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
I was just curious to your opinions of those games. I've heard mixed reviews. Guess they're not related to Civ III but again how would I know, I never played those
Originally posted by DataAeolus
Any thoughts about Rise of Nations?
my pc didn't like it, even though the specs were way over the mins. It was fun until it teh frame rate was shot. I would recommend it if you like RTS and have a decent pc. There is a demo I think.
Originally posted by DataAeolus
Diablo I and II?
fun games. Good multiplayer, but has drawbacks of multiplayer. Hack in slash, not much thinking involved. However, I would recommend for some mindless entertainment.
If you like Civ3, SMAC is definitely worth at least 10 hours of your time. There's just so much to see, learn and do in that game, and it all fits within a great theme. While I do believe that Civ3 is an improvement over Civ2 in almost every single way, it's not clear to me that Civ3 is a huge improvement over SMAC.
True, the AI is not as good as Civ3's, but it's not like you can beat the hardest difficulties right away. You need to play at least 10-12 full games to start beating Transcend regularly, which is about 200 hours of good gaming.
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.
If I were to start playing another TBS game seriously it would be GalCiv. I've tinkered with it a couple of times, but never really got into it. It looks really promising, although I'm slightly worried about the lack of enthusiasm in the GalCiv forum here at 'Poly (or anywhere else for that matter).
I'm not quite sure exactly what went wrong with Rise of Nations, but we all know now that it's quite poor. I feel vindicated because I was one of the ones that "called it" when the free trial version was released. Still, RoN is probably one of the best attempts at a RTS/TBS hybrid.
As for other RTS games, Warcraft 3 is still the best one out there IMO. The Replay feature is awesome in that it demonstrates how strategic the game can really be (i.e. it's not just about good micro).
Dominae
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
I cannot identify anything wrong with GalCiv, but it just did not strike me as a lot of fun. I played several games, but have not been able to get up the urge to play again. I have kept it updated, just in case.
I prefer to play another game of Moo2, rather than Galciv.
I found galciv to be boring. I probably didn't give it enough of a chance, I think after the MoO3 debacle I gave things a quick hook if I wasn't "getting" them right away.
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.
I've played all the Heroes games off-and-on since they were released. I've probably spent more time with them than Civ. In fact, unlike just about any other strategy game I've played (real-time or turn-based), I find replaying missions for a better score to be enjoyable (to a degree). Most strategy games, I play through any scenario or campaign and then forget about them.
That is, I think, I disagree.
If I were to start playing another TBS game seriously it would be GalCiv. I've tinkered with it a couple of times, but never really got into it. It looks really promising, although I'm slightly worried about the lack of enthusiasm in the GalCiv forum here at 'Poly (or anywhere else for that matter).
I've put in a few hours on it. I haven't figured out where the fun is yet. I liked playing Civ 3 on Warlord and Chieftain when I was starting out. So far, GC seems to be too easy at these levels to give shape to good strategy ideas for a competitive game.
I'm not quite sure exactly what went wrong with Rise of Nations, but we all know now that it's quite poor. I feel vindicated because I was one of the ones that "called it" when the free trial version was released. Still, RoN is probably one of the best attempts at a RTS/TBS hybrid.
We all know this? All of us?
PC Gamer, GameSpot and GameSpy give it a "Best of 2003" awards, it was in the running for a dozen more. GameRankings lists it at 89%, with no score under 70%.
I haven't played it. But at worst I've heard it damned with faint praise. You'd be the first I've heard say it was "poor", though.
[ok]
[ok]
"I used to eat a lot of natural foods until I learned that most people die of natural causes. "
Originally posted by vmxa1
Test Of Time let you see where your space ship went a long time ago.
I thought Civ2:ToT and SMAC came out about the same time? (SMAC first, I think...)
Pretty interesting how the two interpretations of Alpha Centauri differ, since we're presumably talking about the same planet. Of course, it seems "Chiron" had a lot more thought put into it than "Centaurus" did.
I have put in at least as much and probably more time into Homm games than Civ games. I always felt civ was a better game, but if I could only have one, I would go with Homm as it was more fun to me.
Originally posted by okblacke
I've put in a few hours on it. I haven't figured out where the fun is yet. I liked playing Civ 3 on Warlord and Chieftain when I was starting out. So far, GC seems to be too easy at these levels to give shape to good strategy ideas for a competitive game.
Why not just play at the harder difficulty levels (with more "intelligent" alien races)? The AI in GalCiv is quite interesting compared to Civ3's: as the difficulty level increases, the AI actually gets smarter (i.e. it uses more advanced planning and strategy algorithms).
PC Gamer, GameSpot and GameSpy give it a "Best of 2003" awards, it was in the running for a dozen more. GameRankings lists it at 89%, with no score under 70%.
I would like to believe those publications are not all about hype, but that's not really true; "Brian Reynolds' new game? Buy, buy, buy!".
The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me.
By the way, where is the RoN expansion?!
Dominae
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.
Campaigns/scenarios that come with a game are a bit too simple with a few exceptions. But there are 1000+ user-made scenarios and campaigns for HOMM (HOMM scenario editor is very easy to use), complete with ratings, reviews, etc, and some of them are outstanding. Best scenarios are very difficult and are more engaging than Civ games, if only because they require out-of-the-box thinking and remain competitive until the end - something where Civ falls short. "Eternal love" campaign, "Pride wars" trilogy, "Sander's Folly", "Reavers or the North", "Vengeance is mine", to name few famous user-made scenarios.
It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them. - Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister
sid meier's gettysburg and antietam are great. get firaxis's XP compatability patch and you're fine. you can pause and issue orders, especially useful as the battle begins. I play it on prudent/indirect/3rd level difficulty, making an intelligent but fair opponent. its only big flaw is that it does not have the grander scale/ perspective of Civ3. you are basically thrust into a battle and must win it under the circumstances.
alpha centauri can become quite boring, this is definitely true (plus the fact that half the AI factions are dead from the start - morgan and miriam are the worst offenders). the game gives they unique bonuses, but not in tech, and tech is what gets you the big units.
True, the AI is not as good as Civ3's, but it's not like you can beat the hardest difficulties right away. You need to play at least 10-12 full games to start beating Transcend regularly, which is about 200 hours of good gaming.
This is because the AI cheats rabidly at transcend. moreover, diplomacy becomes a little forced. "give me synth fibers or die." over. and over...
Originally posted by ErikM
Campaigns/scenarios that come with a game are a bit too simple with a few exceptions. But there are 1000+ user-made scenarios and campaigns for HOMM (HOMM scenario editor is very easy to use), complete with ratings, reviews, etc, and some of them are outstanding.
I never knew about that. I'll have to check it out...
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Tweet
Comment