Civ 2 rules verses Civ 3, and hopes for 4?

[eclipse]

Hi all,
I used to be a Civ 2 fan but then Civ 3 came out and I liked the rules on trading resources and the need for roads, etc....

The one thing I REALLY hated about Civ 3 was corruption affecting even Democracy. That just sucked. I loved doing the Democratic warlord routine. Also, science was very slow in Civ 3... more realistic, but hey? Who didn't like landing with tanks to conquer America around 0 AD now and then?

Was anyone else bugged by Civ 3 rules?
And what could they do to improve Civ 4?
(My main beef, get rid of high levels of corruption in a Democracy.)

And lastly, has ANYONE played a full game of civilization multiplayer, all the way through... or do people realize they are going to lose and surrender before the inevitable happens?:rolleyes:

[smwatson]

I have civ 4 on PC and it is very different to civ 3. They have 'dumbed down' the interface, but increasing the things you can do. Combat is much simpler, and they have canged alot of things. I personally prefer Civ 3. Although, Civ 4 is probably more fun, it just feels as though theyve made it for little kids. Maybe its just me

[Jovian9]

Civ II is definitely my favorite.....though Civ III is fun. I cannot wait for Civ IV. I'd like to see more control over workers in Civ IV. I like to create forests in my open spaces, but in Civ III (when workers are on automatic) they will always cut down the forests to build railroads, eve though there are no more railroads needed.

[eclipse]

OK, now the big one.

Has anyone completed a multiplayer Civ game?:eek: