Someone in the CGW thread asked, "Have you ever been dissapointed by civ?" This was rhetorical ... but I must say actually I have.Civ 2 was never finished.
I got the game immediatly after it came out in 1996. It was fantastic, but the original Civ 2 has always appeared to be 95% done. Here's why:
1) Fundamentalism was obviously never playtested. Sid admitted it was a mistake government when he decided to leave it out of Civ 3.
2) The map editor is very strange. It looks like they meant for it to place irrigation, etc., but it doesn't.
3) The scenario editor is terrible and has no paintbrush modes. The tool interface and menus are extremely confusing. (I think all the work that went into the MGE and SMAC editors shows they realized this, too).
4) There's no multiplayer, even though Civnet had already come out. (again, MGE recognizes this was a mistake)
5) There are five of the same unit, paratroopers, riflemen, fanatics, alpine troops, and partisans. Each just has a tweaked special ability, but they pretty much fulfill the same role: medium-powered inexpensive single-move cannon fodder. (I think that with more playtesting they would have made riflemen obsolete with labor union, and replaced fanatics with partisans in late game).
6) Only two scenarios. (Yes, I know MGE added on, but games customarily ship with more than just two).
7) Unfinished maps. Go to the "load premade world" in the original. Sure looks like they meant to have a WW2 pacific scenario, doesn't it? Alexander the Great, too, if that map had been finished instead of leaving only a grassland outline of the Medeterranian.
There are other issues too, like bugs. But the truth is that the above "features" were unfinished.
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
) Firaxis as possible. Now cross your finger and hope 
