what will make civ 3 better than ctp

Akillias · October 15, 2001, 15:42

no text

sekong · October 15, 2001, 15:47

a kind of rare luxury and strategy resource, bring negotive production rate. Is required to make special games... Now, RUN!!!

August Borms · October 15, 2001, 15:50

Civ specific abilities/units, culture, and (hopefully) AI

Akillias · October 15, 2001, 15:55

Yeah but in civ 3 there will be less units and tech than ctp

August Borms · October 15, 2001, 16:05

Really? I didn't know that...
But techs should be easy to add and units...
I'm sure that graphics people will be making lots of custom units as soon as Civ 3 is released and then other people will make mods with more techs and units

Gramphos · October 15, 2001, 16:05

The name Sid Meier on the box

Cool graphics
Diplomacy
Workers
Trade
UUs
Culture
And don't forget the Firaxis programmers. They certainly do their best to make it better

BLackraven42 · October 15, 2001, 16:05

Sid Meier will accually be involved in making the game!

aiin · October 15, 2001, 16:08

more than 8 civ in one game.

Akillias · October 15, 2001, 16:11

Dont they use the same trade system as in ctp??
And can u explain what is Workers and UUs

August Borms · October 15, 2001, 16:19

Workers are used to build roads/irrigation etc, they're like Civ2 settlers except that they can't build cities (I think they can merge with existing cities though)

UU's are Unique Units, like the Musketeer that can only be built by the French civ, and the Legion only by the Romans

Gramphos · October 15, 2001, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Akillias
Dont they use the same trade system as in ctp??
And can u explain what is Workers and UUs

No, CTP used caravans. Civ3 will handle all trade by diplomacy.

Workers are for building improvements (no Public Works)
UUs - Unique Units (you can create as many as you like making each civ totally different)

Ralf · October 15, 2001, 16:24

The fact that it is playable, to start with.

Immortal Wombat · October 15, 2001, 16:33

A SCRIPTING ****ING LANGUAGE DAMMIT would be a good start.

CtP was not too bad after a bit of modding (which granted, shouldn't be neccessary, but the fact that I could do it was a major bonus).

The CtP trade did have caravans, but not ridiculous push-around-the-map ones.

UUs were added, (with terrain dependancy thankyou very much).

Getting rid of legions of workers.

Diplomacy may be improved from CtP2, I've not seen too much of it yet.

Aiin, you can have 8+ civs in CtP

And, most of all, a decent ai, but even with that, if its modding capabilities aren't as good, then it won't be al-round amazing.

Dauphin · October 15, 2001, 16:41

Quote:

what will make civ 3 better than ctp

Anything. Chequers/Drafts was better than CtP.

Akillias · October 15, 2001, 16:57

Ctp sucked. But i can hardly tell why

Akron · October 15, 2001, 17:08

CTP 2's ai was worse than civ 2's. Civ 3 just has to match civ 2's ai and with the other great features it will easily beat CTP 2.

Blaupanzer · October 15, 2001, 17:15

Quote:

Originally posted by BLackraven42
Sid Meier will accually be involved in making the game!

Someone who likes to play games hired the team, reviewed the design, tested the product. That will make this better, by far, than the CTPs, both of which were tedious, unplayable messes.

sekong · October 15, 2001, 17:17

That's why Sid is important. He play the game, and make sure it's fun and balance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Akillias
Ctp sucked. But i can hardly tell why

August Borms · October 15, 2001, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by sekong
That's why Sid is important. He play the game, and make sure it's fun and balance.

But... I hated SMAC

Nemo · October 15, 2001, 17:34

need you even ask?

CTP and CTP2 were not even playable out of the box! quite possible the worst games i have ever played...and CTP2 was the first (and only) game that i have ever returned. (i would have returned CTP1 but i could not based on where i baught it)

so my answer to you is:

EVERYTHING!

Akillias · October 15, 2001, 17:39

try walmart

sekong · October 15, 2001, 17:42

Why? Any particular reason?

Quote:

Originally posted by Assur

But... I hated SMAC

squid · October 15, 2001, 18:02

I thought Brian Reynolds ran SMAC for the most part.

Also, SMAC had
-- less stats
-- worse graphics
-- cheaper movies
-- less unit art
-- borders that didn't work
-- fungus, the 2nd most evil thing ever
-- sea colonies, the most evil thing ever
-- an unintuitive interface
-- a really dark feel.
-- a gameplay style that was all about war

We know Civ3 won't have any of these problems.

sekong · October 15, 2001, 18:16

Quote:

Originally posted by squid
I thought Brian Reynolds ran SMAC for the most part.

Also, SMAC had
-- less stats
-- worse graphics
-- cheaper movies
-- less unit art

I understand. But I think it's just minor problems.

Quote:

-- borders that didn't work

Why? And I think CIV3 implement the border concept from SMAC..

Quote:

-- fungus, the 2nd most evil thing ever

I should try Gaia's faction, and enjoy it

Quote:

-- sea colonies, the most evil thing ever

]
That's one of the cool concept I feel.. So bad that you don't like it... You are so human

Maybe I'm fishy

Quote:

-- an unintuitive interface
-- a really dark feel.
-- a gameplay style that was all about war

Maybe you played alien cross fire? In SMAC, one of the cool feature is Council of planet.. I choose peace keeper faction when I want to try that one.. The bottom line, SMAC gives you more option than just war in CIV1/2

[QUOTE]
We know Civ3 won't have any of these problems. [//QUOTE]]

August Borms · October 15, 2001, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by sekong
Why? Any particular reason?

From squid's post:

-- less stats
-- worse graphics
-- less unit art
-- sea colonies, the most evil thing ever
-- an unintuitive interface
-- a really dark feel.

I actually liked the horrible fungus, having to terraform trying to make Planet feel like a less hostile place

Also: all those weird techs put me off...

Maybe I didn't play the game long enough to start enjoying it, but it just didn't get me hooked like Civ2 did so I returned it.

squid: I dunno, it's called Sid Meier's AC so I blame him 100%

Sarxis · October 15, 2001, 18:20

We could argue over SMAC's innovations and shortcomings, but nevertheless, many (I included) enjoy the game and think it is great.

But not as great as CivIII

And may the letters C-T-P never fall into that order ever again!

Akillias · October 15, 2001, 18:43

TCP? I wonder if they won any benefit from that game

BLackraven42 · October 15, 2001, 18:47

I've always wondered why the makers of CTP didn't get Sid to help out with the making of the game. Just having his name on the box would sell millions of copies.

Locutus · October 15, 2001, 19:10

Nothing, CtP will be better...

Skanky Burns · October 15, 2001, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by sekong

Quote:

-- borders that didn't work

Why? And I think CIV3 implement the border concept from SMAC..

In SMAC, one faction could have their capital sitting there for a hundred years with its border protecting the squares it is harvesting. But another faction could plonk a base down right next to the capital's border, and suddenly the very ancient capital has half the border size as before, and the new base is harvesting squares that the capital used to be using. And all this occurs during one turn.

In Civ 3, a nation could have their capital sitting there for a hundred years, with its border (eventually) protecting the squares it is harvesting. Then, when another nation plonks down a city right next to the capitals border, the capitals border still protects the squares it is harvesting. The new city has no border. Also, the new city will eventually be absorbed by the capitals superior culture.