3rd January 2004, 12:56 PM
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Er... no, you are wrong. Civ III wasn't "fixing a mistake". It was "adding a feature". That feature is high culture expanding your city zone of control. As far as territory goes it is a major feature addition, for sure, because it lets you take over enemy zones of control and even cities if you have high enough culture... but you act like its lack in Civ II is actually a bug or something! Absurd! Oh, sure, enemies do that in Civ II and it's annoying, but I know that people complain about that very same problem in Civ III... as I said, the only difference is that you can expand your control zone... which is nice but not as dramatically different as you suggest.
Wrong. In Civ II, you leave one tiny space between a city, and they'll take it. And all you can do about it is either hope the city starves to death, which almost never happens, or start a war and capture it (not, of course, being able to raze it if you just don't want it there). In Civ III you can bombard the outpost with culture, and later, subvert it with propaganda. You can also eat up those little gaps in control zones, meaning that you aren't required to build a city in a crappy place or waste units defending it just to make sure your neighbors don't take over. Sure, they'll still try and take every inch of land they can, but now you can take it back without causing a war.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR