I think Civ2 has ruined me for all other civ games

[Dissident Aggressor]

I've been trying really hard to like ctp2. But I think I made a mistake in buying it, even at a reduced price. There are a few other things I want to try, but I think there is no future in that game. For one it is too slow. It takes forever just to get past 1 A.D. (actually I have yet to get past that date!). I may try speeding up production and research. Getting to monarchy is just a major pain in the ass. I suppose it is more realistic than civ2 to have it later in the game, but what can I say? I love monarchy. That game is more work than fun.

Let's face it the original civ2 was a masterpiece. I can't even play TOT because they screwed up the civ2 masterpiece. I don't think I'll ever buy another tbs game again (with the possible exception of civ3- only after I play it on someone else's copy first).

[Cam]

lol Dissident Aggressor!

Can't say I've done the CTP2 thang, but what's the problem with ToT? It's simply Civ2 plus a totally unreasonable diplomacy model, dark moving graphics, and huge scenario building potential?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Okay, now I have to ask: what's unreasonable about the diplomacy in ToT? I ask because ToT is the only version of Civ2 I've ever played (because it was the only version on sale; okay, so I'm a cheapskate). I only play the original game (my daughter likes the fantasy game and my wife the SciFi, but I guess I'm a purist), and I thought the original was just that -- The Original. What am I missing?

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[avonlea]

Yeah, wasn't Civ2 a gem? I wonder what happened to CTP? And though I love CTP2, it is no where near that masterpiece Civ2 was. I liked it better than Civ also. I wonder what changed? CTP was such a failure. I felt like CTP was made by someone who has never played Civ or Civ2. But how did that happen? Are the MBA's out there so incompetent? Or was it an effort to kill the Civ games? Hmmmm i don't know.

[Cam]

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly on 12-06-2000 04:57 AM Okay, now I have to ask: what's unreasonable about the diplomacy in ToT?

It's been generally acknowledged that when Civ2 went from 'Fantastic Worlds' to 'Multiplayer Gold' the developers made the AI respond in a far more hostile manner in negotiations. This seems to have at least been retained, if not made even more so in ToT...

Your allies are regularly canceling alliances at 'the drop of a hat', you need to give away technology and cash at a frightening rate just to keep peace treaties in tact, their attitude takes a lot of gift giving to get up to 'worshipful', etc. I recently tried an OCC game and went for the Eiffel Tower in preference to Darwin just to see if that would help curtail the persistent demands, thinking that the developers deliberately tried to enrich the value of this wonder (usually seen as one of the most useless) - it didn't.

I also suspect that exploitation of 'requesting a tribute from our gracious allies' was a significant problem with game balance, and shifting the A.I.'s attitude quickly down from 'worshipful' to 'reserved' may be an attempt to counter balance this approach.

Maybe it's a Deity level thing however, and at lower levels, the A.I. may respond more reasonably to negotiations(?).

This hostility has made scenario authoring somewhat more challenging, as attempts to create an environment of accuracy (e.g. the United States and the United Kingdom retaining an alliance with negotiations enabled in a WW2 scenario) has become more difficult, as the A.I. tribes tend to gang-up on the human player.

There have been a few threads on this in the strategy forum.

[This message has been edited by Cam (edited December 06, 2000).]

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Thanks, Cam! I've been hanging out here for a bit now, but hadn't managed to glean exactly that piece of info. This goes a long way toward explaining why it is that some strategy posts sound like they're written by people playing a different Civ2 than I am -- because they are!

Just FYI, I don't think what you're describing is only true at Deity level; as far as I can tell, it gets bad beginning at King, and starts becoming downright unmanageable at Emperor. Even with a spotless reputation, I have trouble trading techs at King, and making alliances seems to be out of the question; at Emperor, tech trading and maintaining peace are both so difficult that I've come to think of sacking cities as my primary research strategy. Anyway, thanks again for the insight.

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited December 07, 2000).]

[Theoderik]

Hmmmm.. I haven't played ToT at Deity yet, as I haven't had it for too long, but the diplomacy model can't possibly be WORSE than the one in MGE. In MGE it was horrible! Even at King level in MGE it was always the AIs ganging up on me.

Now I just finished the Original gamel in ToT at King level, and when the game ended (spaceship) I was allied to the Persians, the Babylonians and the Greeks. A Quadrouple alliance! Several times during the game I was given advances for free, as gifts. My reputation was spotless. I have never experienced *anything* similar at King level in MGE. Never.

It could be like you say, that Deity is "unplayable", but King definitely isn't! And a far better (single-)playing experience than MGE in my opinion. I seriously doubt I will ever play a singleplayer game of MGE again.

BTW: A great ToT-oriented site: http://civ.cx/

King Theoderik

[mark13]

I managed to get ToT for a tenner, which isn't bad considering it's only been out a year....

[johnmcd]

I got it for a tenner too. Then I played it and realised why I welded Civ II to my hard drive. ToT was returned within the week.

Having played CTP its not a series I'll be looking at till somewhere around itteration 4 I'd have thought.

[Dissident Aggressor]

yeah the only thing I would recommend is trying out ctp2 first. If only they had a demo... I won't say don't buy this game, because there are people that enjoy it. but find someone who has it and try it on their computer first.

[Daddy-O]

Thanks for pointing me to a new site, and maybe a new game. Christmas is coming. TOT's price is down. Maybe 2 Civ's isn't a bad thing.

------------------
'I want to be hand counted and checked for dimples.'

[East Street Trader]

Disappointing to read your post, DA, I've been thinking of trying CtP 2 but I reckon my reaction would turn out to be similar to yours.

Glad to hear further should you warm to it at all with a little further play.

[Empress]

Civ II MPG is everything I want and/or need in a game. In fact, it has so spoiled me, I refuse to learn any other game! I haven't purchased TOT, CTP, and never play SMAC. They just can't measure up!

[Tizzy]

I haven't got ToT or CTP, but did get SMAC a little while ago.
I've only played it twice, becasue I keep expecting everything to do the same as in Civ.
I can't understand why seemingly lesser units win conflicts. I can't keep track of what wonders do what, until I have them fixed in my head as their Civ equivalents, so I just stick to Civ!

[Wiglaf]

Civ hasn't ruined me at all for any equivs. When I first played SMAC I thought it was a complete ripoff on everything civ stood for. About five months later I put it in again and it suddenly seemed better with all its improvements (while there aren't too many) - Planetary Gov, more victory conditions, new 'barbarians', more 'terraforming' options...they're both good - and I welcome any equivs yet to come.