Apolyton Civilization Site: Call to Power

CIVILIZATION: CALL TO POWER @ GAMESTOP $9.99

CIVILIZATION: CALL TO POWER @ AMAZON $9.99

apolytonware

PREVIEW GUESTBOOK

This is our preview guestbook. Feel free to give us your comments/suggestions on our preview and the game...

Sign the Guestbook! | Preview Index Page

First, lest I forget my manners, I'd like to thank you for providing such an excellent website (Apolyton). I took a look at much of the information that was posted pertaining to Civilization: Call to Power, and was sort of disapointed. Not in the information (which was very valuable), but in how the game appeared. I'm wondering if the impressions I got accurately reflect the game. First, it seems a lot of the game concentrates on modern/post-modern/futuristic eliments. Is this the case? (my own preferences are historical; I tend to lose interest in the game once the modern era is reached. In part because IMO by then the outcome is generally fore-ordained; you can see who's going to win by then. But also in part because I'm just more interested in the past, as a gamer (I watched B5 religiously, but I haven't even DLed the B5 CivII Scenario. Star Wars ditto). It just seems the game concentrates more on the contemporary than anything else (the Cubans, Australians, Jamaicans, and Polynesians all are represented with a Civilization, but still no Byzantines? Even though if you counted all the Civ II scenarios produced, the presence of the ByzantinoRoman Empire far outnumbered the presence of all the above, combined, and you can throw in the Mexicans, Nigerians, Portugese, Scottish, Thai, Irish, and Welsh as well: all those added together still weigh nothing against the commonality of Byzantium; and while I'm on the subject, the Hagia Sophia movie is anachronistic, as it includes the minarets. Check out Tufir Oner's Byzantium 1200 (www.byzantium1200.com) site for an accurate image. But I digress). I also get the impression that the game is more "politically correct" than previous versions were (not just in composition of the Civilizations, but in the new Wonders, government types, etc), at the expense of realistic geopolitics (and here I'm speaking actually against my own preferences as a gamer: when playing Civ. I generally am a "perfectionist", liking a nice, calm area to develop my civilization in peace, untroubled by nasty wars). This heavy weight on ecoterrorist governments seems especially odd (Luddites don't build civilizations). As others mentioned, the names for some of the Civ leaders seem like strange choices (Tiamat as an Assyrian leader?? Should have been Astarte (Ishtar to those of you who only speak Babylonian). I guess I have two main questions, though: 1) Is the computer AI any good (in other words, significantly better/more crafty {especially in use of units} than it was in Civ II)? 2) How good is the game in rendering most of human history (4000 BC to 1500 AD, say) playable and interesting instead of merely a prelude to a mostly "modern" game (say, 1850 to 3000 AD)? Again, thanks for all the information on the website; it was very helpful, but raised for me more concerns than excitement about the game (I think I'll put off buying it and tinker with my Civ II Mystara Scenario. . .)
Porphyrogenetus <augustium@geocities.com>
- Tuesday, April 06, 1999 at 19:13:11 (EDT)

Thank goodness Babbages has a return policy. This game plays terrible.
Max Scoggan <graymaxx@mindspring.com>
Charleston, SC - Saturday, April 03, 1999 at 22:32:22 (EST)

cool
arturas <xart@takas.lt>
gargzdai, lithuania - Saturday, April 03, 1999 at 03:55:56 (EST)

I think you missed mentioning what scenarios and maps that comes with the CTP. I hope that the world map in different sizes are available.
Effendy Juraimin <effendy@ibm.net>
Singapore, Singapore - Wednesday, March 31, 1999 at 04:20:04 (EST)

..........CTP.....RnR!!
Mauso <mauso_khan@yahoo.com>
Falun, Sweden - Wednesday, March 31, 1999 at 02:01:50 (EST)

I think it's kinda funny how so many people signing this guestbook put in comments like "why did you change ___ from Civ 2" or the like. People! Listen up! This is a fan site. If you want to complain about the game, talk to our friends at Activision. Which leads me into my comment, which is this: Good job, Markos & Dan!! Very good preview of the game. I'm impressed. You guys put a lot of time and effort into this, and I (and many others, I'm sure) really appreciate it.
Jeff Olson (aka Saganaga) <jeffo@mninter.net>
Minneapolis, USA - Tuesday, March 30, 1999 at 18:34:43 (EST)

Ooops forgot email... peterhennesy@hotmail.com
phennesy <peterhennesy@hotmail.com>
- Tuesday, March 30, 1999 at 14:16:51 (EST)

Great review. Nice to finally get some concrete info. Two questions though, if your listening (or one qu and one expansion). Big qu: how good a general is the AI? It was one of the big weaknesses of Civ 2. Does stacking allow the Ai to have more of a chance, or is it the same olf 3 cannons advance without protecting infantry? The minor point of expansion - diplomacy?: what do you mean by no negotiations? Is it just where youve got them by the balls , or do you mean like no dialogue at all ie just buttons to push like offer alliance / treaty / declare war. Would be a shame. Any advicemuch appreciated
phennessy
- Tuesday, March 30, 1999 at 14:08:12 (EST)

Looks like it's gonna be a great game! I CAN'T WAIT!!!!! The multiplayer aspect should be good. Civ2 was annoying that you could only crush brainless AI :)
Jason Belcher <jason@cocwa.asn.au>
Perth, Australia - Monday, March 29, 1999 at 05:46:25 (EST)

I think you should give more details about the multiplayer aspect to the game. I think it should be a very important feature.
Michael Flynn <mflynn@usa.net>
Albany, NY, USA - Sunday, March 28, 1999 at 07:53:24 (EST)

CTP will be a great game and of course I going to buy it. Greek civilization seems ok to me, but i have some other comments to make. 1. Some old wonders, espesially the early ones should be kept. 2. Borders should exist. 3. I havent seen much multiplayer preparations going on around here 4. Why is your preview so delayed?
Geogre Psychogios <psycho@med.uoc.gr>
Heraklion Crete, Greece - Tuesday, March 23, 1999 at 03:32:38 (EST)

Can't you guys spell? On the Civ list half the names were wrong! I thank you for the list though. Also. Take a look at the "Irish" Civilisation. ELIZABETH GREGORY????? She was given ladyship! An English honour! Come on, now. They should have done Enya! She has had more power, as Ireland's richest singer! Seriously though, should have been Mary Robinson or Sinead DeValera
Shane T. Odlum <stodlum@hotmail.com>
Dublin, Ireland - Monday, March 22, 1999 at 17:08:57 (EST)

I have just noticed that, according to advances list on this site, the robotics advance seems to allows you to build a spy plane without actually having discovered aerodynamics! Only mass production and computers are required, neither of with require aeodynamics. Perhaps it does require aerodynamics but they forgot to include it on that page? Otherwise it will be similar to Civ II in that you could build a power plant before you had discovered electricity. That just didn't make sense to me.
Brett Armstrong <barm1@ironbark.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au>
Bendigo, Australia - Sunday, March 21, 1999 at 10:48:49 (EST)

It looks like a very good game, but I wonder why it has a Welsh civilization but no Carthaginian or babylonians?
Jonathan Gale
England - Sunday, March 21, 1999 at 07:28:49 (EST)

Mark could you tell us when your game preview is going to be out. thanks.
Eugene Zinovyev <hellflyer@hotmail.com>
- Saturday, March 20, 1999 at 21:31:32 (EST)

CTP seems great! But with 42 civs, why didn't they at least put some effort in changing the Vikings. I'm very good at Swedish history, and I think I have some knowledge of Norwegian and Danish too, and I have never heard of any Gunnhild! They could have used Margarethe (sp?), 1397-?, since she ruled all of scandinavia (Kalmar union). She isn't exactly a viking but look at the viking Diplomat on the Civs page, he's from a much later date than the viking age. If the gamemakers have decided to call all Scandinavians vikings, then she is one too. If I'm not wrong, the word Viking only means the people who sailed out to trade and fight. The civ should be called something else! Also Birka should be much higher on the citylist, it's definitely the most important Swedish Viking-city.
Kopsen <kopsen@bigfoot.com>
Sweden - Saturday, March 20, 1999 at 05:12:18 (EST)

I'm glad there's finally a Canadian Civilization in the game, but who the heck is Madeline de Vercheres? I'm pretty good at Canadian history, but I've never heard of her, neither have my parents. As someone else mentioned, Laura Secord would have been a much better choice. Also, most of your new wonders are great, but there were some really good ones from Civ2 that should have been kept,(Great Wall, Leonardo's Workshop, United Nations). One other thing about Civ2 that kinda bugged me was that even when I had an ultra-modern society I still needed an aqueduct to get a city past size 8. This means a civilization that can colonize star systems still needs an ancient stone structure to supply them with water. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I hope they changed that for CTP. Overall, CTP looks alot more like real world situations, and it may even become more addictive than my N64. One last thought: Who came up with the idea of a Polynesian civilization?
David Liotta <davidliotta@hotmail.com>
Toronto, Canada - Friday, March 19, 1999 at 23:40:33 (EST)

As a portuguese I'm glad that this version finally puts Portugal in the game. But you shouldn't put Vasco da Gama as a male ruler of the portuguese, he was just a sailor not a King. For a male ruler you should have choosen D.Jo�o V,or D.Manuel I. You should also have more carefull choosing the cities, Cadiz is not a portuguese city and never was, it's spanish. But if you should need more info about portuguese History or Geography, feel free to contact me, after all a think the game is great and I only want to contribute to make it greater.
Francisco Cunha <francisco.cunha@novodesign.pt>
Lisboa, Portugal - Friday, March 19, 1999 at 11:22:06 (EST)

This game sounds like a refreshing change from Civ II. However, I do question the choice for the Australian leaders. Sir Robert Menzies was a far more influential leader than was Gough Witlam. Also, I would have hoped that you would have chosen someone other than Carmen Lawrence for the female leader. She may have been well known, but it was for a less than desireable reason. A previous Prime Ministers wife or someone from the (non-political) public would have been a better choice. On the other hand, I am very happy that Australia was included in the first place. Also, I am concerned that when an enemy attacks my cities and destroys some units there, that my people will still be unhappy (because my units were lost) even though they died defending them! Perhaps the unhappiness effect of loosing units should be less for units defending in a city.
Brett Armstrong <barm1@ironbark.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au>
Bendigo, Australia - Friday, March 19, 1999 at 06:51:29 (EST)

I agree, you need so see a game before you buy as for me at least gameplay is the number one consideration, lets face it thats what made Civ what it was in the first place......up till 4.00am playing....house burns down but you've still go to continue playing...that kinda addiction. I'd love to play a pre-release demo/beta now also but many manufacturers don't put betas on public release as there are sometimes reputation issues.
Steve Briggs <get.it@usa.net>
- Friday, March 19, 1999 at 03:45:56 (EST)

To make me really want to go out and buy what essentially is an upgrade of Civ II I would like to see two things : 1) BORDERS ! Damn but it was annoying that other civ's would build their towns pretty much right next to yours, encroaching on the city's lands. How many times did that happen in reality ? Sid Meyer's new game has gotten that aspect totally down pat ! 2) A demo ? I normally play a demo before plunking down any cash for the game.
mike <mikesafoniukNOSPAMPLEASE@attcanada.net>
Vancouver, Canada - Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 18:27:15 (EST)

this game is bad as hell. stacked units add a tactical aspect to the game. i also like the trading and piracy ideas. it makes trading more important as it is in the real world.
joshua durden <joshua_durden@hotmail.com>
tallahassee,Fl, usa - Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 10:18:54 (EST)

Looks great, personally If i am going to pay �40ish on a game i'd rather it works (remember Elite First encounters) so take your time guys and make us happy. Borders would be a bonus but lets leave it up to the designers as the most important thing is that the game is properly balanced. Oh and one last point Lets have some fair play from the computer opponants for a change. Steve
Steve Briggs <get.it@usa.net>
London, UK - Thursday, March 18, 1999 at 08:57:45 (EST)

CTP looks like it'll kick much ass, but one thing bothers me, and that's the new Wonders. Some of them,like Emancipation, Stonehenge, Hollywood, The Internet, make a lot of sense, but it seems like the original idea behind the Wonders got lost somehow. Galileo's Telescope? What was wrong with Copernicus' Observatory? Adding new Wonders is a great idea (especially if there's some way that new Wonders can be created in CTP), but why toss out all the old ones, which served very important purposes? At the VERY least, why not keep the original Seven Wonders (Pyramids, Great Wall, etc)?
phil <Philsie456@aol.com>
Akron, USA - Wednesday, March 17, 1999 at 20:21:36 (EST)

Has anyone heard if there will be a limit on the number of civilizations that will be active during a single player game? 7 Was far too few in Civ II, & we'll have 42 or so to play with...
Bill Hill <whill@n-link.com>
Killeen, USA - Tuesday, March 16, 1999 at 13:00:53 (EST)

Well it look's great as we knew it would but one question begs to be asked - where are the Borg we were promised in an interview ( also I'm glad the scots are in it but I feel dundee should be higer up the cities list - whatever )
Faboba <Faboba@yahoo.com ( soon )>
Glasgow, Scotland - Sunday, March 14, 1999 at 04:07:57 (EST)

Yes, C:CTP for mac (just don't make us wait a year)!
monolith94 <paxetlux@seacoast.com>
xxxx, USA - Saturday, March 13, 1999 at 22:34:33 (EST)

Will there be a Mac version of CTP? We mac users are people too!
Mike S <sarek@buffnet.net>
Bflo, USSR - Saturday, March 13, 1999 at 20:32:32 (EST)

I should have thought on something intelligent to say before I began to sign this guestbook. But the only thing I can think of, the one thing that tortures my mind, is the forgotten Arabs. But at least it will be changeable. By the way, if you know a good cookie recipe, e-mail me as soon as possible.
Monk <civmonk@iname.com>
Dullville, DK - Saturday, March 13, 1999 at 19:43:19 (EST)

1. the woman leader of Canadian civilization makes little sense. She is unknown in Canada. It should have been Laura Secord. First because she was responsible for saving Canada from invasion by the Americans She is the only female national heroine well-know. She spotted the invaders and led the troops to stop them. Moreover by having Trudeau as the male you have picked a french canadian. Laura Secord was english canadian.Picking her balances the the Canadian dimension. We have always alternated leaders between french and english traditionally. Laura even had her own postage stamp. Here are some urls on her http://www.flarc.edu.on.ca/~olmc/secord/Laura.html 2. On wonders of the world suggest strongly that the emancipation wonder only makes sense if the some of the freed slaves leave the slavers cities otherwise freeing them may benefit your enemy to much in the long run.Also can you free your own slaves somehow? 3. the edison wonder looks good but perhaps to good leading to unbalanced play. The game looks great cant wait to get my hands on it.
Jay bell <jaymorebell@home.com>
Ottawa, Canada - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 21:46:03 (EST)

I CAN'T WAIT!!!
John <ticktock@cetlink.net>
Charlotte, NC - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 21:05:19 (EST)

CTP's gonna kickass! It's great that Activision would let a fan site do this preview! I had my doubts that anyone other than Sid could do Civilization, but obviously Activision can fare just as well. I *love* the trade ideas. I'd like to know a little more about the governments though. And yeah, I'd like borders also.
Eroberer <eroberer4u@hotmail.com>
Charlotte, USA - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 20:52:51 (EST)

I am a perpetual lurker in the fora. This site is great, and I think the preview information posted here is also very good. Keep up the enthusiasm, guys. To those disappointed at the delay: would you rather have a good product, or a "fast" product? Think about Win98 beore you answer that...
Wintermind <john@ansci.agoff.umn.edu>
St. Paul, MN - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 20:21:22 (EST)

Another Classical Mess to distort the minds of our young and perpetuate your Eurocentric warmonging mentality.
Sxean <sxean@hotmail.com>
Seattle, USA - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 18:27:06 (EST)

Another Classical Mess to distort the minds of our young and perpetuate your Eurocentric warmonging mentality.
Sxean <sxean@hotmail.com>
Seattle, USA - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 18:26:46 (EST)

There's actually a Canadian civ in this game! In Civ II, I had to create my own (replacing the Spanish). Thanks for thinking of us, Activision!
Lance <lanced@in2net.com>
Vancouver, Canada - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 17:25:44 (EST)

happy to see the new CIV game. perhaps Greek civilization could have another name for its Female default Ruler.. in any case waiting for the shipping...
sakkopoulos Vangelis <sakkopul@cti.gr>
athens, greece - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 15:40:10 (EST)

Well I am certainly excited about this game. Already, I can see that its going to hit the top. After looking at those units on the battlefield I now think the units are actally quite neat!! I like it. And the landscape designs!! COOL! Its a shame the units don't fit well on them however. But I suppose that doesnt matter. Now, I'm not one to complain. But I've noticed a lot are basically demanding borders. I never really saw a need for them or what would be so great about them...But now I see why they would be an important addition to the game. Remember: You said you are making Civ2 BETTER. Borders will show this in a great deal. I very much hope you do add this. PAAALEASE allow the option to draw over the erm.. Squares? Er..In Civ 2, I wished I could have a city that expanded over the other squares around it. But I caaaan't :( Anyway, Thanks.
Icedan <knowles@ihug.co.nz>
Christchurch, New Zealand - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 11:54:07 (EST)

Ooga, ooga, CTP is gonna rule!!!!
LordStone1 <LordStone1@yahoo.com>
CA, USA - Friday, March 12, 1999 at 00:13:15 (EST)

The game is more complex than Civ2. It will take sometime to play it properly. I will enjoy that. The warfare looks like it will allow tactics to become more important. Civ2 kept me off the streets for days on end, I hate to think what this will do.
Biggles <fjbaker@iinet.net.au>
Outback, Australia - Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 19:47:33 (EST)

I have read corporate branch steals 25% production from an enemy city so - Will it be easy for another human player to remove a Corporate branch from another human player (I think there should be severe happiness effects to remove a corp branch(people losing jobs) or else the CP won't be worthwhile in MP).
Freddz
SWE - Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 19:46:02 (EST)

I think you should talk a little bit more about the governments and how they are different, also can you make a custom gov like smac
Eugene Zionovyev <hellflyer@hotmail.com>
- Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 19:33:44 (EST)

Let's see if this works...
MarkG
- Thursday, March 11, 1999 at 19:13:49 (EST)

Scripts and Guestbook created by Matt Wright and can be found at Matt's Script Archive

Apolyton Civilization Site Copyright � Daniel Quick
All trademarks and trade names are the properties of their respective owners.