1 would be very nice

3 is already very good besides the fact that it doesn't know how to fight. 2 simple little fix that would make a huge difference.

- Stack those ships.
- Put a stack of units in those ships for an invasion.

4- The Scenarios of CTP could be fantastic. But the tools are unfinish.

- Flat Map support
- Do you still have my list of SLIC fixes.
- A Graphic Editor for units, goods, etc.

Above that new flags and other stuff would be goodies.

Pretty cool being able to vote from the forums. This should generate more votes. And, on top of that, we now get to come back and tell why. To bad we can only vote for one since the first four all need addressed. Decisions, decisions. Okay, I pick number 1, Diplomacy. The SMAC World Council really spoiled me.

Also, when your units attack, there's a chance that city improvements (including the walls) will be destroyed. So the second stack might be fighting an un-walled city, if you get lucky.

quote:

---

Originally posted by middle aged civver on 12-06-1999 07:18 AM
How about scenario support that actally works?
Borders definately. The biggest failing though which is driving me back to civ2 is the unusable diplomacy model. Unfortunately, this needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten, no-one is going to justify this for a patch.
Anyone desperate to use catapaults should use CD`s mod.

---

Check out the Awesome Aips thread about Nordicus' work on diplomacy. Our mod makes it much better now.

Why is it that when you play harder levels, instead of the AI being smarter, you just play on a more uneven playing field? Activision have taken the easy way out, just as MicroProse did with CivII.

CTP should have a variable AI, where the harder the level, the smarter the AI. I thought this would go without saying, and that Activision would correct that particular flaw of CivII, which should also go without saying, but alas, no.

I mean thats pointless. CtP had lots and lots of units/improvements and wonders. What is more important is to BALANCE them! Better balanced units/improvements/wonders! How can one be so stupid to vote for more more more when the gameplay lacks lacks lacks.
And btw, CtP has too much Units IMO, cause in most of my games, I dont bother building pikemen, cause I already have musketeers. Or I dont bother building planes, cause I have already Jets....

And then improved combat results is important too.
Scenariosupport can be added after the game is released so I dont think there should lie most of the efforts put in the game.

I have no idea why you think this is so dumb (although your name sake couldn't be considered as too bright either ). It's inately obvious to anyone why more units is a good thing and why less is dumb - its because by having more units you can show progressions rather than having a few units which show huge changes. Only when you have progression can you show how one unit replaced another. The fact you can 'jump' units isn't a fault of the game (no nation built every type of unit) but it should be more balanced in terms of types of units and their costs and unit attributes.

However, you can amend all of these yourself so why don't you?

In CtP, often I found myself confused: buahh so many units, what do I build! When building a unit I dont want to choose between 1 Movementpoint more or 1 Attackpoint more, cause thats lame! Thats confusing, boring micromanagment. I want units that clearly differ from each other and that all have their own special ability. But on a whole, when going to war, I know I have to build that and that and not have to choose between 10 different attack units. Sure diversity (on a small scale) is fun and I am no opposed to having around 3 different attack units to choose from, but not more. Everything more is micro!

I find it idiotic that people always shout for more more more but dont realize that its the gameplay that counts! What would you prefer: A Music disc with 25 average songs, or one with 10 really good ones?
I would choose 10 good songs!

Actually, I'm with Morgoth. I like more historical accuracy in my units. (If I want to play pure strategy, I play chess.) The more units, advances, and wonders I can mess around with, the happier I am. Besides, more wonders gives the AI an advantage; I can't possibly get them all! The more units possible, the better I am able to simulate the civ the way I want it, and the more unique each civ becomes.

In fact, I'll go one better! You know what I miss from Civ II? The advisors! I mean, they really don't serve a function once you've played a few times, but I like them anyway. (The military advisor always cracks me up!) The wonder AVIs were superior in Civ II as well. More theatrical, and not trying to show off computer animation. (By the same token, I hated Civ II's heralds.)

quote: I like more historical accuracy in my units

ahh history, the game should make fun, thats the most important goal, and not that its historical a 100% accurate. Many complained in CtP that you already had knigts way before they were discovered in real life. Well, I shrugged my shoulders and said: And why should you want to replay human history, isnt it more fun to write your own history?

quote: If I want to play pure strategy, I play chess

*buzzer* do you want to compare chess to a civ game????

quote: The more units, advances, and wonders I can mess around with, the happier I am

Your choice if you want to end up with all that micro stuff. I dont want to!

quote: Besides, more wonders gives the AI an advantage; I can't possibly get them all!

ohh yes and you will be sitting there and thinking: shall I develop this to get Wonder A or that to get Wonder B. And you sit there and think all day and all of the night. And then you think again if you should build Wonder C over Wonder D or even Wonder A, that has been discovered. Unfortunately Civ Z has already Wonder E in Production and you have to rush to get Wonder F before, so do you skip C and D to maximize for science and head for Wonder F or do you give up F and concentrate on C or D.......
I cant imagine this to make fun.

quote: The more units possible, the better I am able to simulate the civ the way I want it, and the more unique each civ becomes.

simulate? wait, do we speak of civ as simulation or strategy?
more units only overcomplex the game. I dont like to choose between thousands of units what to build, instead I like to have some units and go out and fight battles with them. Surround cities, siege,... .
Come on, just imagine you play ctp and you scroll through the list of available units and you scroll and scroll and the list wont end and finally you have to decide what unit you want to build from a pool of 10. Where at least always 2 belong to the same class but differ in some stats. uaahhh

quote: In fact, I'll go one better! You know what I miss from Civ II? The advisors

You know what? Me too! Not the civ2 advisors, cause they were dumb, but I like advisors in general. Because then I dont have to care which from the hundred units I shall build, the advisor does that for me. But I dont understand you, when you like to search through the units for yourself and decide what to build why do you like them?

quote: Relative to Civ II I think the CTP combat model IS a damm good improvement. The biggest problem I had with Civ II was the idea that (unfortified) the best unit won and everything else counted for nothing. I admit the original set up in CTP where machine gunners have no range fire but an archer does is pure dumb - but the ability to show a gradual progression of units prevents the I'm first and I can charge over anything syndrome.

Agree! The combat model is an improvement, but it is poorely done. There are a number of flaws and smaller errors that should be corrected. I am not going into that now, but I think you know what I mean.

quote: So maybe the AI gets more confused with more units

maybe? certainly I would say!
Havent looked ad WesW's mod, sorry.

What annoys me is that the question is: What would you most want to see in[..]? And that you said, ahh diplomacy: not that important, ai: no, that is not so important. Most important thing is: more units/... .
But that not you 2 said that but 15%! Well, the hundred best units help you little when diplomacy is so ****ed up or the ai is dumb as hell.

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa on 02-12-2000 03:27 AM WHO THE HELL VOTED FOR MORE UNITS/IMPROVEMENTS/WONDERS I mean thats pointless. CtP had lots and lots of units/improvements and wonders. What is more important is to BALANCE them! Better balanced units/improvements/wonders! How can one be so stupid to vote for more more more when the gameplay lacks lacks lacks. And btw, CtP has too much Units IMO, cause in most of my games, I dont bother building pikemen, cause I already have musketeers. Or I dont bother building planes, cause I have already Jets.... ATa

I think that there are specific areas where CTP does need additional units. The obvious one is a heavy assault unit for the Ancient/Early Renaissance era. In Civ you have Catapults but in CTP until the developement of Cannon defence is far too strong. How do you shift fortified Phalanxs and Archers behind City Walls when the most powerful unit you can throw against them is a Knight?