They're units would move in such a predictable fashion that they were easy to beat. In CivIII, the diplomacy is excellent; much more free form and creative. The AI is superb. They really know how to make life difficult for you.
Additionally, you can now win by diplomatic or Cultural victories meaning that violence doesn't have to be the way.
Maybe CivIII has no multi-player option and has no scenarios (to speak of) with it (like CivII's excellent WWII), as a single player game, it is brilliant! :)
Am I being ignored here?
Try Alpha Centauri, it's very good.
Just goes to show death is not the only way to solve a situation.
lol your not but i heard that games good, but i've never played it...Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
Am I being ignored here?
Behemoth
I briefly watch someone play it once but haven't had the pleasure myself.Quote:
Am I being ignored here?
Try Alpha Centauri, it's very good.
Just what I was thinking;)Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
lol your not but i heard that games good, but i've never played it...
I have heard this is basically Diablo with updated graphics, not exactly what I'd call 'role-playing'. Neverwinter Nights is probably better for a pure RPG, but not quite so action-based.Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Daniels
*Dugeon seige if you want role playing
Age of Empires ok, I know lots of people like it, but RA2? :eek: Starcraft is still the best RTS out there IMO :)Quote:
*AOEII or RA2 if you want stratergy
I currently play Dark Age of Camelot, which is another MMORPG but not set in the Star Wars universe obviously. Might try SWG when it's released, probably depending on how many of my friends from DAoC switch over.Quote:
i will play star wars galaxy when it's released because it has so much interaction with humans :eek:
Yeh but i forgot they will be charging a certain amount of $$ a month to use it as it is a totally internet based game kinda thing, costs of keeping servers up and accessing them, bulls**t if you ask me but anywaz... (i don't think there will be a SP side of it)Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Might try SWG when it's released, probably depending on how many of my friends from DAoC switch over.
Check here for more info
Yeah well that's the way online games are. In the end it's not a whole lot of money. Usually less than 10 US dollars per month for all these online games, which is not really expensive considering how much time you can end up spending playing the thing.
yeh i guess, it's just odd how there are so many free servers, and its too much of a hassle to pay for a game, i've never done it b4. but i felt guilty so when i fell in love with AOEII i went out and bought it, the only one outta bout 100.
Best MMORPG :
Everquest
Best RPG:
NeverWinter Nights
Best Action/Adventure:
Dungeon Siege
Best Strategy:
Toss up between WCIII and Starcraft
Best Sim
Civ III
Yes, I consider Civ a sim type game
everyone post your favourite RPG, RTS, FPS etc etc here: :D
(if your getting tired of gaming /me points to self, then post your
favourite beer, if you don't like beer... i'd like to investigate as i don't know anyone who doesn't as of yet :))
VB if im low on money, otherwise Strongbows (dry) if you can call em a beer.
Sounds realistic to me. How long were the real Sioux building up their culture? How long did it take to wipe them out?? :pQuote:
Originally posted by macai
AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!!
I sit there building my civilization up from scratch, bothering
noone, and after about 3 weeks of gameplay, the Carthaginians
come in and drop 5 nuclear missiles on my capital and take over
most of the Sioux homeland. :mad: This is the most realistically
programmed game ever...but the most annoyingly unfair one too.
Civ II is realistic BECAUSE it is unfair;)
I've never been nuked! They never last that long! :( Besides, I don't even know how the SDI defense works! :D And I play Civ since the first one!
Now, Civ 3 is utter crap, compared with its ealyer versions. It's nothing more than settler diarrhea, with new diplomacy and some new eye candy, but with truck-loads of units to manage. Late game is so boring that I only finished the game once or twice before returning to Masters of Orion 2 (MP) and Civ 2.
SMAC is the only game that was worth giving the buck. Only original game I bought (I didn't have money when Civ 2 came out - I was barely 16). Never regreted it. Brian Reynolds deserved it. :)
Tough the most deep TBS game is MOO2! Now that's a master piece! Can't get enough of it! :)
Yeah, it is fairly easy to win that way, but if you want to actuallyQuote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
No... Civ 1 was WAY WAY WAY worse - not only did random **** like this happen, but the combat was ridiculously unfair, when a phalanx could beat a battleship. and the thing I hated MOST about Civ 1 - you spend 50 game turns building the frickin' pyramids, and then some other Civ acquires them randomly, having spent no time building them, thus making the game exceptionally unfair, as basically every PC player had an extra city to you whenever you built a wonder. Peace was impossible, and enemies were allowed to do things such as move into your territory without invoking war, which you couldnt' do.
Civ 2 is much fairer, although the peace is still very hard to keep. Like you say - early war is the only way to go. Once you have a big powerbase, it's easy to win eventually, but sacrifices must be made. I once had a game (in Civ 1 actually) where I and the Germans effectively owned half the planet each, and we engaged in full nuclear war - it was the most fun game I've ever had. Hard to get yourself, and an enemy to a reasonably equal position of power in that game. It's usually one or the other.
:)
have to balence between military, sceince, trade, foreign and
attitude, (in other words, get a real chlallenge) you'd better just
sit down and stay out of trouble until someone does that. BTW,
RJ, do you have Civ2 Gold? We can all start a game over the
internet! :D
You're right, Civ3 is total crap. Its basically civ2 with the ability toQuote:
Originally posted by Zealot
I've never been nuked! They never last that long! :( Besides, I don't even know how the SDI defense works! :D And I play Civ since the first one!
Now, Civ 3 is utter crap, compared with its ealyer versions. It's nothing more than settler diarrhea, with new diplomacy and some new eye candy, but with truck-loads of units to manage. Late game is so boring that I only finished the game once or twice before returning to Masters of Orion 2 (MP) and Civ 2.
SMAC is the only game that was worth giving the buck. Only original game I bought (I didn't have money when Civ 2 came out - I was barely 16). Never regreted it. Brian Reynolds deserved it. :)
Tough the most deep TBS game is MOO2! Now that's a master piece! Can't get enough of it! :)
make your city borders big..and now zone of control, one of the
most intricate rules of civ2 is gone!!!!! It sucks, it dont even have
any multiplayer. I'd take Civ2 Gold any day.
Yeah, but i killed the "pilgrims" right when they got to the countryQuote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Sounds realistic to me. How long were the real Sioux building up their culture? How long did it take to wipe them out?? :p
Civ II is realistic BECAUSE it is unfair;)
(i used the real world map) and i flourished afterwards. Oh, and
its more realistic because it makes it seem like a real
history is being recorded, because you (and others) are making
decisions and having mucho great affects later on in the game. :)
an awesome fps (even better than MOH me thinks...i enjoy itmore than moh) is americas army. and its free :)
www.americasarmy.com
kickass graphics too
All FPS are built ontop of DooM!Quote:
Originally posted by nabeels786
an awesome fps (even better than MOH me thinks...i enjoy itmore than moh) is americas army. and its free :)
www.americasarmy.com
kickass graphics too
I think civ3 would be more enjoyable with multiplayer; it gets incredibly boring late game when you just do the same thing over and over and over again.
It still wouldnt be comparable to the good ol' civ2 though.Quote:
Originally posted by Cromicus
I think civ3 would be more enjoyable with multiplayer; it gets incredibly boring late game when you just do the same thing over and over and over again.
Macai & Zealot
You guys don't know what you're talking about!!!
CivIII improves in just about every respect over CivII (multiplayer aside).
You complain about the later part of the game but that's just where CivIII improves over CivII. With the ability to automate your workers and to appoint governers (who can control exactly what you want them to) it's far less tedius that CivII.
What about the vastly improved trade and diplomacy in CivIII? The vastly improved tactics alone make it for me.
And many of the frustrating things about CivII, like rival cities springing up inbetween your cities can be eliminated in CivIII due to the sphere of cultural influence.
CivIII wipes the floor witrh previous versions!
Sorry simonm, but it appears that you never really understood Civ 2 too deeply. 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 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.).
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. :rolleyes:
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. The chance this happens is greater if the conquered city has a considerable size, and is near an enemy city also with a considerable size. This is completely dumb, since you could have enough firepower to raze the city, but it's impossible to state martial law! There goes all your strategy!
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.
Let's just hope Brian wants to make another TBS game in a few years. ;)
I agree, man, Civ3 is your typical make it easier at the price of
making it less strategic!
EDIT: Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition. :)
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: