The Best: Civ3 or CTP2?

[splangy]

alot of people think i hate ctp (ie: dale) but i just think it was evil what they did, especialy becouse i got mine as a christmas present , my freind wasted 30$ , all becouse they didn't wait, they just shuved it out the door. i beleive ctp had potential but just wasn't tested enough, tweaked enough, ballanced enough. ctp modded is a great game, but as i said earlier, you cant make rosses from crap ( what i meant is molding, basically if you took crap and tried to mold it into a flower, you wouldn't get a very nice looking flower , but i digress)

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by splangy
I HAVE PLAYED MODDED

This is really hard to believe since you did neve shared you experience with us. Not even to criticize.

nothing has been heard on this one

It was given in the Specific civs units in the Civ of the Week at civ3.com

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by splangy
alot of people think i hate ctp (ie: dale) but i just think it was evil what they did, especialy becouse i got mine as a christmas present , my freind wasted 30$ , all becouse they didn't wait, they just shuved it out the door. i beleive ctp had potential but just wasn't tested enough, tweaked enough, ballanced enough. ctp modded is a great game, but as i said earlier, you cant make rosses from crap ( what i meant is molding, basically if you took crap and tried to mold it into a flower, you wouldn't get a very nice looking flower , but i digress)

Like you said youself. The mod are a complete new game. I am trying to show you that playing it modded you will never regret yours frind US$ 30 dollars beeing wasted. and will spend ours of enjoyment while waiting for civ3

PS I have got to addimit that it isnt about wich game is the best anymore. I am just telling you the features i dislike so that you can decide if either i should buy civ3 or not.

[Pedrunn]

About the modding i know we cant get into a conclusion before the game is out.

Still Combat is unbalanced to big and military civs. Increasing the ISC and getting away of the Rise and Fall of civs idea.

Can you set a link to a picture of the new terrain. latelly i did not notest any change and most of the grapphics has a head in the middle.

[Dale]

splangy:

Here's my models for the civ-style game I'm desiging:

Combat Model

Combat will occur when at least one unit of a civ passes within the Zone Of Control of at least one unit of a different civ. There will be two stages to combat: pre-combat and combat. Combat can occur between units, stacks or armies.

Pre-combat:
This is the first stage triggered when two units pass within each other’s ZOC. The unit who’s turn it is will be the attacker, and the unit who’s turn it is NOT will be the defender. There are a number of outcomes possible:
- One unit is a stealth unit and not visible to the other. No combat.
- Both units are stealth units and not visible to the other. No combat.
- Both units are military units at war. Combat.
- Both units are military within a military agreement or alliance within claimed land. No combat.
- A unit moves adjacent to an enemy city. Combat.
- Both units are military in unclaimed land at peace or higher. No combat.
- Both units are military in unclaimed land at neutral/unknown. Combat.
- Both units are settler class. No combat.
- Both units are diplomat class. No combat.
- Both units are merchant class. No combat.

A declaration of war is affective when:
- A formal diplomatic declaration of war is made.
- An attack on another civ’s military units.
- An attack on another civ’s stealth/settler/diplomat/merchant class units.
- An attack on another civ’s cities/fortifications/structures/infrastructure.
- An incursion on another civ’s territory during a cease-fire (after a 10-turn grace period).
- An Alliance you’re a member of declares war on another civ by any of the above means.
- A military agreement you’re a member of declares war on another civ by any of the above means.

Combat:
Once pre-combat determines that combat will occur, the combat stage is triggered. This is the tactical combat simulator. The simulator will be like a chessboard. The board will be a 15 * 15 square where the combat actually occurs. This will allow greater tactical strategy to be employed, and terrain features to be a factor. For instance, the ability to flank and charge will be options. The two sides will face each other on either side of the square. The generals will be able to set up their units in formation in the first 4 rows of their side. Each square will be able to hold two small units, or 1 large unit. This will allow for concentrated infantry lines, and spread out flanks and artillery lines. Aircraft support and the HQ will be located on the back line. The simulator will progress like a game of “Capture the Flag” where the goal is to capture the enemy HQ by either a) destroying all opposing units, b) force the enemy into retreat, or c) manoeuvring into a position where they place a unit on the enemy HQ.

City combat:
Once city-combat is determined to occur, the city-combat stage is triggered. This is a tactical simulator similar to the normal combat simulator but for a few differences:
- The board will be a 30 * 30 square board.
- The whole board will cover 3 * 3 main map squares, instead of 1 square in the normal combat board.
- The centre of the board will be dominated by the city, with graphics for all the buildings present, walls and houses.
- If the attacker sieges and bombards, there’s a chance the shots blow up buildings.
- If the defender retaliates, there’s a chance of “disorganising” the lines (bonuses to the defender).
- The defender will need to knock down any walls before assaulting the city.


Military Model

For Combat, see Combat Model.
For Units, see Units Model.
The military will be broken into two sections: militia and military.

Militia are units that protect the cities from attack and also act as the police within a city. As a city grows in size, more militia will be required to keep the peace. Only certain units will be able to be militia:
Ancient:
- Spearmen (available from the beginning)
- Phalanx (available from bronze weapons invention)
- Slingers (available from bow & arrow invention)
Medieval:
- Pikemen (available from pikemen invention)
- Crossbowmen (available from crossbow invention)
- Ballista (available from ballista invention)
Renaissance:
- City watch (available from law & order invention)
- Bombard (available from cannon invention)
Modern:
- Police (available from police invention)
- City guns (available from artillery)
- Ground defence (available from SAM)

Military are the units that make up the armies of the civ. These units are field units, though they may be used in cities as well. As technology grows, so will the military age template. The steps used in the templates will create these units:
Ancient:
- Warrior/raiders (horse)/legion
- Archer/horse archer
- Chariot
- Trireme/fire trireme
Medieval:
- Swordsman/
- Bowmen/Composite bowmen
- Knight/paladin
- Catapult/trebuchet
- Longship/frigate
Renaissance:
- Musketeer/riflemen
- Mounted musketeers/cavalry
- Cannon
- Ship-of-line/ironclad/destroyer
Modern:
- Infantry/marine
- WWI tank/WWII tank/modern tank
- Field gun/artillery/howitzer
- Battleship/Cruiser/submarine/AEGIS
- Bi-plane/Prop-fighter/prop-bomber/jet fighter/jet bomber/stealth fighter/stealth bomber


Units Model

Units will be handled similar to SMAC in that unit templates will be available for each military era. The table follows:

Ancient:
- Warrior template (small unit)
- Archer template (small unit)
- Horseman template (large unit)
- Chariot template (large unit)

Medieval:
- Footman template (small unit)
- Bowman template (small unit)
- Knight template (large unit)
- Catapult template (large unit)

Renaissance:
- Musketeer template (small unit)
- Cavalry template (large unit)
- Cannon template (large unit)

Modern:
- Infantry template (small unit)
- Mechanised template (large unit)
- Artillery template (large unit)

The Military templates work in that when a template is invented (fits into 3rd level research) further inventions will enhance that template. For example: a civ invents the Knight template. The next invention is full-plate armour, which enhances the defence of the template. Then the civ invents steel-alloy swords, which enhances attack. The template flows through the military era in such a way that the template gets better with inventions. This has the bonus of not clogging the unit build-list with many different units. It allows for easy upgrading of existing units (select all of that template), and encourages upgrading of units because a base knight template will be weak against a fully enhanced knight template. Then when a new military template is invented, there will be a jump between the two templates such that the strongest of the lower template is regarded as the same strength as the higher template. EG. Fully fitted out Medieval footmen were against Renaissance arquebuses (lowest level of musketeer template) are about equal in strength. This is where the Upgrade Military Project will fit in to upgrade units of an obsolete template to the newer template.

Aircraft are not available till the modern military era and are split into the following categories:
- Fighter (small unit)
- Bomber (large unit)

Ships are available from the ancient military era and are split into these categories:
- Attack
- Defense
- Transport
- Submarine
Submarines are underwater units only detectable by certain units.

Special units also feature throughout the game. They will include:
- Slaver
- Monk
- Spy
- Priest
- Corporation
- Scout
- Explorer
- Diplomat
- Settler
- And more (all small units)

These special units will have special functions and will be utilised at different points in the game and for specific goals.


Taken from the AI Model this shows the way Armies will work:

The level 4 Generals control the strategy that their stacks will use within a 5-turn range. The strategies will be selected from the strategys database depending on the situation facing the General.
EG. A General has received an order to be offensive. The General determines it is within a 5-turn range of an enemy city. The General then selects strategies from the strategies database that fits in with attacking cities (surround and pillage, frontal attack, siege and bombard, attack and cut-off reinforcement, etc). The General will run through this series of strategies and find which produces the best result depending on difficulty level:
Easy: Best out of 3.
Normal: Best out of 4.
Hard: Best out of 5.
Impossible: Best out of 7.
The Generals structure in ancient times is as follows:
Land: 5 stacks of up to 5 units. All units in stack same type. EG. 5 infantry in one stack. EG2. General has 2 stacks infantry, 1 stack flanking, 2 stacks ranged.
Naval: 3 stacks of up to 5 units. All units in stack same type.
Air: None.
Modern times:
Land: 7 stacks of up to 5 units. All units in stack same type. Air units able in army. EG. 2 stacks infantry, 2 stacks tanks, 2 stacks artillery, 1 stack tactical bombers.
Naval: 4 stacks of up to 5 units. All units in stack same type.
Air: 2 stacks of up to 5 units. All units in stack same type.

[splangy]

wow! that was a well thought out idea dale, maybe a bit to much, but good. sadly sid wants us all to make spaceships and live in peace, thats why culture is so thought out, combat looks nice but could be much better.

pedrun- "About the modding i know we cant get into a conclusion before the game is out.

Still Combat is unbalanced to big and military civs. Increasing the ISC and getting away of the Rise and Fall of civs idea.

Can you set a link to a picture of the new terrain. latelly i did not notest any change and most of the grapphics has a head in the middle."

well theve done things to stop ics, 2 pop settlers, culture, embargoes.

www.civ3.com

pedrun-"This is really hard to believe since you did neve shared you experience with us. Not even to criticize. "

well, i remember cradle having alot of new units witch i thought was nice apoliton dosen't change much, and i walked over to AI civs real early, do you know what it does?? cradle was supposed to be harder, it was but i still held my ground, i was rather impressed when i saw the AI put up a good fight though howwever i thought that its millitia idea was the coolest !

the reason i dont play ctp to often isn't becouse of the AI, it becouse of a few small things that i find unreal/annoying/tedius/repetitive like the infantryman, he covers from rennacance to world war 2 that gets old, lawyers and corprate branches are stupid, other things aswell annoy me. i guess in the end i get a bad taste in my mouth when i play, becouse those basterds at *******vision.

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by splangy

javascript:MM_openBrWindow('previewwin.cfm?mode=sc reenshot&img=images/screenshots/mapscreen2.jpg&width=800&height=600','Screenshot','width=900,height=700')

and heres one that has borders rolling over the hills (nice effort )
javascript:MM_openBrWindow('previewwin.cfm?mode=sc reenshot&img=images/screenshots/revolt.jpg&width=800&height=600','Screenshot','width=900,height=700')

Get those links written in the form of [/url] so that i dont to write all that too.

the reason i dont play ctp to often isn't becouse of the AI, it becouse of a few small things that i find unreal/annoying/tedius/repetitive like the infantryman, he covers from rennacance to world war 2 that gets old, lawyers and corprate branches are stupid, other things aswell annoy me. i guess in the end i get a bad taste in my mouth when i play, becouse those basterds at *******vision.

You are not the only one that thought about a too long use of the Infantryman. At medmod they added the rifleman that is a industrial age unit.
Corporate Branchs are cool. :
Thank got my CD is pirated or i would think the same way you do.

[hexagonian]

Some clarification may be in order for the debate,

First off, as Dale stated earlier, Activision released a game that had a lot of fixes of CTP1 and did meet the objectives of the fans in many areas. Some of the more glaring knocks against CTP1 (unbalanced combat for example) were addressed in CTP2. Other criticism aimed against CTP2, such as the interface, the inclusion of certain units, PW, and the development of the tech tree are not the fault of Activision because these are preference issues - and to be critical of a game based on those issues is really not a valid argument - at least to the point of saying that the game sucks because of that and then implying that people who like preference issues are stupid too.

(I, for one, cannot stand the SMAC terrain, terraforming, and interface, and it does lessen my enjoyment of the game - however, I have played it from time to time. (but I still end up going back to CTP2 because of these preference issues). This does not mean that I can say that SMAC sucks either, nor be critical of those who may prefer the way SMAC is set up.)

And Splangy, it is this issue that really is ticking off some people regarding your posts, because you fail to recognize that some of your posting carries that tone. Or you recognize it and do not care - but if people fire back at you, don't whine about it when they do.

The one issue that Spangy keeps bringing up over and over again, is one that is probably at the heart of the debate - the AI. He does have a point there regarding the game as it was released. What he fails to recognize is a couple of issues that are related to this problem.

CTP could be considered to be at least the 4th generation of a concept in a genre of games - TBS Empire builders. Never mind that Activision is not Firaxis and CTP was not developed by anyone associated with Sid. That is not important. But what is important is the fact that many players, and I do mean many, have gone through the entire circuit of civ-style games. Through sheer repetition of play and though discussion of strategy here on the forums, they now can consistently beat these games. When a new game is released, many of the basic strategies come into play. These strategies may have to be altered slightly from game to game, but the basics strategies do not change. Hence, the learning curve to beat a new game becomes less and less with each new release.

Now I started out with CTP1. I picked up SMAC about a year later - so I had a lot of CTP under my belt - including PBEM. I started playing, and noticed right off the bat that my basic strategies had not changed. But one thing I did notice was that the AI in SMAC did a lot of stupid things - for instance, sending waves of probe teams at my cities when I had Hunter Seeker - Brother Lai built about 15 sea transports which did nothing but sail from point A to point B (what a waste of resources) with nothing on them.

I would launch amphibious assault and would not worry too much about reprisals - once I got a toehold on a continent, it really wasn't too much of a problem to wipe out the civ that was already there.

The kicker was when I would look at how the AI was doing regarding production and infrastructure. I was shocked by how far ahead I was in terms of income (For example, Morgan, the supposedly capitalist was so far down the list it wasn't funny), and how poorly other civs had done regarding city expansion. Generally, I had so much cash that I could buy off any city I wanted.

So, in essence, I could make a choice as to what I can play, because from a pure challenge aspect, there was little difference in my mind from the CTP series to SMAC.

I do not think that a skilled human player, who generally focuses on expansion via military means in these types of games will have too much problem, because this is generally the easiest road to victory. Even a builder-type player will eventually get to the point when he will have to use military forces to achieve his ends. The AI CANNOT, and is not flexible enough, to set up a long term strategy for conquest in any game. Consider all of the factors that need to be taken into account - military buildup, critical targets to hit, force deployment, defensive needs for counter-attacks, even the timeframe for the attacks and the length to pursue the war. This does not take into account the variables of unpredictable situation that may arise due to the human player throwing a monkey wrench into the works.

What the AI does well is number crunch and use a variety of cheats to boost production/science/gold on the most difficult levels - I believe this method is used to counteract the superiority of the human mind to out-strategize the AI. All of the games use this method - I cannot confirm this through personal experience, but Wes has worked in both Civ2 and CTP and makes this point in his interview, so I trust him on that.

It is the unpredictable factor which is the problem for the AI, because ALL computer games are, first and foremost, programs following a script. Even the fuzzy logic aspect of the game is based on a script. (if A occurs, then B is the action taken). It amazes me that players who can beat these games consistently usually follow a personal strategy time and time again with little variation - and then claim that the game is easy. Of course it is, because their strategy has found the limitations in the program and they are able to exploit it. Or they have seen the posting of other players who have beaten the game, implemented the suggestions and see the result of a defeated foe?

I would make the following suggestions to those players who find this happening - change your approach - try to win by setting limits on what you will do. The OCC is probably the best example of players setting a limit, and then striving to beat the game based on that game. If you are an ICSer, deliberately play the game with fewer cities...if you are a warmonger, play peacefully... let the AI take most of the Wonders, and so forth.

I have changed aspects of my approach to the way I play the game, and am still challenged by it - which is a good thing in my book.

Finally, the whole issue of the Mods and the fact that they feel like different games is not entirely true. Out of the Mods, the Apolyton Pack is closest to the original - Cradle and MedMod are both different in a lot of ways from the default game and as such are really a cross between a Mod and an extended Scenario. There are differences in how the AI acts from each of the creations, but suprisingly those differences are smaller than you think. But the basic strategies are still the same.

[splangy]

F"irst off, as Dale stated earlier, Activision released a game that had a lot of fixes of CTP1 and did meet the objectives of the fans in many areas. Some of the more glaring knocks against CTP1 (unbalanced combat for example) were addressed in CTP2. Other criticism aimed against CTP2, such as the interface, the inclusion of certain units, PW, and the development of the tech tree are not the fault of Activision because these are preference issues - and to be critical of a game based on those issues is really not a valid argument - at least to the point of saying that the game sucks because of that and then implying that people who like preference issues are stupid too."

read some of my earlier posts, i tried to say most of it was preference, we just kinda trailed away from that.

"(I, for one, cannot stand the SMAC terrain, terraforming, and interface, and it does lessen my enjoyment of the game - however, I have played it from time to time. (but I still end up going back to CTP2 because of these preference issues). This does not mean that I can say that SMAC sucks either, nor be critical of those who may prefer the way SMAC is set up.)"

actually i dont like smac, but you have a point and like i said earlier, this is a preference

"And Splangy, it is this issue that really is ticking off some people regarding your posts, because you fail to recognize that some of your posting carries that tone. Or you recognize it and do not care - but if people fire back at you, don't whine about it when they do."

what tone? ive tried to understand that you have prefernces but when someone calls me a 13 year old im intitled to a response that has that "tone".

"The one issue that Spangy keeps bringing up over and over again, is one that is probably at the heart of the debate - the AI. He does have a point there regarding the game as it was released. What he fails to recognize is a couple of issues that are related to this problem."

they would be what? the AI released sucked, the mods make it good but it still isn't "all that"

"CTP could be considered to be at least the 4th generation of a concept in a genre of games - TBS Empire builders. Never mind that Activision is not Firaxis and CTP was not developed by anyone associated with Sid. That is not important. But what is important is the fact that many players, and I do mean many, have gone through the entire circuit of civ-style games. Through sheer repetition of play and though discussion of strategy here on the forums, they now can consistently beat these games. When a new game is released, many of the basic strategies come into play. These strategies may have to be altered slightly from game to game, but the basics strategies do not change. Hence, the learning curve to beat a new game becomes less and less with each new release."

i said in a earlier post that its human naturee to do what you said.

"Now I started out with CTP1. I picked up SMAC about a year later - so I had a lot of CTP under my belt - including PBEM. I started playing, and noticed right off the bat that my basic strategies had not changed. But one thing I did notice was that the AI in SMAC did a lot of stupid things - for instance, sending waves of probe teams at my cities when I had Hunter Seeker - Brother Lai built about 15 sea transports which did nothing but sail from point A to point B (what a waste of resources) with nothing on them."

dont play smac (just played the demo) so i wouldn't know hoe bad it sucks.

"I would launch amphibious assault and would not worry too much about reprisals - once I got a toehold on a continent, it really wasn't too much of a problem to wipe out the civ that was already there. "

like ctp, all games have the problem known as "the human brain"

"The kicker was when I would look at how the AI was doing regarding production and infrastructure. I was shocked by how far ahead I was in terms of income (For example, Morgan, the supposedly capitalist was so far down the list it wasn't funny), and how poorly other civs had done regarding city expansion. Generally, I had so much cash that I could buy off any city I wanted."

read above

"So, in essence, I could make a choice as to what I can play, because from a pure challenge aspect, there was little difference in my mind from the CTP series to SMAC. "

they have alot in common in terms of gameplay.

"I do not think that a skilled human player, who generally focuses on expansion via military means in these types of games will have too much problem, because this is generally the easiest road to victory. Even a builder-type player will eventually get to the point when he will have to use military forces to achieve his ends. The AI CANNOT, and is not flexible enough, to set up a long term strategy for conquest in any game. Consider all of the factors that need to be taken into account - military buildup, critical targets to hit, force deployment, defensive needs for counter-attacks, even the timeframe for the attacks and the length to pursue the war. This does not take into account the variables of unpredictable situation that may arise due to the human player throwing a monkey wrench into the works."

read: the human brain

"What the AI does well is number crunch and use a variety of cheats to boost production/science/gold on the most difficult levels - I believe this method is used to counteract the superiority of the human mind to out-strategize the AI. All of the games use this method - I cannot confirm this through personal experience, but Wes has worked in both Civ2 and CTP and makes this point in his interview, so I trust him on that. "

agreed

"It is the unpredictable factor which is the problem for the AI, because ALL computer games are, first and foremost, programs following a script. Even the fuzzy logic aspect of the game is based on a script. (if A occurs, then B is the action taken). It amazes me that players who can beat these games consistently usually follow a personal strategy time and time again with little variation - and then claim that the game is easy. Of course it is, because their strategy has found the limitations in the program and they are able to exploit it. Or they have seen the posting of other players who have beaten the game, implemented the suggestions and see the result of a defeated foe?"

yep, its just human nature

"I would make the following suggestions to those players who find this happening - change your approach - try to win by setting limits on what you will do. The OCC is probably the best example of players setting a limit, and then striving to beat the game based on that game. If you are an ICSer, deliberately play the game with fewer cities...if you are a warmonger, play peacefully... let the AI take most of the Wonders, and so forth."

but games are made to be fun so limits that youy dont find fun kinda defeat the concept of games.

"I have changed aspects of my approach to the way I play the game, and am still challenged by it - which is a good thing in my book."

if you find it fun, do it, it was YOUR 30$

"Finally, the whole issue of the Mods and the fact that they feel like different games is not entirely true. Out of the Mods, the Apolyton Pack is closest to the original - Cradle and MedMod are both different in a lot of ways from the default game and as such are really a cross between a Mod and an extended Scenario. There are differences in how the AI acts from each of the creations, but suprisingly those differences are smaller than you think. But the basic strategies are still the same."

yes, but they change the basic design of the game, mods change the overall top layer of the game (units, advances, ect) what ctp mods do is change the main coding of the game, thus some would consider them different games.

ps- i just played med mod and i just have to say, WOW! wes must have put alot of work into that becouse its realy good, in my first try the AI were very strong and i gave up becouse i made a diplomatic mistake ( i gave away a city to the AI to try and get him to lose his defenses to a barb that was pestering me and the barb walked away leaving me empty handed ) but the second game crashed after i tried to move a warrior, witch sucked

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by splangy
Whats wrong with the terrain? did you look at the most recent screenshots?

You have seen the roads going over the mountains?

Anyway...

Summary #2

• Civ2/SMAC have bad features, Civ3 will also no doubt have bad features.
• CTP/2 have bad features.
• THESE ARE PREFERENCIAL ISSUES
  
• The CTP2 AI sucked. I just though, this probably saved us a lot of time for us figuring how to beat it like in Civ2
• All AIs will suck
• Civ3's AI will not doubt suck, be it after a day, or a year.
• AIs are damn hard to program well, especially in long
  -term goals.

BTW, Pedrunn, I doubt Civ3 can make units harder to make than the CTP sprites, but if its similar, all the better IMO.

[Dale]

wow! that was a well thought out idea dale, maybe a bit to much, but good. sadly sid wants us all to make spaceships and live in peace, thats why culture is so thought out, combat looks nice but could be much better.

Splangy, this is for the game I'm designing, not for any suggestions or what-not. All my models go this deep. If I find the model doesn't work in the context of the game for fun and replayability, then it goes. However, if I start with deep models, I don't end up with a shallow game. Remember, the target audience is one that is very Civ-experienced, and needs the depth to keep them playing.

On combat, I don't want the game to become a "tactical combat simulator". Hence why combat seems a little simple in terms of tactical combat. I'm aiming for a type of combat like that seen in Conquest of the New World. Now THAT combat model was a LOT of fun!

[BlackStone]

La la

[splangy]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

You have seen the roads going over the mountains?

they fixed that, go to the new civ sit gallery

Anyway...

[/QUOTE]Summary #2

• Civ2/SMAC have bad features, Civ3 will also no doubt have bad features
  
• CTP/2 have bad features.
• THESE ARE PREFERENCIAL ISSUES
  
• The CTP2 AI sucked. I just though, this probably saved us a lot of time for us figuring how to beat it like in Civ2
• All AIs will suck
• Civ3's AI will not doubt suck, be it after a day, or a year.
• AIs are damn hard to program well, especially in long
  -term goals.

BTW, Pedrunn, I doubt Civ3 can make units harder to make than the CTP sprites, but if its similar, all the better IMO. [/QUOTE]

this is our debate-
civ3- ctp sucks, blah blah
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference

we honestly havent gotten anywhere becouse of this bickering, the only things we can say are better are things like-

civ3's chariot sucks compared to ctp's...

that argument is not gona get anywhere, hell, i could say i like a weaker chariot and were back to
civ3- ctp sucks, blah blah
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
ctp- civ3 sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference
civ3- ctp sucks blah blah, we like blah blah so its preference

all in all this argument has acomplished NOTHING! This is how wars get started people !!

[/QUOTE] Splangy, this is for the game I'm designing, not for any suggestions or what-not. All my models go this deep. If I find the model doesn't work in the context of the game for fun and replayability, then it goes. However, if I start with deep models, I don't end up with a shallow game. Remember, the target audience is one that is very Civ-experienced, and needs the depth to keep them playing.

On combat, I don't want the game to become a "tactical combat simulator". Hence why combat seems a little simple in terms of tactical combat. I'm aiming for a type of combat like that seen in Conquest of the New World. Now THAT combat model was a LOT of fun! [/QUOTE]

do you have a website? it sound realy good

[Bluevoss]

Well, I am a Phoenician Phreak. I love everthing the Phoenicians did, how they operated, and how their empire worked. I've read many books on Tyre, Carthage, and the men who created the routes between them (and circumnavigated Africa).

In Civ, the idea of a nation made of of trading colonys does not work well. Why? Becuase every city location has a number of trade goods that it can shove off on its neighbors. So you gain nothing by spotting out distant trading coloneys - it is better to keep your cities tightly spaced for mutual support.

In CTP2, I can play Phoenician and get away with it. Since trade is a matter of FINDING a good (and players can make them as abundant or scarce as they choose) then sometimes it pays to drop a city a ways off from your empire. Suddenly, pehaps, there is a reason for the English to be interested in North America, the Spanish in Central America, and so on. Market forces drive these empires to place settlers on distant shores.

Which is one reason I like CTP2 better that CIV. Civ is a bit more single-stratagy. CTP2, at least, I can try other things.

[Immortal Wombat]

If civ3 bases its gamefiles on Civ2 rather than CtP, I will be most annoyed. I can cope with learning a new "slic"-type language, but if there are just 8 unit flags again, no moddable wonders/buildings, 2D units, crappy map graphics, none of the cool features that make CtP great: I will strongly consider not buying the game. (I'll still copy the disc from a friend or hack it or something... what do you take me for?)

[Pedrunn]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
If civ3 bases its gamefiles on Civ2 rather than CtP, no moddable wonders/buildings, 2D units, crappy map graphics, none of the cool features that make CtP great: I will strongly consider not buying the game. (I'll still copy the disc from a friend or hack it or something... what do you take me for?)

You just summarized all of my ideas about civ3 wich all of my arguments were based on. Except for the unbalanced combat and the unit mod making limits (if it can be modded) since even the official units have the same characteristics ( Babilonian Bowman and Egyptian Chariot).


Splangy, i cant find the pages you gave me to see the new terrain graphics. Could you attach one or set as a link or show me a way to find it?

[Paulypav]

As everyone has noted the key to whether Civ 3 will be any good is how good the AI is. In order to reinforce the concept of how hard it is to create a decent AI just think of this example. Look how long it has taken for some of the best computer programmers to get a supercomputer to beat a grand champion in chess. Even now, there is a good chance that human player will beat the supercomputer's AI. So if they can't do it with years and a supercomputer what are the odds that game designers will pull off an extremely hard to beat AI that does so without cheating.