Gamespot review!!!!! - Page 2

November 21, 2000, 17:53

quote:

Originally posted by John-SJ on 11-21-2000 04:47 PM
There's one I've missed, how do I set the rules that determine battle tactics? THANKS!

i didnt say you change the rules. i said that there is a determined set of rules on how battle is done. your tool to make the best out of the rules is your choice of units in your stacks....

TheLimey · November 21, 2000, 17:54

You can't set them per se. Marks point was the units that you include in a stack determine how they are arranged.

What this means in practice, is if you include appropriately varied units, with some ranged attackers, some assault units and some flankers, you'll decimate an unbalanced defender.

John-SJ · November 21, 2000, 17:57

OOPS! I misread, sorry. Now that I read again I see what you are saying.

John-SJ

November 21, 2000, 17:57

quote:

Originally posted by TheLimey on 11-21-2000 04:54 PM
What this means in practice, is if you include appropriately varied units, with some ranged attackers, some assault units and some flankers, you'll decimate an unbalanced defender.

exactly!

Tilemacho · November 21, 2000, 19:39

About the combat system: Although I like very much a had a problem. In a stack I had 8 tanks 4 Artillery…and the AI put 2 of my artillery in the front line (!!!) and some tanks behind them. The result was that I lost one Artillery in a battle that I expected not to lose anything. I realized later that the AI put the Artillery in front become its ranged attack was 70 whereas the tank has a ranged attack of 80

Very weird… the game is easy in “easy” level…

BTW: I am playing the game for 5 days now and I think the reviews so far ar far from being objective

November 21, 2000, 20:09

quote:

Originally posted by Tilemacho on 11-21-2000 06:39 PM
I realized later that the AI put the Artillery in front become its ranged attack was 70 whereas the tank has a ranged attack of 80

now, why should someone get away with such an error in creating his stack? (i'm not aiming this to you tilemaxe

)

btw, from the review

quote:

Visually, Call to Power II is excellent.

the rating for graphics is 7. i wonder what the word for 10 is....

John-SJ · November 21, 2000, 20:40

From MarkG:
btw, from the review

quote:

Visually, Call to Power II is excellent.

the rating for graphics is 7. i wonder what the word for 10 is....

I've seen this before, judging from the text of the Gamespot review it seems the numeric score was a bit harsh. Personally, I'd score the game in the mid 8s but judging from the text of the Gamespot review I'd expect at least an 8.0. Seems like a mismatch.

edit: BTW, I think the word for "10" graphics is "Superstupendous!!!".

John-SJ

[This message has been edited by John-SJ (edited November 21, 2000).]

WesW · November 22, 2000, 03:19

Well, the gamespot preview was better than the ign one, which isn't necessarily saying anything "at all". The ign one was pathetic. Even the gamespot one seemed to have been done by someone with a list of games to review, and who would have rather been playing something else. Do you guys ever notice the games listed in these mags as the ones which their people are playing on their own time? It seems that they are always rts or fps's.
Anyway, about my only complaints with the game so far are play-balancing issues like Tanks having a higher ranged attack than Artillery, and the tech-tree stuff, which is what mod-making is for.

hexagonian · November 22, 2000, 11:48

...and that is why we pay you the big bucks, Wes, to fix these weaknesses

Seriously, by the time Wes and others get done with their magic on CTP2, no-one will be able to complain.

Dark Renown · November 22, 2000, 15:57

quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 11-21-2000 02:06 PM
Uh... you failed high school history didn't you

? Fascism arose in the 1920s in Italy. Democracy can be traced to 1776 in the United States (or even before).

And nothing is wrong with Fascist governments, just having them as a prereq for Democracy is kind of silly.

Im still in high school, doing history...
anyway given how simple a goverenment it is surely it was around long before 1920(this gov lasted till 1943ish), one guy in charge, likes to have a big army seems like its been around for a looong time.
how would you define facsism?

Dark Renown · November 22, 2000, 16:00

quote:

Originally posted by Carrion on 11-21-2000 03:45 PM
Actually Ancient Greece had a basic form of Democracy. The US isn't a democracy at all. Its a Consitutional Republic. True it does have elements of Democracy in it but it is a far cry from a "true democracy." Democracy has every citizen vote on all matters of the state. As I recall I didn't have a say in any bill presented to the senate or congress this year. We elect representatives who in turn are supposed to do what they think is in our best intrests.

Anyway I can discuss this all day there is my 3 cents

wasnt Ancient Greece a collection of city-state each with its own king/counsil?

JimMac · November 22, 2000, 19:11

To go back to the topic of this thread,- the guy who wrote the Gamespot review, Bruce Geryk, also does some work for Games Domain, and sometimes writes a column for Game Pen focusing on Usenet.

In his latest column in between "ranting" about things Usenet, Bruce discusses CTP2.
http://gamepen.ugo.com/gamepen/features.asp?itemid=68

Some quotes:

"The diplomatic model. Not as great as people think. I can ask for one thing and offer one thing in return. Super... Yes, the system does do a good job of keeping track of who I've offended. It also doesn't tell you what an empire's attitude is when it gives you that "Proposal Rejected" message. SMAC, which has a less powerful system for making proposals, makes up for this a bit by providing detailed information on the other side's attitude during negotiations.

"Call to Power 2 is "Civ-lite" because it replaces thinking with not as much thinking. It doesn't replace it with a different kind of thinking: it just tosses a good bit of strategy right out the window in the name of "streamlining" the game."

Although you may not agree with his comments I think that it is worth a read,- I wonder if it is true that by simplifying gameplay, CTP2 has reduced strategy in a "civ" game? (As I haven't yet got CTP2, I cant make an assessment)

JimMac

November 22, 2000, 19:24

quote:

It also doesn't tell you what an empire's attitude is when it gives you that "Proposal Rejected" message.

eeer, hmmm.... the attitude it had when you made the proposal!!!

November 22, 2000, 19:30

quote:

In CTP, if you capture a city, the population decreases by just one because there is only one turn of combat

only thing though, since the ai usually puts plenty of units which means that you cant simply attack the city in one turn without loosing lots of units. you have to bombard whic does take more turns and partially destroy the city....

quote:

You either win or you lose with all the units in a stack at once. (Yes, you can retreat sometimes).

not "sometimes". "always". which means that it's not "win or lose"....

quote:

It's easy to get frustrated with a game when it doesn't just let you click on units and send fascists to invade enemy cities without your population crying foul. Yes, CTP2 has fascists. Now all it needs is a "Nuremburg Trials" wonder.

please remind me of the great revolutions the german people did during ww2....

quote:

The CTP system lets me make a bunch of elaborate gestures (actually not that elaborate) into a black box.

another example of someone making a judgement about something when it doesnt work as he thought it would be. play the game, discover the rules and the tweaks, then judge...

and then you guys ask me to stop playing and write the preview...

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 22, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 22, 2000).]