c165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE!

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast on 05-07-2001 09:21 PM I was also amused by your off the wall suggestion that we just call it "age Of Civilizations", since the developers of that game were largely civ worshippers that played some Warcraft on the side. they come from us, not us from them.

So what? Just because Age of Empires developers based upon Civilization, now it's OK if the Civ series take ideas from them? Especially some of the ideas that made AoE a different game from Civilization?

And I was also amused on your optimistic view on the implementation of the List by Firaxis. You even put religion on the same level as Civ3 Culture, when you'll find that, according to the previews, the Culture concept has nothing to do with Religion as proposed on the List.

[Fiera]

Oh, I've just read this post:

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-07-2001 04:54 PM But then says that the best way to make the game is to fix what is wrong in the previous games. I am sorry but that isn't what I want. That is how Microprose made Civ II, a few changes from the original and I quickly became bored.

Look, tniem, I'm sorry but my column wasn't intended for people like you. No offense intended, but if you got quickly bored with Civ2, then you hardly qualify as a Civ2 fan.

[yin26]

quote: The official website is the place where Firaxis introduces Civ3 to the world. They show what they want the people to see, and if the first thing they decide to show it's nothing but eye-candy, then you know at which target they're aiming to.

Fiera,

I understand your point, but let me just add in something here: I have watched Firaxis closely since Alpha Centauri. Over that time, I've had moments varying from vague friendship to not-so-vauge antagonism with more than one of their staff. I've overseen successful "bus lists / feature requests" and now the (successful?) List. Through all of that, I've learned one very important about Firaxis as a company:

THEY ARE HORRIBLE WITH PUBLIC RELATIONS!

Underline that, print it and keep it by your computer. I'm not saying that to belittle you, but keeping those few words of wisdom in my mind has been all that kept me from going ballistic on more than one occasion.

What you are seeing on the website is essentially some casual decisions to generate SOME interest and SOME material for public consumption. Now, if they really thought about it carefully, they'd realize what possible negative perceptions that particular and narrow view could create. So why don't they do something about it? Please see above.

What about the full-time webmaster and PR person? Well, they can only post what they are given, and I doubt it would help their own jobs much to push their bosses for information. So what we have is a very "typical" Firaxis ... yes, SID ... way of dealing with game development:

Lock yourself away from the world so as to avoid distractions, release little tidbits here and there of information, emerge with a game, play up the fans for a while to increase sales and nail down any major flaws for the upcoming round of patches, and go away again. The sooner you realize that's how this is going to happen, the sooner you can relax.

The good side to all of this?

Believe it or not, Firaxis DOES listen to us. I speak from experience. For SMAC, of the top 10 "bugs" we wanted fixed, I think 7 were fixed and the other 3 were determined to be feature requests. THINK ABOUT THAT! As for the List, I promise you now that you will simply be astounded at how much the listened and read and toiled over what we had to say...even though we presented 500 pages of often crazy and vague stuff.

Firaxis WILL give us good patch support as long as we stay organized and clear about what we want.

So I've come to look at it this way: A company that delivers a great game AND great PR is certainly the best. But if I had to drop one of those, certainly the PR is no big deal. Firaxis will still make a great game and respond to us where it really counts: The coding.

Could it and SHOULD it be a whole lot more apparent to the public that Firaxis is that kind of company? Yes, but I guess they don't like to reap their own harvest. Fine by me, since I know there's really nothing to worry about despite outward appearances.

[Father Beast]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 05-09-2001 08:19 PM Just because they aren't really aiming at pleasing the bulk of Civ fans, but to a new crowd of, very probably, RTS players. Hence the focus on combat system and eye-candy.

perhaps thats not too surprising when I think about it. a lot of people are thinking that turn based strategy is dead, and even a number of people on this site were clamoring for civ3 to be an RTS.

I do find it a shame, because those trigger happy RTS and FPSers will actually try civ3, then spread the word that it sucks, since its not an RTS. the RTS like CTP interface wasn't a big hit with either crowd, I understand.

You all (I hope) know my opinion, that TBS allows for deep thinking and strategy that isn't possible in an RTS (unless you're Kimball Kinnison). I don't think you would find the sort of intense strategy we have in the civ2 strat forum in, say, a Warcraft Forum.

But a lot of hardcore Gamers are Duke Nukem Wannabes, all attitude and minimal actual thought. I LOVE facing a perplexing situatin in my civ and staying awake to think about how to deal with it. to a lot of gamers, that's BOOORING. and that is the great appeal of civ, to me.

I find it outrageously unbelievable that Sid & Co. would actually make an RTS or similar direction with this great game. I find it much more likely that they would release stuff intended to entice the RTS player. Silly, but I can live with it.

I still have great hopes for this game, although they will be dashed some if they haven't fixed road and rail rules. all the "new ideas" in the EC3 list would be just frosting if they do the EC3 fixes.


Oh, and if my score on the EC3 list seems optimistic, it's probably because I am optimistic. I hope culture will have many of the effects of religion, but in the final score, I HAD counted it as "out".

[Matthew]

Fix trade? Would someone please define fix trade? Please, somebody tell me that this doesn't mean fixing the camels so they can't have any little camels, which would mean that the only use for boats once all the land is settled would be carrying your military units around to go get other people's cities?

Does fixing trade mean SMAC trade, which means that the only trade decisions you get to make are whether or not to be at peace or to ally, determining what trade you get from other civs?

------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.

THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!

SAVE THE CAMEL !!!!!!

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-06-2001 08:08 PM Chicken Little, 'The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling'. Jeez, I agree with Ata... I don't normally roll my eyes in real life, but I found myself doing it over and over again. A waste of a column, I think. This is like those Y2K people who said that the world was going to end. Hell, I might just write an column critizing all these 'The World is Ending' wackos.

ROFLMAO, Imran, you are troubled by that, heh? I wonder what you would have done if you were here when people were screaming that the concept art of the musketeer has a pointed hat. The number of posts on that were hilarious - what is happening now is much more "Ok".

[Russian King]

I forgot to mention another thing!

Did anyone notice how Sid hasnt said ONE THING about ctp???
Yes its not his game, but hey, its still a CIV! Sid, instead of looking at what went wrong in the civ2 improvement, completely IGNORES the game!

THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO GO SID!



I am angry at activision too. They made too many imbalances, but AT LEAST they are all fixable. I personally fixed them and now play ctp1 and 2 Happily.

I think sid shuld REALLY take notice of CTP. Whether he likes it or not: it IS better than old-as-hills civ2!!!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

quote: ROFLMAO, Imran, you are troubled by that, heh? I wonder what you would have done if you were here when people were screaming that the concept art of the musketeer has a pointed hat. The number of posts on that were hilarious - what is happening now is much more "Ok".

I thought they were all silly. Retarded discussion.

And CtP better than Civ2? LMAO! CtP was a 'pretty' regression of the genre... that's it.

[James of Beregost]

Fiera is rather unhappy with recent civ3 news:

"Perhaps I'm going too far, but I don't even think Civ3 will be an appropriate sequel for a legendary saga like Sid Meier's Civilization."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, but I am not very surprised - first of all because I think Alpha Centauri was a disappointment too. It had nothing of the exiting or heroic touch as the grand civilizations of the Civ I & II had. Secondly because all of the civ games and their cousins have had limitations to the number of players/civs (which isn't to say that it's right thing).

My opinion is that if you play a game about civilizations you want it grand and epic so you could feel as if you actually made history, especially if you already hav enjoyed the earlier (grand) civs - and here is my point: How to make a new game as grand as the old Civ? I guess it would be hard work for Firaxis to satisfy our expectations, perhaps more work than it's worth to them, so they just don't try. This means that I don't think Firaxis cares about the devoted fans as they hope that we will pay up for the new game anyway out of sheer loyalty or idealism. But here I say NO! I've played them all: Civ, CTP, SMAC & Civ-ToT - but no more. I decided this when the Test of Time proved to be almost identical with CivII, but your article made me certain. If we only get half measures then we will have to "vote with our wallets".

But I have longed for a Civ III for so long you may say!
Yes but there are alternatives as for example "Europa Universalis" that has (almost) anything that civ-fans hoped for in Civ III. An almost infinite number of nations, a complex economy, strong religion component and an excellent diplomacy system. I could really recommend it - I only see one drawback - that it consumes a lot of PC-power, but i gues that should be expected when you simulate the entire world and (potentially) every little province (like Sardinia) is a nation and has an army.






------------------
James of Beregost

[Cyclotron]

Russian King,

As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[monolith94]

"As for "eye candy," I'm sick of people who say graphics aren't important in Civ. THEY ARE IMPORTANT! You zero-sum people should go play ANSI games again."

There was also some quote about whether we would be upset if Civ 3 had graphics similar to, or worse then Civ 2.

I happen to think that the Graphics in Civ 2 were better then SMAC; I view graphics not as technicalities, but I look for the heart and soul that goes into the creation of them. For me, SMAC had no soul, or if it did, I didn't get a very good feeling of it. It was like a bunch of white guys trying to do gospel for the first time. . .

There were even some graphics in Civ 1 that were better then Civ 2 in that regard! Who could forget those dirty scummy rebels marching from the side into your city? And then 2000 year later, the same scummy guys, in hippy clothing, doing the exact same thing??? And come ON, you gotta give props to Stalin's facial expressions, and the royal palace??? COME ON!!!

------------------
"Poets and Pigs are not appreciated until they are dead"
Italian Proverb.
"My children will just inherit my spam"
Alexander's Horse
While ignorance may be bliss, intelligence is orgasmic!
Free Stewart Spink and YYYHey!
We shall never forget!

[monolith94]

Lol Call to power being better then Civ 2? Age does not equal prowess, sonny boy. . .

In some ways, Civ 1 is better then all. . . It's still installed on my comp!!!

[Matthew]

Problem with the graphics in SMAC is that the units move too slow. It's not a computer speed thing. It's the way that efery movement from one square to the next is a major event. I think the idea is to try to show off the spectacular graphics. I've pplayed with all the game options to improve things, but it's still way too slow. Sure, it only takes about a second and a half to move something from one square to the next, but that can really add up over the coarse of a game. And it seems to make multiplayer unplayable. At least that's my guess as to why MP seems to be limited to pbem.

In a sense, I actually hope that Firaxis doesn't listen to every suggestion. In particular, I hope they turn a deaf ear to all those Camelicidal maniacs out there who have no problem moving vast armies around the board, but consider trade, one of the most fundamental aspects of history and civilization, an annoying detail unworthy of it's own unit; an annoying detail that should be handled automatically.

------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.

THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!

SAVE THE CAMEL !!!!!!

[Chronus]

"I wonder what you would have done if you were here when people were screaming that the concept art of the musketeer has a pointed hat. "

LOL!

That thread still strikes me funny to this day.

[The Rusty Gamer]

My thought on why they are limiting the game to 7 civs is simply perhaps Firaxis's tendency to write games for as low a spec machine as possible so as to extend the circle of potential buyers to as wide as possible. In other words, maybe the game will only require 32MB or even 16MB of RAM. I'm just guessing here, but in that case, couldn't the game be written to allow for more civs if you've got higher specs. This could not only apply to the number of civs, but other things like maximum map size etc. That kind of thing has been done with other games like, for example, Championship Manager where the number of leagues you're allowed to play is dependent on the amount of RAM in your machine.

[KhanMan]

Might I remind people that CtP I implimented more-than-7-civs, and look how popular that game is. Anyone who is desperate to play against 25 opponents at once is welcome to try to get it to work, but, Activision, unlike Firaxis, doesn't believe in making playable products.

As for multiplayer games, while it would be nice to see a 10 player game, the turns would take slightly longer than PBEM, and the chances of a continue, much less a finish, are astronomical.

The choices at the moment are:
CtP I and II
(extremely buggy)
SMAC
(sci-fi, not civ)
and MGE-ToT
(nice, but outdated)

Firaxis is offering us another choice, and I, for one, won't hang them out to dry because a preliminary report scares someone.

Regards,
KhanMan of Tuatha Tribe
aka Prince Edward I of Machiavellia www.machiavellia.com

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 05-10-2001 09:53 AM Did anyone notice how Sid hasnt said ONE THING about ctp??? [...] Sid, instead of looking at what went wrong in the civ2 improvement, completely IGNORES the game!

Good! Besides, I think they have analyzed what went wrong in CTP/CTP-2 - it just that they have not done it publicly. Why should they?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 05-09-2001 08:19 PMI have nothing against that awesome F-15 unit graphic. I just would be happier with some info about how are they actually going to deal with aerial combat, which was one of the biggest flaws of Civ2.

Good point, and one that has bothered me as of late. They really haven't given us any real information on how aerial, naval, and land combat will work. I REALLY hope not to have any of those "hanging bombers" anymore, but would like to see them be able to disable or destroy railroads & city structures/ certain tile improvements. Also how will stacks work, will there be an overhauled combat system (i.e., LASS, CLAS-D, or CITV), unhappiness due to unit deaths, unit commands (what, how many, how do they work), will there be structure damage (as opposed to always destroyed), unit deaths reduce population- or perhaps loss of "bushels" that reflect growth, etc.

However, the recent update has IMHO been the 1st real information given to us, and it looks promising. I especially like how certain specials "appear" on the map after you get the technology that makes them valuable. Beyond the obvious, this means that your "great" starting position may not be so great later in the game, and vice-versa. So you may never be secure in your lofty position as world leader, nor stuck to the bottom of the ladder if the early years don't bode well. Tip o' the hat to Firaxis for including this! The interaction between diplomacy, trade, and warfare looks as though it's taking shape. If they get espionage right that alone should be enough reason to get the game.

BTW Fiera: not to spoil your parade, but that last update? Colonies, expanding borders, resource trading, and resources appearing on the map after certain techs researched? Look in the List and you'll find suggestions matching these- in some cases unchanged from the original suggestion!

Russian King:

I'll go so far as to say that CTP2 could have been THE Civ game (until Civ3 is released - hard to judge a product that is not out yet!), but the gameplay was FUBAR. The imbalances were correctable, but the AI never played well, and diplomacy was little more than a wibdow disconnected from the game mechanics. If you found a way to fix these problems, please email instructions to me immediately.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I can't imagine that Sid Meier could legally mention the CTP franchise. After all, they had to fight Activision tooth and nail just to get the Civilization name back. Any mention of the other's game, especially if it could be interpreted as being in any way confrontational, would land Firaxis back in the fightroom with Activision.

And from what I played of CTP1, there's very little you could say about it that was nice when you consider how good Civ2 was. Admittedly I didn't play it for more than three days, and also there weren't any patches available when I did, so I'll admit my opinion is just an opinion and not fact.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is a great game. In terms of gameplay, it takes Civ2 elements and makes them much more systematic and much more logical. It has a detailed and mature government interface (Social Engineering). It has an unsurpassed unit customization interface (Workshop). The morale ratings are important and (in the case of alien lifeforms) uniquely special.

In terms of plot and realism, it is far more mature than the projected future I encountered in CTP (Nanite Defuser?!). SMAC's future is based on feasible and mooted scientific projections; just the other day I came across an article in the New Scientist explaining the theory behind the Space Elevator, and my reaction was "wow - that was in SMAC... so it really DOES make sense".

I haven't played CTP2 so I'm not qualified to make any sort of comparison, but I still say you are gravely mistaken if you feel SMAC was a game without depth. Even a quick go on multiplayer, or a quick skim through Vel's Strat Guide, will show you how many different ways you could play the game, all of them rewarding.

Hopefully, Civ3 will take the technical/strategy of SMAC and not regress from it, since I view that as being largely unsurpassed. The main difficulty with SMAC lay in the Scenario maker, which frankly didn't have the Earth variety/setting/familiarity of Civ2's. I say that if Civ3 can keep SMAC's technical edge, and bring back tools to make familiar scenarios, it should be worthwhile as an update to the genre.

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-10-2001 07:40 PM Russian King, As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

Reasons for CTP being better:
1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square
This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one.
Bombard/ranged-This made some realism
2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well.
3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible.
4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc)
5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!!
6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me.
7. Not the best reason, but:better grahpics(xept nuke)
8. better tech tree up till genetic age.
9. More terrain
10.Less AI cheating(better AI)
11.Hotseat/PBEM w/ patch.
12.More reallistic line of sight feature.
13.More editing options.
14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market.
Maybe not reallistic, but the idea is good.
15.No # limits like 32000 gold.


Reasons for ctp being worse:

The only 2 MAJOR reasons are: The interface, i would do anything to get a better one. and the NUKE Blow animation!
and some mino things like-its faster elapsing(but that goes partly into the interface).


Now I would like you to BOW me please!

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast on 05-07-2001 08:33 PM I enjoy playing Zork now and again. I also enjoy a lot of the frustrating Nethack, since LighteNing turned me onto it. both of these are very graphics impaired. My latest obsession is XCOM, and it has got me bad, even though the pixelated graphics are pathetic by today's standards, or even 5 years ago. it's still a great game! it might be better to say that graphics are important TO YOU, Yin.

Well if SOMEBODY wants good graphics: then we should have 2 divisions(like the install modes CTP had.)

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 05-07-2001 09:22 PM Roman: I also hate animations like that and really hope Firaxis doesn't waste time with them. What I personally mean by good graphics in Civ3 is primarily a very lush and colorful land (I don't need running waterfalls), very detailed (but not animated) units that make distinguishing what's what much easier, and an interface that is very crisp and clear. Now if you look at all that, what I'm talking about are graphics that make gameplay easier. This is a VERY important point. I'm not interested in eye-candy just so I can test my video card. I want graphics that 1) help make gameplay easier and 2) help make things simply look better (I have no shame in simply wanting things to look good). Animations and 3d this and 3d that...if it doesn't add to gameplay in an important way, get rid of it. Take all that wasted time and work harder on the interface.

I have just one thing to say: EXACTLY!

[Comrade Tribune]

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 on 05-10-2001 08:07 PM There were even some graphics in Civ 1 that were better then Civ 2 in that regard! Who could forget those dirty scummy rebels marching from the side into your city? And then 2000 year later, the same scummy guys, in hippy clothing, doing the exact same thing??? And come ON, you gotta give props to Stalin's facial expressions, and the royal palace??? COME ON!!!

Underlined! I couldn´t agree more. And don´t forget some of the advisours, especially communism and modern despotism; they were hilarious!

[Pedrun]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-10-2001 07:40 PM Russian King, As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

I do prefer the CTP series then civ2.
The CTP's gameplay is much better specially because of the unconventional warfare(I loved the cleric and the Slaver they really added fun and realism), and The future techs - Sea colonies and space give the game new levels of strategy and interface.
I'm even considerig not buying CivIII because of the possible lack of this two features + only 7 civs.
Not to metion the CTP2 trade (CTP1 trade wasnt that good). It really worked and played a major role in my civ's development. The terrain and tile improvments variety. And the bombard option.

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Pedrun on 05-13-2001 06:20 PM I do prefer the CTP series then civ2. The CTP's gameplay is much better specially because of the unconventional warfare(I loved the cleric and the Slaver they really added fun and realism), and The future techs - Sea colonies and space give the game new levels of strategy and interface. I'm even considerig not buying CivIII because of the possible lack of this two features + only 7 civs. Not to metion the CTP2 trade (CTP1 trade wasnt that good). It really worked and played a major role in my civ's development. The terrain and tile improvments variety. And the bombard option.

Unconventional war: i can live w/out it. trade: ctp1 was unreallistic but fun-adds sense of control of what your buying and selling. 7 civs-bothers a little but bearable.
Overall, CTP=(1.2)*CTP2=(1.8)*civ2

To you guy that do not like candy. I just reloaded Civ 2 MGE the other day and the whole disk was 85.5/6 Megs. The basis game of Civ 3 without candy may be 50 to 100 Megs big. The last time I heard is that a CD is 576 Megs. A lot of space left over for nothing. It has been said over and over, you can turn most of it off, if you do not like it. Firaxis bring on the CANDY big time, I for one like it.

------------------

[Grumbold]

If the game is balanced and as good as they can make it technically with a couple of months to go before the deadline then let rip and design as much eye candy as possible. Unique unit, advisor, building and population art for every Civ in the game I can handle

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 05-13-2001 03:36 AM Now I would like you to BOW me please!

Thanks for answering me. Now here what I think:

quote: 1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one. Bombard/ranged-This made some realism

I liked the combat system in theory... but I still don't understand how an abolitionist in a coastal town with no defense sunk two of my stacked ships of the line. CTP had good ideas, but the combat system was fatally flawed.

quote: 2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well.

I thought space was way too unbalancing. Putting a unit anywhere in the world completely negated all other forms of transport. In addition, in all my games the first person to establish any kind of space launcher was the winner, because they could almost instantly rush any city in the world. Not very balanced, if you ask me.

quote: 3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible.

Sea colonies, to me, were way too powerful. The fact that cities 5 times their size struggle to keep up with their industry proves this to me.

quote: 4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc)

I didn't really see the need for this. It's a nice gradation, but it sure wasted a lot of my time with upgrades (some like that) and it didn't really add anything to the gameplay for me. Just another task.

quote: 5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!!

And in my opinion, the PW system was overly simplistic and too abstract, and took control away from the player as well as eliminating strategic possibilities.

quote: 6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me.

Most of the special units were either too weak (infector, cleric) or too powerful (eco ranger, eco terrorist). I never really ever got to use slavers, as walls went up as soon as I could get my slavers to the enemy cities.

quote: 7. Not the best reason, but:better grahpics(xept nuke)

That isn't about the game, it's about the time the game was made. I'll agree, though.

quote: 8. better tech tree up till genetic age.

This was my biggest problem with CTP. Places where I used to have a huge choice in units suddenly dried up. Where went the mech infantry? The partisan? The alpine troops? The howitzer? The navy took the biggest hit, losing the galleon, cruiser, and AEGIS cruiser (as well as only having one capital ship in the diamond age!!!) It also bugs me that a lot of the advances were named after ages... Isn't that my decision what age I am in? How can I research an age?

quote: 9. More terrain

Really? I didn't see any, unless you are talking about space and sea.

quote: 10.Less AI cheating(better AI)

I thought they were on equal footing with Civ2; I was actually quite dismayed with the CTP AI's performance on even the high levels, especially in warfare and diplomacy.

quote: 11.Hotseat/PBEM w/ patch.

I don't play muliplayer often; I can't evaluate this.

quote: 12.More realistic line of sight feature.

Civ2 used flat terrain, where this was not a question. A different style of game, although I will admit I liked the mountain idea in CTP... but once again, balancing killed it.

quote: 13.More editing options.

Than Civ2 Fantastic Worlds? Not likely, unless you are talking about messing with text files which I don't do. If so, you must admit that editing in Civ2 was much easier and much more user friendly.

quote: 14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market.

The trade system lacked the luxury bonus that Civ2 had. In addition, the AI's scatterbrained diplomacy made it almost impossible to trade anything with anybody.

quote: 15.No # limits like 32000 gold.

Was this really an issue? Have you ever gotten 32000 gold? If so, you should start spending it!!!

If anything, one thing to me stood out about CTP, which was:

Good idea, bad implementation.

Indeed, stacked combat, monopolies, and special units are features I would truly like to see in Civ3. But I felt that Activision did a not so good... dare I say it, HORRIBLE job at balancing the features. The combat system could make a grown man cry (see above abolitionist incident) and there was really no improvement to the AI that I could see.

So was CTP good for the genre? Yes, because it gave good ideas and mistakes to learn from. I hope some of CTP's ideas are re-evaluated, re-done, and then re-used.

Was CTP, as a game, better than Civ2? No. See above for why.


------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited May 15, 2001).]

[Russian King]

I must disagree with most but one thing: good ideas. Implementation wasnt a huge problem for me, have a read::

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-15-2001 06:26 PM Thanks for answering me. Now here what I think: 1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one. Bombard/ranged-This made some realism I liked the combat system in theory... but I still don't understand how an abolitionist in a coastal town with no defense sunk two of my stacked ships of the line. CTP had good ideas, but the combat system was fatally flawed.

Maybe thats a matter of chance

quote: 2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well. I thought space was way too unbalancing. Putting a unit anywhere in the world completely negated all other forms of transport. In addition, in all my games the first person to establish any kind of space launcher was the winner, because they could almost instantly rush any city in the world. Not very balanced, if you ask me.

I modified the 20* coeficient to 2* for air: so its much better than you think.

quote: 3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible. Sea colonies, to me, were way too powerful. The fact that cities 5 times their size struggle to keep up with their industry proves this to me.

thats the point: tech pays off. you discover sea, you get better cities.

quote: 4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc) I didn't really see the need for this. It's a nice gradation, but it sure wasted a lot of my time with upgrades (some like that) and it didn't really add anything to the gameplay for me. Just another task.

This is why i like CTP: it gives you more powerful tile imps as you advance.

quote: 5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!! And in my opinion, the PW system was overly simplistic and too abstract, and took control away from the player as well as eliminating strategic possibilities.

no comment- as i said, a matter of opinion.

quote: 6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me. Most of the special units were either too weak (infector, cleric) or too powerful (eco ranger, eco terrorist). I never really ever got to use slavers, as walls went up as soon as I could get my slavers to the enemy cities.

well... you just have to be good to catch the small citys. I got each opponent city at least twice. made a good profit.

quote: 8. better tech tree up till genetic age. This was my biggest problem with CTP. Places where I used to have a huge choice in units suddenly dried up. Where went the mech infantry? The partisan? The alpine troops? The howitzer? The navy took the biggest hit, losing the galleon, cruiser, and AEGIS cruiser (as well as only having one capital ship in the diamond age!!!) It also bugs me that a lot of the advances were named after ages... Isn't that my decision what age I am in? How can I research an age?

hmmm- idunno, not really experienced, but to me: a real advanced tech was available in civ2 when i didnt even have a prerequisite(a reallistic one)
EG: i could research pikemen when i had muskaters.

quote: 9. More terrain Really? I didn't see any, unless you are talking about space and sea. quote: 10.Less AI cheating(better AI) I thought they were on equal footing with Civ2; I was actually quite dismayed with the CTP AI's performance on even the high levels, especially in warfare and diplomacy.

terrain-BROWN_MOUNTAIN, etc.
AI- the main point=It doesnt cheat. almost none.

quote: 12.More realistic line of sight feature. Civ2 used flat terrain, where this was not a question. A different style of game, although I will admit I liked the mountain idea in CTP... but once again, balancing killed it.

I mean- you could have 7sq sight if you wanted to.

quote: 13.More editing options. Than Civ2 Fantastic Worlds? Not likely, unless you are talking about messing with text files which I don't do. If so, you must admit that editing in Civ2 was much easier and much more user friendly.

Yes, messing with files
easy-yes, user friendly- yes, but in CTP- i could edit almost ANYTHING. civ2-unly somethings

quote: 14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market. The trade system lacked the luxury bonus that Civ2 had. In addition, the AI's scatterbrained diplomacy made it almost impossible to trade anything with anybody.

just more fun to play with this system

quote: 15.No # limits like 32000 gold. Was this really an issue? Have you ever gotten 32000 gold? If so, you should start spending it!!!

[/quote]
spend? i guess your right .