Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

What techs do you research in 3000? In Civ2, the game forces me to "retire" in 2030.

[Willfor]

It's been years. I honestly don't even remember now. Though it's entirely possible I ran out of things to research.

[Servant Corps]

The only 'future tech' that I was able to research was FUTURE TECH. And it gives you 5 points every time you research it.

I booted up Civ2 again, and I have a lame idea, start a Let's Play where I play as Axis in an alternate-history WWII, and see if I am able to win that on the Diety setting (Important Note: I never actually beat the game on anything other than Very Easy).

[JoshuaFH]

Let me warn you, the computer cheats like a motherfucker on Deity difficulty.

Then again, I'd be hardpressed to find an enemy AI in a strategy game that doesn't cheat.

[Gunner-Chan]

The computer cheats like a goddamn baby fucking dinosaur regardless of difficulty, it can irrigate fucking deserts!!!   

[Servant Corps]

The fact is, the AI needs to 'cheat' because Humans are likely to outsmart Artifical Intelligence. I don't like challenge much at all, but I hate even more watching Humans steamroll over the enemy. ("Hey guys! I conquer Russia!" "Hey guys! I conquer France!" "Hey guys! I conquered US!") Annoying.

What I do hate right now is the inexcusable historical inaccuracies within the game. Now, I admit, there are excusable historical inaccuracies, such as Finland belonging in Axis orbit, which is fine. But there are some very unexcusable ones that I'm right now trying to fix. If the game states that I have cheated, yes, that's true, but I'm cheating in favor of historical accuracy, which is all I am doing.

*According to the game, Iran is netrual and Iraq is pro-Allied. Actually, Iran and Iraq both lean Axis, and the British had to invade both countries to establish pro-Allied regimes. (Russia helped to overthrow the Iranian government as well). Terhan, Mosul, and Baghdad are going to belong to the Axis orbit, while the British base in Basra is going to be Allied.
*According to the game, Saudi Arabia is filled with fanatic barbarains. In fact, Saudi Arabia was pretty much pro-Allied, altough it did declare war on the Axis pretty late. So, all those fanatics will belong to the Allied powers. There is also no oil in Saudi Arabia, but that's okay by me. I can live with that. (EDIT: Oh, retract that. There is oil. Right next to the second Saudi Arabian fort, and right inside the third and fourth Saudi Arabian fort. Hm. I want to see if I can coax the Allied Forces to establish a city near one of those oil fields. Or maybe not. Hm.)

Any other lame historical inaccuracies, I'll post them later.

[Servant Corps]

*Free State of Ireland changed from Barbarain to Netrual, because the Free State of Ireland technically was netrual in the conflict.
*Switzerland, despite being Barbarain in the original game, not changed to Netrual. Swizterland was not invaded either by the Allied or the Axis powers, and in fact helped both sides subtly. Since the Netrual powers are at war with me...well...that wouldn't do, so the Swiss are now barbarains.

Wow. Civ2 really showed its age badly. So much inaccuracies. I can't even begin to wonder why in the world they decided democracies somehow are immune to bribery, and how Communism and Democracy can remove all corruption. I guess that shows that Civilization is suited only for civilization-building games, and not World War 2 simulations, but...

[mainiac]

*According to the game, Iran is netrual and Iraq is pro-Allied. Actually, Iran and Iraq both lean Axis, and the British had to invade both countries to establish pro-Allied regimes. (Russia helped to overthrow the Iranian government as well). Terhan, Mosul, and Baghdad are going to belong to the Axis orbit, while the British base in Basra is going to be Allied.
*According to the game, Saudi Arabia is filled with fanatic barbarains. In fact, Saudi Arabia was pretty much pro-Allied, altough it did declare war on the Axis pretty late. So, all those fanatics will belong to the Allied powers. There is also no oil in Saudi Arabia, but that's okay by me. I can live with that. (EDIT: Oh, retract that. There is oil. Right next to the second Saudi Arabian fort, and right inside the third and fourth Saudi Arabian fort. Hm. I want to see if I can coax the Allied Forces to establish a city near one of those oil fields. Or maybe not. Hm.)

Both the descriptions of Iraq and Iran you attack and advance are gross simplifications.  But the one you attack is probably better, IMHO.  Yes, Iran and Iraq had leanings in favor of the axis.  But neither country made a significant contribution towards the axis side and both made very big contributions to the allied side.  Having them be allied from the start is an acceptable simplification but having them be axis is not.

[Servant Corps]

Both are oversimplification, and you may be right in that respect, but...it still bugs me.

While Iran and Iraq made major contributions to the Allied Side, first the Allied had to invade Iran and Iraq, in 1941. And while it was quite easy for the Allied forces to take over Iran and Iraq (altough I'm not sure if the AI will actually succed in pulling that off), they still had to do it. Meanwhile, the actual game starts in April 1940, and I'm going to expect, say, 6 turns before it turns to 1941. I'm not expecting Iran and Iraq to actually do anything but get defeated by the Allied Powers during 1941, but I just want to see the Allied powers actually pull that off.

[JoshuaFH]

I tried playing freeciv, and it is quite similar to Civ 2. Although I had to get used to the new, more friendly UI, and I had to eventually quit grieving over the fact that the Fundamentalist government wasn't available.

I've been playing, but I think it's glitchy or something, and that just throws me out of the mood to play. Irrigated grasslands don't seem to yield more food, even though it clearly states in the manual that it should and every other sort of land does. Also I tried to increase my population with 'rapture' (which increases population by one for every celebrating city) using a republic gov and alot of luxury, but some cities just plain refused to celebrate, despite having all their citizens being happy AND having a food surplus.

[Sergius]

What I liked about Civ 2 is that it came with a tolkien-ish fantasy world and a sci-fi world. These actually had more than 1 map (I think sci-fi had "orbit" stuff and a couple other planets, while fantasy had a sort of underdark thing).

Other than that I think it sucked balls. But not nearly as bad as Civ 3 - where I had to LITERALLY put one troop in every single tile of my civ borders to prevent crappy enemy troops to come in and pillage the hell out of everything, ugh.

[Sowelu]

chaoticjosh, you're sure it's not just "tiles producing > 2 food produce one less until you have Refrigeration" or something like that, or worse, an Alpha Centauri-like hard cap before a certain tech?

Sergius--That's partly there to keep you from turtling; but face it, a human is likely to do the same thing if you aren't on the offensive enough!  I know I would.  Cavalry to intercept is good.

[Sergius]

Sergius--That's partly there to keep you from turtling; but face it, a human is likely to do the same thing if you aren't on the offensive enough!  I know I would.  Cavalry to intercept is good.

The enemy can go beyond enemy lines straight from their Fog of War, stand in a constructed spot and pillage it in the same turn. No interception can prevent that.

And I wasn't turtling, I was actually invading another country. Every. Single. Turn. I would get an enemy horse (I had tanks and artillery BTW) ride right up to some mine or farm and destroy it, even when I had put a LOT of guards in fortifications along the border. Eventually I had to put a single soldier every two tiles along the border so that I would have *any* chance to stop any incoming tard with a stick poking it at my mines and collapsing them.

The worst part is that they kept doing this during the times we were in freakin' truce: they would get a ton of bowmen and crap between my lines without me noticing and declare war again and then mass pillage.

It wasn't like this in the first Civ, and it was much improved in Civ 4.

As to whether a human would do it or not: that is not the point. A human opponent would TRY. But Civ 3 made it disgustingly easy to do. Computer or human.

[Sowelu]

Okay, yeah, maybe pillage shouldn't complete in one turn...but why do you have improvements that close to the border?  Go push that border, soldier!  You shouldn't expect to keep things that are RIGHT THERE.

You probably have roads everywhere, which is counterproductive when you want to keep the enemy from invading.  Few roads lets you focus your defenses where there are roads.

And, yeah, they're mean in truces.  So don't sign truces, or use the same tactics. 

[Sergius]

Push the border? In Civ3 your border was as far as your city limit would allow AFAIK. About two or three tiles. In fact the only way to push the border was to make a wall of soldiers where you wanted your border.
No "culture area" like in Civ4.