CtP2 Compared to Civ2

C Chulainn · March 4, 2001, 17:56

CtP doesn't seem to be very well received on the whole, but it does have some favourable points compared to Civ, which in my opinion are as follows:
*Combat - although Civ2 combat was a vast improvement over Civ1 combat, its weakness was that outside fortresses only one unit in a tile could fight and if it lost, everything stacked with it was destroyed. CtP has a better combat system with everything taken into account.
*Infrastructure - it might not be to everyone's taste, but I think the Public Works system of improving tiles is better than having to send Settlers all over the place.
*Trade Routes - these are a good thing, and better than having the whole thing rest on the fate of a long and precarious caravan trip.
*Wonders - in Civ, building certain key wonders was all-important. CtP makes them more balanced - you don't have to give up because someone else built the Pyramids or Leonardo' Workshop.
*Governments - better balanced. In Civ2 you basically chose between Democracy and Fundamentalism, everything else being weak by comparison. There's mroe variety in CtP.
*Stealing Technology - probably the best aspect of CtP is that this is much rarer and more difficult. It drives me mad the way in Civ a civilisation which hasn't even discovered gunpowder yet can somehow start producing tanks...
The disadvantages are:
*Scientific Progress is too fast. There are generally firearms in use by the 7th Century and the Modern Age begins in the 15th or 16th century.
*Over compensation for AI civs being backward or too advanced. I used to enjoy "bomb the primitives" in earlier versions; now everyone has more or less the same level of advancement throughout the game because it's rigged that way and you can never get a technological lead.
*The shrinking map. Because cities use up so much space, even the largest map size seems to get filled up very quickly. What remains seems to be impossibly vast tracts of swamp.
*A military unit "gap" - there is no equivalent of Civ's Rifleman unit, so you're stuck with soldiers in scarlet coats with muskets for about 1000 years, and then whoever gets tanks first crushes everything in their path.
and finally
*Depressingly slow naval movement.

leonli316 · March 4, 2001, 19:05

Yes C Chulainn, you are right. If you have Tank Warfare, and you can build them fast enough you can definity crash anything in its path. So that's why there are anit-armour units, attack helicopter, land mines, and more in real life. Too bad that the designers didn't think of these.

[This message has been edited by leonli316 (edited March 04, 2001).]

leonli316 · March 4, 2001, 19:08

So, what is your ideal movement point for naval units?

March 4, 2001, 19:37

There is no comparison between civ 2 and ctp 2 for one simple reason - multiplayer doesn't work in ctp 2. This is a tragedy because this game could have been a star as multiplayer game. As a single player game the ai is so weak, the game isn't worth playing.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

leonli316 · March 4, 2001, 19:50

perhaps the designer make a dump move. So that why i downloaded CTP2 on the net instead

. However problems start right away. After i got to mordern age, the game crash every few turns. Also, it does not support internet.

March 5, 2001, 02:51

quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 03-04-2001 06:37 PM
There is no comparison between civ 2 and ctp 2 for one simple reason - multiplayer doesn't work in ctp 2. This is a tragedy because this game could have been a star as multiplayer game. As a single player game the ai is so weak, the game isn't worth playing.

You and your multiplayer, AH.

But there are a lot more reasons why CtP2 isn't in the same league as civ2. The most obvious being that the game lacks the 'heart' aspect. It just seems so sterile and doesn't make you feel like you're a part of whatever you're playing, or that you're building a civ/empire.

------------------
phoenixcager of the Civgaming Network.
Visit the CGN forums.

Bluevoss · March 5, 2001, 14:40

Oh the other hand, I like CTP2 becuase the Maps are much better. I can actually get a good feel for the map, unlike those CIV2 spagetti worlds. And the terrain is much more uniform and belivable. Deserts in CTP2 really feel like deserts.

I also like the interface. Its easier to sit back and play a game. You can click about and check on things pretty easily.

Now, if only to AI had been better and the cities more detailed (I'd give my left whoosit if they had really put in the city unhappyness as it appears in the flat files). But outside of that, I have to admit that I enjoy CTP2 a little more than Civ2.

I'm really banking on Wes's mod to fill in the gaps.

Oh, and one more thing - at least in CTP2, you have ancient battles. In Civ, you dont conflict with anyone else until the middle ages. Where are my trireme battles? Where are my hoplites sweaping forth?

I went back to Civ2 and just couldn't stay away. So lets hope Wes can knock it home with his mod.

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

C Chulainn · March 5, 2001, 16:07

quote:

Originally posted by phoenixcager on 03-05-2001 01:51 AM
You and your multiplayer, AH. But there are a lot more reasons why CtP2 isn't in the same league as civ2. The most obvious being that the game lacks the 'heart' aspect. It just seems so sterile and doesn't make you feel like you're a part of whatever you're playing, or that you're building a civ/empire.

Yes, this is true to a certain extent. There isn't the same level of intensity as in Civ; for one thing other civs don't seem to bother with you very much, whereas they used to either threaten to crush you to dust or else say "let's be friends". In CtP the default seems to be everyone wandering aimlessly over everyone else's territory, agreeing to withdraw and then reneging on the agreement. At least, though, you're spared the inevitable "evil coalition" of fundamentalist nutters against you which was the conclusion of every game of Civ2.

dennis_caver · March 5, 2001, 16:26

Hi C.C.,

I disagree with a couple of your points.

Combat is overall more effective in Civ2 - TOT then in
CTP2. In TOT the AI knows about some effective Strategies
and Tactics, in CTP2 its as dumb as a brick. Stacks are good
but if you don't know what to do with them ... one needs to make
modifications to Ctp2 like the 'frenzy' mod.

The comment on the advancement balance indicates you have
not played at the 'impossible' level. You learn how to max
your advancement to catch up or you will be attacked by superior
forces.

I think stealing technology is the right way, though it is
somewhat unbalanced in Civ2. There needs to be a mod to Civ2
for a effective deterrent earlier in the game. Also I think
if you capture an enemys key city you should be able to attain
an advancement from your enemy.

Each game has its advantages, but out of the box I would give
the top award to Civ2-TOT without reservations.

Spelelunk forever,

Dennis

March 5, 2001, 19:33

CTP2 is lightyears ahead. PW alone makes the CTP series an improvement. As to 'feel' and 'spirit', well it may be subjective but I certainly feel it when I play CTP2. Add borders and stacking to the mix and civ2 looks primitive.

leonli316 · March 5, 2001, 23:54

To "Bluevoss"

Can you discribe or sent me pictures of city view in CTP2. I will be very thinkful if you do.

Here is my e-mail "leonyhli@home.com"

Steve5304 · March 6, 2001, 00:34

Yes i Agree....The TOT AI was (and still is) Light years ahead of CTP2 AI. TOT AIs actually will take Citys (wow). Now lets talk about CTP2/CTP AI and how they Constantly Refuse Peace proposals when they are on there last legs ( Refuse bye Default

). Another thing makes me angry is the AI wont even leave its citys,They can have 9 tanks(AI tanks are just as dumb as there Hoplites) in a city and your Warrior Pillages every farm outside there city, And the AI still,wont budge (again....Bye Default

) And the No-Tresspassing agreement doesent @#%! work,That is, If you can Convince the AI to Sign it (Constantly Rejected,Once again....Bye Default

).

Any Conversation about Activision, Stirs up my anger... Go out and buy EU ,It provides 10-fold the Competition and Entertainment CTP2 does,Hope Civ3 will be more Graduated than this Piece of Garbage.

Went ahead and Returned CTP2(for all 52.00$ !, Ater 5 months of Tweaking around with the AI, I decided they were hopeless,And forever dumb.Hundreds of F***IN Games and maybe 2 citys were Captured. Now that CTP2 is selling for Dirt Cheap ($9.99 ha!) I might just go buy it again (na...lol). Stores Cant seem to get rid of this Pathetic game fast enough,I wonder why....? CTP2 is like an Inflated Currency Too much too go around , but it isnt Worth the Paper its on.

-------------------------
Go ahead , im awaiting your (mislead) Replys, Im Expecting a Full Blown Assault Bye Activisions Many Corporate Lackeys (you know who you are).

[This message has been edited by Steve5304 (edited March 06, 2001).]

leonli316 · March 6, 2001, 01:47

To Steve5304

I hope CTP2 is $9.99 too, so i don't have to download the game on the internet. Well the realitiy is, you will have to wait 2 to 3 more years to come. By then, ActionVision probrobly announce CTP3 or CTP4 or CTP5 whatever. There is always problems when you dont have enough money.

[This message has been edited by leonli316 (edited March 06, 2001).]

leonli316 · March 6, 2001, 02:19

To C Chulainn

Could you send me a list of civ2 improvements and their function to me at this e-mail "leonyhli@home.com". I will be very thinkful if you do.
[This message has been edited by leonli316 (edited March 06, 2001).]

C Chulainn · March 6, 2001, 16:08

quote:

Originally posted by dennis_caver on 03-05-2001 03:26 PM
Hi C.C.,

he comment on the advancement balance indicates you have
not played at the 'impossible' level. You learn how to max
your advancement to catch up or you will be attacked by superior
forces.

Dennis

No, I haven't played on "Impossible" and probably never will, for the same reason as I haven't played Deity in Civ2: at that level it's not fun anymore. You have to perfectly execute a set strategy of building up X number of cities by date Y, churn out caravans, etc. Any deviation and you're crushed as enemy tanks overrun your phalanxes. I like a bit of variety (and at lower levels I like seeing my bombers destroy phalanxes and warriors, heh, heh, heh!)

C Chulainn · March 6, 2001, 16:10

quote:

Originally posted by dennis_caver on 03-05-2001 03:26 PM
Hi C.C.,

he comment on the advancement balance indicates you have
not played at the 'impossible' level. You learn how to max
your advancement to catch up or you will be attacked by superior
forces.

Dennis

No, I haven't played on "Impossible" and probably never will, for the same reason as I haven't played Deity in Civ2: at that level it's not fun anymore. You have to perfectly execute a set strategy of building up X number of cities by date Y, churn out caravans, etc. Any deviation and you're crushed as enemy tanks overrun your phalanxes. I like a bit of variety (and at lower levels I like seeing my bombers destroy phalanxes and warriors, heh, heh, heh!)

C Chulainn · March 6, 2001, 16:12

quote:

Originally posted by dennis_caver on 03-05-2001 03:26 PM
Hi C.C.,

he comment on the advancement balance indicates you have
not played at the 'impossible' level. You learn how to max
your advancement to catch up or you will be attacked by superior
forces.

Dennis

No, I haven't played on "Impossible" and probably never will, for the same reason as I haven't played Deity in Civ2: at that level it's not fun anymore. You have to perfectly execute a set strategy of building up X number of cities by date Y, churn out caravans, etc. Any deviation and you're crushed as enemy tanks overrun your phalanxes. I like a bit of variety (and at lower levels I like seeing my bombers destroy phalanxes and warriors, heh, heh, heh!)

C Chulainn · March 6, 2001, 16:13

quote:

Originally posted by dennis_caver on 03-05-2001 03:26 PM
Hi C.C.,

he comment on the advancement balance indicates you have
not played at the 'impossible' level. You learn how to max
your advancement to catch up or you will be attacked by superior
forces.

Dennis

No, I haven't played on "Impossible" and probably never will, for the same reason as I haven't played Deity in Civ2: at that level it's not fun anymore. You have to perfectly execute a set strategy of building up X number of cities by date Y, churn out caravans, etc. Any deviation and you're crushed as enemy tanks overrun your phalanxes. I like a bit of variety (and at lower levels I like seeing my bombers destroy phalanxes and warriors, heh, heh, heh!)

leonli316 · March 7, 2001, 02:02

So use cheat than

dennis_caver · March 7, 2001, 15:30

Hey C.C. your sure your name isn't Renfro. In Civ2-TOT
I'd nukem 'til they glowed in the dark when they pissed me
off. Heh, Heh, Heh, Heh ... but I digress.

Selelunk til ya puke,

Dennis

Skeeve · March 7, 2001, 16:14

I'll add my two cents to this thread... Why not?

In general, I feel that CTP2 is a better game than CIV2... but only slightly. I'd say it pretty much squeaks by.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Civ2's Animated High Council!
I absolutely loved that! You could hear and watch your council member's bicker over your policies anytime you wanted, and also they changed their appearance during each age. That was great... why didn't CTP2 have something like it?

Oh.. I forgot; $Activision$

-- Skeeve

------------------
My reach exceeds my grasp!

March 10, 2001, 23:59

I take it all back. Just for the hell of it (and to avoid doing any work today) I reinstalled Civ2 and played it again. I got thouroughly trounced by the AI! It launched competent amphibious assaults. It attacked w/ bombers and then followed up with paratroopers. It proceeded to nuke me! Then it launched its space ship and won. Don't get me wrong, I still think Activision improved the concept with public works, stacked combat, and borders - and I missed those features while playing civ2 (I had forgotten how annoying it is when an ally builds a damn city on a square your using) but getting my butt kicked like I was the CTP2 AI was a welcome change. And it doesn't matter how many conceptual improvements you add, if the game has no challenge the game is shelfware. My apologies, Civ2 is the reigning king!
***
Almost forgot - I've been beating CTP2 with little trouble on very hard. Civ2 just kicked my yarbles on King.
[This message has been edited by Mister Pleasant (edited March 10, 2001).]

Sean · March 12, 2001, 05:55

I am bored of CTPII, already!!! While I played civII endlessly. While it is true that CTPII had some good features, eg. Trade. On the whole however, it was pretty poor. It has the stupidist AI I have ever come across, as well as being a game of endless "clicks". You sometimes have to wait ages for your turn, as the AI moves its countless (and often useless) units around, for no real good reason. And if your going to make a game with stacking, it would be a good idea if the AI can do it to. And as and earlier poster argued, civ II had more "heart", or rather atmosphere + playability.

I better stop, I am starting to rant.

------------------
Give me Liberty, or give me death!

Skeeve · March 12, 2001, 08:22

For those of you who find that CTP2 lacks challenge... have you tried the AI Frenzy Mod yet?

------------------
My reach exceeds my grasp!

March 13, 2001, 01:30

I tried the frenzy mod but was not particulalry impressed. No offence to BlueO (my SLIC attempts fell rather flat), but all frenzy does is piss the computer off and then force large stacks of units at you. The way to beat frenzy is to go frenzy yourself and put the smackdown on a civ at first contact. Since a frenzied AI has about as much abilty to launch an amphibious assault as the regular AI, you will eventually dominate your continent, and by the time the remaining AIs have threatening enough stacks to do damage, you can launch quick amphibous assualts to gut their infrastructure. All frenzy does is force you to play unreasonably fiercely. Further, the computer's incompetence at using all available esources is ridiculuos. Carriers with no planes, helicopters with no paratroopers. At least civ2 could exploit those sorts of units. CTP2 was a brilliant idea with piss poor execution on so many levels.

Skeeve · March 13, 2001, 09:17

Hmm.. Mister Pleasant has a point about the AI's mismanagement.
I don't think I've played a game yet where I've seen the computer's cargo helicopters actually carrying anything!

Oh.. my mistake, they did carry something once: A Settler. And dropped him off at the south pole to rot!

------------------
My reach exceeds my grasp!

Jen Dragon · March 17, 2001, 11:26

The automated settlers in CIV2 are good, I liked having
pollution on the board. It also required population to
make settlers/engineers and support. If you nuked an enemy
you created pollution he probably wouldnt clean up so you
had to get engineers to that position fast. PW is good but
I liked engineers better, they were targets that could be
bombed.

Hannibal Ad Portas · March 17, 2001, 14:21

Hi
dont know if interested but i have a new mod with changed ai
look at my thread for playtesters in mods, in it you will see
barbs like in civ1 at sea,all ai using amphim operations and a
host of new stuff.
Hannibal

C Chulainn · March 18, 2001, 19:40

I've seen copters carrying machine gunners and dropping them off, but most of the time the AI seems to use them just for reconnaisance. I have noticed the AI, although it attacks cities, hardly ever attacking anyone "in the field" - in the latest game the Assyrians have an old catapault sitting on a rail tile and the Americans, at war with them, just ignore it, moving huge stacks of tanks around what is a sitting duck...