Let me just say this...

[David Murray]

Hello,

Now before I begin, this is my first post here, but don't think about using the "you're a newbie!" kind of tactic against me. I've been lurking in these CTP2 boards since they began, pretty much, and I have been lurking around in the CTP1 forums before then. I started playing CIV2 about 3 years ago and have been playing CTP1 and 2 since they came out. So now that we've got that cleared up, let's move on.

I'm in the UK and I bought this game on Friday. I was eager to get my hands on it, having been following Apolyton's CTP2 site, and reading all the previews, getting excited by the new interface, diplomacy and generally supposed improved functions.

I should also mention at this point, I've never understood why people hated CTP1 so much. It was a little buggy, but I liked it. It was a damn good game. So I expected big things from CTP2.

First off, the layout is nothing like being better. No longer do I get little popups telling me what's been built, where. I have to guess what's been built, or look in all my cities to see what's been built, because I can't centre on it. The interface is NOT an improvement, it's mearly been made much more complicated. The gaming press's obsession with saying the new layout is miles better is simply stupifying.

Secondly, diplomacy. Yes, there are a couple nice new options, like the request for reducing nuclear weapons. But even CTP1 had the diplomacy request, the one that lets you ask someone to stop trading with another. I can't see an option in this game that lets you request an embargo against another civilization. The counter-proposal and threat system are welcome, of course, but my main concern is this: have they taken things out of the diplomacy system? I was expecting a really huge, detailed diplomacy system, the way you lot were going on about it. I seem to remember seeing in some screenshots the option to request an ally invade, pillage or even attack a specific city. I can't see those options in this game. Have I not been looking hard enough? I played pretty much all of last night and this morning, non-stop.

As for the combat system. Well, that too was supposed to be improved. Yet, how come when I was attacking an Irish city with an artillery, a fortified pikeman (and only him defending this city) reduced my artillery to the last point of red energy, from an erstwhile state of complete health. So, pikes can cut through armoured vehicles and stave off artillery rockets can they? Oh yeah, how very realistic.

And I also seem to remember reading in the previews, that it was possible to trade food between cities. You know, to prevent a ludicrous situation of one city starving while another is overproducing, in the same empire or internationally. (Ever heard of food aid programs?) But no, they didn't even bother with that.

Don't get me wrong, when I first started playing, I thought to myself: this is fantastic. But then I realized, this is just a glorified version of CTP1. How could those people at Apolyton, who I previously had such high regard for, mislead me like this?

I have basically wasted £30 on a slightly more elaborate diplomacy system and some new units, to the old game I had called CTP1. What a waste. And I will know not to trust Activision again, building up their game, then seemingly not delivering on what the previewers said they would deliver on.

It's just ridiculous. But oh well, there are better things to do than play games. :P

Edit: Couple of typos
[This message has been edited by David Murray (edited December 09, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by David Murray on 12-09-2000 03:26 PM No longer do I get little popups telling me what's been built, where.

eeer, hmmmm, you didnt get popups in ctp1 either. you had boxes which you had to open

quote: I have to guess what's been built, or look in all my cities to see what's been built, because I can't centre on it.

did you not see the message tab?

quote: I seem to remember seeing in some screenshots the option to request an ally invade, pillage or even attack a specific city.

you can request an ally of yours to honor his military pact with you by attacking a specific civ. it's the "honor military agreeement" option.

quote: As for the combat system. Well, that too was supposed to be improved. Yet, how come when I was attacking an Irish city with an artillery, a fortified pikeman (and only him defending this city) reduced my artillery to the last point of red energy, from an erstwhile state of complete health. So, pikes can cut through armoured vehicles and stave off artillery rockets can they? Oh yeah, how very realistic.

how blanaced, i would say. you attacked a fortified defending unit behind walls probably with a ranged attack unit. use the right units!!

[jkadabomb]

Well I hate to say it but your are a minority on just about all your comments. Vast majority of ppl like new diplomacy, and new interface. Like they say cant please every1. And also maybe you should play the game some more to familiarize yourself with it because for example when you double click on a message click on the eye icon and it will take you to the location. Also the combat system is more elaborate and balanced and that is why your artillery lost to the pikeman. Artillery is only useful from far away you idiot. When you send in artillery in close range combat your artillery is defenseless and wont attack very well either because the enemy will be right next to them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: Artillery is only useful from far away you idiot.

This statement is not helping your arguement. And I doubt he is of the minority opinion. You know, Gamespot's player review rating is an 8.1, meaning not everyone think it is perfect... People can have opinions, you idiot.

[David Murray]

Good good, some discussion.

(I've just this minute finished playing a game, you seem to think that I don't like this game. That is not the case. I liked CTP1 so therefore if I didn't like CTP2 then there would be some inconsistency. The points I'm making is how I consider this game not to be just quite the game it was built up to be.)

>eeer, hmmmm, you didnt get popups in ctp1 either. you had boxes which you had to open

What I meant was that in CTP1, little boxes would appear at the side. With CTP2, I have to click on the messages tab, which is a minor pain and certainly not an improvement over the last game, and I've noticed that sometimes the messages get delayed a turn or two? Bug? Don't know.

>you can request an ally of yours to honor his military pact with you by attacking a specific civ. it's the "honor military agreeement" option.

You certainly can, but you can't coordinate attacks with him, say, on a specific city. You can't ask him to start pirating trade routes. You can't ask him to start embargos. You can't ask him to invade a country (because the honouring thing only applies when you have a military pact, so what happens if you want him to go to war against a neighbour you're not at war with?)

>how blanaced, i would say. you attacked a fortified defending unit behind walls probably with a ranged attack unit. use the right units!!

Use the generic terms if you like! But the fact is, I thought this system was based on realism. Are you seriously suggesting an angient unit with pikes could destroy an artillery regiment? No chance. Even if the artillery couldn't fire its units, it could probably simply run over and squish the oldfashioned units before they even got a chance.

>Well I hate to say it but your are a minority on just about all your comments.

I think I'm pretty much in tune with most of the reviews I've read...except maybe on interface but I'm getting used to that too, gradually.

>Vast majority of ppl like new diplomacy

I said I did like it, only that I wanted maybe a little bit more.

> Also the combat system is more elaborate and balanced and that is why your artillery lost to the pikeman.

LOL Elaborate and balanced, in some ways yes. In other ways, no. An ancient unit should never be able to take our modern military hardware. It's ludicrous.

> When you send in artillery in close range combat your artillery is defenseless and wont attack very well either because the enemy will be right next to them.

So tell me, how likely do you think a spear would penetrate a large armoured vehicle? As I said before, all the artillery would need to do is squish the ancient unit, and I'm not really sure if artillery only just works from a distance.

Well, it obviously can, because my unit did win, however it was reduced to the lowest energy point, so that kind of leaves an inconsistency, no?

[Fluffygreycat]

The "ancient unit vs. modern unit" combat argument has been run through before, but I have to stick in my two cents.

Exactly how good a game do you think you would actually end up with, if any unit of any age could automatically defeat any unit from a previous age without suffering any damage?

Essentially the first player to achieve ANY military technological advance would immediately conquer the world in the time it took to march their units around it. I realize that this is what Europeans essentially DID, but it would make the game a little boring.

Everyone *****es that a phalanx shouldn't be able to defeat a marine, but that's bringing the wrong perspective to the Civ/CTP "battle" system. Turns are between 1 and 20 years long! The "battle" in which the pikeman took some health points away from your artillery unit before succumbing could be taken to represent events over 1-5 years. Maybe the pikemen organized a guerilla action. Maybe there was plague in the city as a result of the war and associated damage and social disruption, and your men got sick. Maybe your local commander had to strip men and materiel from his unit to garrison the city, reimpose order, and put down partisans. The few health points your unit lost could reflect many things. Personally I think any unit should have a statistical chance - however slight - to injure any other unit in combat. Once you create that percentage chance, you create the possibility - perhaps even more remote, but still there - that the inferior unit will actually WIN once in a while.

So far I find the combat system in CTP2 slightly better than CTP1's was - and CTP1's was slightly better than Civ2's was. [Bizarrely enough, I still have nostalgia for the old "Empire" game with its completely bare-bones combat - the system was so primitive that the AI actually could employ it well.]

[Narck]

Agree on the Message Tab thing. It sucks and is definitely not an improvement over ctp1.

[David Murray]

Hi,

I disagree. I don't think it would be unfair to have a system whereby units from one age would always win against units made centuries ago. It would simply mean that there was real incentive to upgrade and to stay abreast of developments. I have no qualms about a group of pikemen or phalanx being able to possibly damage some marines, for example, but in the case of tanks, artillery, airplanes, or ships then that it just out of the question. I thought the whole premise of the new combat and point system was to prevent the embarrassing (and never completely fixed) occurance of older units beating new ones simply because they're entrenched in their positions or whatever. When it all boils down, a marine's machine gun could probably take out many phalanxes before they even get a chance to get an attack on the marines, and the same for musketeers, etc. Also remember that marines will be far better trained than phalanxes and other ancient units.

And one last thing--isn't just the mere thought of phalanx (or warriors) fighting modern-day marines just...well...stupid? Get with the times is what I say, maintaining a modern military is always my top priority. And for those that want it easy and would rather be able to deploy their ancient units...well, I don't feel that's in the spirit of world conquest, do you?

[XWaste]

I think people have to remember that the unit is just a shell for the numbers. It might take a bit of imagination to rationalise a machinegunner being killed by a defending pikeman, but if you examine the NUMBERS before the fight, rather than just look at the aesthetics then you could plan better.

Though I do agree, a continuosly updated army is more realistic than the loads of obsolete units the game promotes. You can disband them continuosly but whats the point, when you can just as easily sacrifice them against some foreign army and at least do a little bit of damage, or use them as border patrol to block stealth units.

[mosquitodriver]

I agree with murray and i see where he is going with his arguements (combat system,messages,diplomacy) I also enjoyed ctp1 after all of the patches. ctp2 is literally the same game but with another patch.

The diplomacy is ok but far from what i expected. Get this little joke. I formed a military pact with the germans, they were at war with the russians. The germans liked me and trusted me so we were buddies, right? When i offered to attack russia if germany would give me 200 gold they rejected, then i offered to attack the russians if germany attacked russia too and they rejected it, what the? your already at war germany how hard can it be

In one battle my airplanes attacked catapults in a city. One airplane got shot down and i finally killed the catapults, what the? guided rocks maybe?

the message system is ok but can i have the ctp1 message system back? then again i also think the city managers are useless. the city manager is just plain rediculous with its choices (most the time) also he causes my city to grow slower. I find it much more fun micromanaging my cities than getting pissed off at the mayor. is there an option to humiliate mayors in public displays to raise happiness? probably not!

trade system rocks, its great i love it, piracy system is good too, even though my friends who trust me still pirate my trade, what the?

something must be done with the tresspass system, it just sucks. go back to the ctp1 system it was better than this new system, what a joke,
"can you please leave my land sir?"
"Oh sure laddy i agree, ill leave when im good and ready!" what the?

diplomacy is ok but for god sakes fix the a1 brain already. all you have to do to get what you want from your friends is threaten to declare war and poof they change their mind, time after time after time. The first time i threaten my friend like that, they should be sad in the face and preparing to beat me up.

also the a1 is a miserable general, pretty realistic!

what good is a scout sub? is that kinda like a spy plane from ctp1 , its useless.

i agree with what murray says about the diplomacy and messages and combat, you see this game needs some help, please put out a patch to fix the obvious problems. borders are great and many other parts of the game are great too, but the obvious inconsistancies should be addressed.

as for the combat issue, i think a armored artillery battalion would eat half naked men with sticks for lunch. the europeans always beat up on half naked men around the world, so why cant a player do it in this game? lets be real here, aye! :^)

good points though murray, i hope once the rest of the people get sick of these inconsistancies they will push game makers for better games rather than just put up with it.

right people

quote: Originally posted by mosquitodriver on 12-10-2000 07:07 AM In one battle my airplanes attacked catapults in a city. One airplane got shot down and i finally killed the catapults, what the? guided rocks maybe?

meanwhile, conquering a city with airplanes is very realistic....

i think i also saw it in a screenshot of a review...


people, please understand: this is a GAME with a certain combat system, which has specific RULES. learn them, use them, and you'll end up having FUN...
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited December 10, 2000).]

[David Murray]

Hey Mosquitodriver, it's nice to see some people actually agree with me.

Mark:

>people, please understand: this is a GAME with a certain combat system, which has specific RULES. learn them, use them, and you'll end up having FUN...

Mark, please understand that we were told for months that the combat system would be changed to become more realistic, and maybe if those useless a-holes at Activision could actually do that properly maybe we'd all have a LOT more fun.

BTW Mark, do you make a point of never criticizing a Civ game? You seem enthusiastic to the point of sheer sycophancy.

[jkadabomb]

Well I never have run into any inbalances militarily. Once I had 5 hoplites and a pikemen fortified in my city with a city wall and ballista towers adn one musketeer wiped all those units out without any damage whatsoever.

quote: Originally posted by David Murray on 12-10-2000 08:05 AM we were told for months that the combat system would be changed to become more realistic

so you're saying that the system is unchanged and isn't more realistic?

[Fraze]

I agree with some of the criticism especially the messagebox problem, which everybody is complaining about. However from the first couple of games I’ve started I can’t agree with David Murray and others who say that
CTP 2 is just a glorified version of CTP1.

The changes to the diplomatic system and the city management system i.e. No longer having to position your workers, make this a very different game. This was an unexpected change and I’ve not quite made my mind up yet.

I don’t agree with the negative comments about the combat system my experience of CTP and so far of CTP2 is that if you get behind with military technology you better keep the peace at all costs because a better equipped empire can overrun you very quickly.

People who argue over the realism of the game are missing the point somewhat; civilization games have never been historical or particularly realistic but always fun. It’s a pretend world and a pretend history (do you Yanks and Ozzies really believe your nations existed at the time of the Ancient Greek Empire).

The AI seems to me improved if still not perfect at least the French and American AI civ’s seem to honour my border, and when the Irish refused to withdraw I saw them off with some knights and they never came back. I guess by CTP 5 or CTP 6 the AI will be close to human but for now if you want the game to be closer to reality, especially in terms of diplomacy then you have to play MP or PBEM games.

I hope Civ 3 is a better game but CTP2 surly is the best Civ game so far. SMAC is great to and gets away with not being historical by being Sci-Fi (Your not seriously trying to tell me that three units of Chaos Invaders could be defeated by one little mind worm... )

[David Murray]

Hi,

[David Murray]

Hi,

Okay, case-study time. I've just finished playing again. I had been invading the English's country with my ten-unit army made up of three artillery, 6 machine gunners and a spy I accidentally forgot to remove from the assault pile. I throw them towards Liverpool, with full health. In Liverpool, are some ancient and renaissance units. 3 cannons, 2 catapults, a knight, a mounted archer and a couple of hoplites/phalanx (whatever you want to call them). Guess who gets beaten. Yep. Just because the ancient army is entrenched in its positions and gets defence bonuses, I loose by a fairly comfortable margin. In real terms a modern army would simply have mopped the floor with ancient, poorly trained units like those. (The cannons may have posed a threat to the machine gunners but the artillery should just have wiped them out.)

If you guys are suggesting that ancient units using metal weapons, muskets, stones and wooden vehicles can destroy a modern invasion force is in the name of "fun", you are well out of order. It is this persisting anomally that is detracting from my fun of this game. Why should I bother to even upgrade when I can just throw ancient units around?

To me, having ancient units when there's new technology is just daft--and there should have been an upgrade facility, where you could just have clicked on units, paid a price, and had them upgraded. Saving all the hassle of completely rearranging your armies. But no.

As for worker placement, well, that's pretty minor, and my cities don't seem to grow/not grow any differently. I like having the option to build farmer specialists, etc.

But I agree totally with these reviews--in itself it's a fairly good game. But they didn't include half the things they should have. The combat system isn't always very accurate. Diplomacy isn't as resplendid with options as it should be.

If they had included the ability to auto-upgrade units, and perhaps just included a few more options in diplomacy, I personally would have been over the moon with CTP2. As it is I'm simply just unmoved and rather p-d off by the rave previews and sycophantic adulation its got from Civ "fanatics".

[Mat'agh]

First off, why do you say that older units are poorly trained? Roman legions for example had excellent training. Just because they don't know how to use modern weapons or modern tactics does not mean that they are poorly trained.

In fact, an older army would have a chance, however remote, of defeating a modern army. This would be in the lower percentile, but the chance could still exist.

I can't remember who said it above, but remember that the battle does take place over a long period; alot can happen. There are ways that Hoplites could damage an Artillery unit. Remember; it is not so simple as the units are charging each other on an open field, the battles are simplified. Imagine if one vehicle is trying to "run over" a Hoplite, and while attempting to do so crashes into another vehicle. Your unit was just damaged, right?

In real history, the more advanced unit did not always, win, and victory was not always guaranteed. How many times did natives ambush and slaughter European soldiers? In one battle in South Africa, the Zulus massacred an entire army of British Regulars in an open field. Just because you have better technology and training does not guarantee you victory 100% of the time.

Many generals have been baffled as to why their armies lost; even when the circumstances were vastly in their favour, there is always the remote possibility that a weaker and inferior enemy will be able to win.

It would not be realistic if the most advanced unit in the game could win every battle without receiving any damage.

[Fraze]

I'm no history expert but take Rorke's Drift for example, the Zulus gave the British a seriously hard time (even with the advantage of Michael Cane). As for the US you certainly made a big deal out of killing all your Indians.

Edit: I just remebered, the Hi tech USA army went to Vietnam in the late sixties early seventies.

They lost.
[This message has been edited by Fraze (edited December 10, 2000).]

[David Murray]

lol...okay sorry, you guys make some fairly good points, but let me try and counter counter them now.

Firstly, the issue of battles taking a long time. The battles don't really last years, although the wars often do, unfortunately the turn system couldn't just be slowed down to the appropriate days or weeks or months a battle would take place, the game would take forever.

Secondly, we have to be pragmatic about this. Sure, hoplies might be able to take out a modern army. Yes, and it is also a 'possibility' that Al Gore will become the next Preisdent because George W will admit that the Republicans used dirty tactics to win. But be reasonable, it's not very likely.

My resolution is this, and it has already been proposed: Units that are just one age apart, i.e. ancient-renaissance, renaissance-modern, modern-genetic, genetic-diamond should have a chance, although the higher bracket should have the advantage. If you're two tech levels down, quite frankly your unit deserves to be obliterated.

This would make technology a priority, would promote realism, would make the game more fun and exciting, and would probably finally end the situation of cannons and pikemen taking out stealth bombers.

[David Murray]

Oh, and remember my post wasn't just about combat...remember I mentioned stuff about trading food, diplomacy, etc...none of you seem to be as bothered about that. Like I said, diplomacy is good, and trade is easier, but why did Activision cut out so many diplomatic options that could have been included and not include things like the ability to ship food aid?

This game is only a couple to a few mods away from being perfect. Maybe I'll take up mods myself.
[This message has been edited by David Murray (edited December 10, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by David Murray on 12-10-2000 02:03 PM my ten-unit army made up of three artillery, 6 machine gunners and a spy I accidentally forgot to remove from the assault pile. I throw them towards Liverpool, with full health. In Liverpool, are some ancient and renaissance units. 3 cannons, 2 catapults, a knight, a mounted archer and a couple of hoplites/phalanx (whatever you want to call them). Guess who gets beaten. Yep. Just because the ancient army is entrenched in its positions and gets defence bonuses, I loose by a fairly comfortable margin.

if you had bombarded the city first for a couple turns, you had no problems...

quote: If they had included the ability to auto-upgrade units, and perhaps just included a few more options in diplomacy, I personally would have been over the moon with CTP2. As it is I'm simply just unmoved and rather p-d off by the rave previews and sycophantic adulation its got from Civ "fanatics".

so the difference between "over the moon" and "unmoved and rather p-d off by the rave previews" is an unit-upgrade feature and a few more choices in the diplomacy?
wow...

[jkadabomb]

Man O Man. David Murray you must be an unlucky person, I have not run into a battle like that. In fact I had 5 hoplites, 1 pikmen all fortified behind city walls and on ballista towers and 1 infantrymen took them all out.

[David Murray]

Jkadabomb, I'll believe it when I see it. Anyway. Mark....

The whole premise of CTP2 was improved functions, no? As in, this wasn't supposed to be a revolutionary, revamped game. Right?

Well, the diplomatic, combat and other gameplay alterations are pretty but pretty specious and artificial...so I guess maybe if they'd done their job right, I would be happy. But because they didn't, I'm not.

Does it all make sense to you now? Good-oh!

(As for bombarding. Yeah. They had 5 bombarding units in that city. I sure as heck wouldn't have lasted too long in battle if I sat about letting 5 units bombard my stack, huh.)
[This message has been edited by David Murray (edited December 10, 2000).]

Edit: granted I could have bombarded first, but this isn't about strategy, it's about the combat system.
[This message has been edited by David Murray (edited December 10, 2000).]

[Chronus]

Hmmmm. I can agree with Murray for the most part. If these miraculous victories by the weaker armies are occuring a lot then, yes, something is obviously wrong.

However, as others have pointed out, there are occasions when the inferior army wins, even when they are way behind in technology. Did not the Eithiopians beat back the Italians in WWII? Did not the Polish/Russian resistance destroy German tanks with mere flaming bottles filled with fuel? Did not Luke Skywalker destroy the mighty Death Star with a single photon from an X-wing?

Other circumstances can also be considered when such outcomes occur. The mighty Mongol army, for example, tried to invade Japan twice but was destroyed by storms. The fact of the matter is, even the best laid of plans are thwarted by reality.

Please do not give ancient units an absolute zero chance in defeating a better equipped army. Bring it down to a .01% chance if you like, but reducing it to 0%, as history shows, is NOT realistic.

[Alpha Wolf]

what level are you playing on? I'm constantly defeating fortified armies inside cities with an equal sized attack force (no pre bombardment). I havent seen any positive effect of cities yet towards defense. In fact a just had a single barbarian warrior beat 2 fortified warriors inside a city. On the battle screen it showed 0 under the city part.

I have to agree somewhat with both sides. Any army should have some chance, but wasnt the armor rating supposed to prevent archers from shooting down planes?

And has anyone looked at the costs of units? Seems like building costs are not very consistant.

------------------
History is written by the victor.

[Sabre2th]

are you people saying that a samarai can't occasionally beat an infantryman or marine in hand to hand combat? (in real life)

[David Murray]

Heh. Reminds me of that Indiana Jones film, can't remember which one. A big Samuri warrior-like dude starts doing fancy manoeuvres with his big samurai sword, but then Indi just nonchalantly pulls out his pistol, shoots him and gets on with the movie.

BTW the first game I played was on medium level, just to get myself used to things.

[JamesJKirk]

Indiana Jones was never in Japan, it was a mideastern guy with a sword...okay, on to "real" things:
I enjoy having a hard time taking on enemies with slightly more antiquated militaries than mine, would you rather it that anyone with a modern military could take on anyone anywhere using anything less than what he had, you have to win some and lose some, it wouldn't be much fun to stomp over the world uncontested

[kabouki]

Hi,

Ok, I believe it is not very believable that a spearman can defeat a tank, but I think that the game needs to balance playability with real warfare. But I think this is a minor issue. (Actually it's pretty irrealistic for a spearman to knock down a Stealth Bomber )

There are things that could be better in other ways:

The upgrade capability to obsolete units.
The ability to set by percentage the distribution of each type of specialist and workers in a city and on the empire, so that there is consitency on the growth of cities and you don't have to turn entertainers to other specialists every time the city grows (for very large cities of course).
The diplomacy is better, but could be better.
Pop-up windows when a city completes a task and if wether or not has other items in queue.
The ability to arrange units in a stack before combat begins.
More realistic wonders.
For FoW I would propose a fame system for Cities, considering it's population, resource production, improvements and WoW, so that conquering a City with High fame could be a FoW instead of considering a FoW the recapture of a City.
And last but not least a "realistic" tech tree.

Nevertheless I think CTPII is a good game, it improves on CTP because the greater area of influence of a city, the substitution of gold based science for trade based gold and science are two major steps in favour of playability. The end of space cities might seem a bad decision at first, but it let's you concentrate more deeply on what I believe a Civ game is about.

I play Civ games since the first days of Civ1 (back in 87) and it's refreshing to have games like this.
[This message has been edited by kabouki (edited December 10, 2000).]