The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Hard one to agree on as Vikings, your choice in BtP, are far from bad but just would be low on my list of choices. Likewise, Russia is popular with many but would be low on my 'pick list' whilst Zulu and France seem unpopular here but in SP I reckon them great.
Perhaps the winner of any game should be forece to take a WEAKER civ in the next games jsut for fun.
I am sure people could agree a list of WEAKER civs to choose from
Hard one to agree on as Vikings, your choice in BtP, are far from bad but just would be low on my list of choices. Likewise, Russia is popular with many but would be low on my 'pick list' whilst Zulu and France seem unpopular here but in SP I reckon them great.
Much as I thought; MP does still reward better play than better Civ/Leader combinations. Blind luck cannot be ignored for the early turns, regardless of skill or Civ choice, but given an even playing field the best player should still win.
Perhaps the winner of any game should be forece to take a WEAKER civ in the next games jsut for fun.
I am sure people could agree a list of WEAKER civs to choose from
Just off the top of my head, I've won two diplogames (once with India once with Arabia), Priest won the last one, and Toni won all the rest (and Deity winning most of the Civ2 games). So not a very diverse set of winners to pick from, in the final analysis player ability is probably the only relevant factor. But that a top player can win without having a FIN leader doesn't mean the trait is irrelevant.
Much as I thought; MP does still reward better play than better Civ/Leader combinations. Blind luck cannot be ignored for the early turns, regardless of skill or Civ choice, but given an even playing field the best player should still win.
Yes, I have all three on mine. And the nice thing is the lastest patch for BTS includes the no DISC hack. Of course I usually get mine from direct to drive so I don't have to worry about that.
I guess I'll go out and buy BTS one of these days.
Will it be possible to have both versions installed on one computer, so that one can just change the DVD and play the other thing? I certainly hope so.
1. When playing several civilizations at once in a hotseat game, I find it impossible to agree to anything (not even open borders) with the other civs I am myself. Screen says "will not accept" every time. Sometimes comes back a turn later with "will accept", but NO open borders at all will result.
Is this an intentional limitation? Or is there something which I fail to do to make it work?
2. Playing the original Civ4, version 1.00 (which had been lying uninstalled on a shelf for years as I kept toying with civ2) I don't see all those civs you people talk about such as the Dutch, the Sumerians, the Egyptians with Ramesses (got only Hatshepshut), I wonder what patch do I need to get all that. And secondly, if I do install such patches, is it true that my old unfinished games become inaccessible?
Or should I simply buy a newer version and start all over?
Please help, somebody. Thnx.
1. never played hot seat so no help here for you.
2. Warlords added some civ and the BTS did also so you would need to buy bts, (you can skip buying warlords)
And you can't play your old games using BTS but you could still play them with the vanilla version. Since you'd only need to patch BTS.
Ozzy compiled a very interesting list of most popular Civs/Traits in Diplo-Games.
What I would like to know is not just how many times people picked a particular Civ but how often that profited them. Obviously player ability will have a huge impact but for all the times FIN has been picked just how many times has a FIN Civ actually won?
In SP I know my favourite Civ/Leader is India/Gandhi followed by the inevitable Inca but I have always enjoyed greatest success with the Byzantines. I know this is MP but for early Civ development the rules remain the same.
Just off the top of my head, I've won two diplogames (once with India once with Arabia), Priest won the last one, and Toni won all the rest (and Deity winning most of the Civ2 games). So not a very diverse set of winners to pick from, in the final analysis player ability is probably the only relevant factor. But that a top player can win without having a FIN leader doesn't mean the trait is irrelevant.
1. When playing several civilizations at once in a hotseat game, I find it impossible to agree to anything (not even open borders) with the other civs I am myself. Screen says "will not accept" every time. Sometimes comes back a turn later with "will accept", but NO open borders at all will result.
Is this an intentional limitation? Or is there something which I fail to do to make it work?
2. Playing the original Civ4, version 1.00 (which had been lying uninstalled on a shelf for years as I kept toying with civ2) I don't see all those civs you people talk about such as the Dutch, the Sumerians, the Egyptians with Ramesses (got only Hatshepshut), I wonder what patch do I need to get all that. And secondly, if I do install such patches, is it true that my old unfinished games become inaccessible?
Or should I simply buy a newer version and start all over?
Ozzy compiled a very interesting list of most popular Civs/Traits in Diplo-Games.
What I would like to know is not just how many times people picked a particular Civ but how often that profited them. Obviously player ability will have a huge impact but for all the times FIN has been picked just how many times has a FIN Civ actually won?
In SP I know my favourite Civ/Leader is India/Gandhi followed by the inevitable Inca but I have always enjoyed greatest success with the Byzantines. I know this is MP but for early Civ development the rules remain the same.
Whine, whine, whine. All Pin does is complain and whine and moan about "vets" or "experts" or "pros" or whatever he calls them who win all the time. Yet I make all sorts of efforts to even the playing field and he mocks me for it. I think all his blubber is nothing more than cover for a personal crusade against me for wounding his pride by beating his ass in HOTW12. I'm pretty tired of the constant sniping. Generally when he crusades against the uneven application of rules of these games I'm pretty much the only one on his side, but he still looks for every opportunity to spit in my face. So fine, you want to keep some childish vendetta going, no problem. I'll start giving it back now instead of just taking it.
Yeah, Ozzy likes to promote himself and a few select others as diplogame Gods, who could conceveably win the game without ever leaveing the ancent era. Of course this would be because of their sheer unmatched skill.
I always have to laugh though when I think back to HOTW7 when Levi the Oracle was rampaging Ozzy the Uber with fleets of ARCHERS of all things. Boy did Ozzy cry like a little beitch OOC (as he always does when the going gets rough).
This by the way is one of my biggest arguments against "limited war" in diplogames. From my observations to date, the interpertation of the concept varies WILDLY depending on who's head is about to be put on a platter.
Limited War = Insurance policy... but only for "experts".
Everyone else can loose capitals, have 80% of their civ wiped out, etc... before OOC "limited war" clause is even mentioned.
Leave a comment: