Do you think that CTP2 would be any better than...

Spiker22 · January 3, 2001, 22:58

it is now, if Activision made it into half turn-based and half real time. I mean, everything is still turn-based, but the combats are represented in C&C style real time.

January 3, 2001, 23:33

Lords of the realm 2 was a turn-based strategy game that had the option to play out combat as real time.

I tended to switch that option off after a couple of games.

So I don't think CtP2 would have been much better if that had been included.

------------------
phoenixcager
------------------
of the the Civilization Gaming Network. Visit the CGN Forums

David Murray · January 4, 2001, 17:28

quote:

Originally posted by Spiker22 on 01-03-2001 09:58 PM
it is now, if Activision made it into half turn-based and half real time. I mean, everything is still turn-based, but the combats are represented in C&C style real time.

I personally have a slight problem with wars I have with other nations lasting hundreds and hundreds of years, when in reality they would only last a few. So I don't think this is so much of a ridiculous idea.

------------------
"Never trust a politician who believes business creates oppression and government creates jobs."

dande · January 4, 2001, 20:55

I play civ games becuase they are turn based. I imensly dislike RTS games and would not have purchased CTP2 if it had a RTS component.

Others can enjoy it, I personaly don't.

By the way, I thuroughly agree with David M. about wars lasting too long. I have battled other nations in CTP2 for 500-1000 years even when I tired of it quickly. They just don't let up unless you crush them to the ground and sometimes that just isn't worth it. This is a drawback to CTP2 the way it is now.

Spiker22 · January 4, 2001, 22:13

Yes, long battles are not very realistic especially during earlier periods of a game. When a turn equals 50 years in time span, and you're trying to take a city, and the battle may last 2 to 3 turns, and that's 150 years. In hisotry, a seige battle of this kind would last weeks or months, not hundreds of years.

MrFun · January 4, 2001, 23:38

Has anyone ever read about the Hundred Years War?

ACOLKitty · January 5, 2001, 03:30

MOO2 is an example of this. STARS! Supernova will also do this.

I always turn it off.

The time Bar does not represent static time, just the overall passage of eras.

The Hundred years war was a series of wars.

Savant · January 5, 2001, 22:16

Yes, it was just the 100 years war and lasted just 120 years, not 1600 years as I have encountered in my games as well.

The AI does not accept reasonable offers for ceasefires or peace, violates ceasefires immediately upon their expiration when it should be sueing for peace and offering me cities. It is a mess.

I kind of liken it now to a one-person shooter game. And I really liked the graphics and the interface, but the AI is too disappointing once you get over the eye-candy. It's like getting married to a gal who is all body and no brains or personality. We know just what to do with that, but what's the point?

------------------
'Blood will run'

Bluevoss · January 5, 2001, 23:15

All I can say is that the game is an abstraction. You can't run the day to day representation of history, not unless you are prepaired to play a thousand-year long game. How can you hope to model WW2, or the conquestidores, or the mogol invasions. And not every type of combat is represented - no chariots, no early biplane scouts.

In model railroading, we call it Selective Compression. You only model the parts that can best tell the story. The only way to truely simulate seomthing is to do it on 1:1 scale, and thats impossible.

So it goes...

------------------
Bluevoss-

jkadabomb · January 6, 2001, 01:03

Bluevoss actually it is possible to simulate something on a day to day basis. Just limit the time period. One example of this is the WW2 Scenario.