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
It would force Firaxis to waste valuable time, releasing the game, scouring it for bugs and improving it to make real-time option that would probably be pathetic due to the limited effort that they could but into it at this stage.
The core genius of Civ is being able to recycle civ1 code as long as possible. Look at all the bugs which were retained in smac and in civ2. going rts would require abondoning too much civ1 code. They would never do it.
Originally posted by Oligarf
I think the turn-based system of Civilization slows down the game. A real-time approach would force players to make smart fast decisions. Multi-player possibilities on the Internet would be more exciting too. Now you have to wait and wait. Time limiting destroys the fun too, at a certain moment I was able only doing half the things I wanted to do when I were in a multiplay game. I think it should be or should become an option in Civ III or Civ IV.
Agree?
Someone has been playing too much warcraft and C&C.
There is a oxymoron in your sentences here. Much like Dark Victory.
"Smart" and real-time are a conflicting statement. More like "If you can key map, or program a microphone your reflexes will be faster than opponents and you will win."
Besides. Like they say in the making of the Civ III video.
"It's that addiction, I got to have the one more turn. That's what will keep you up till 3 in the morning. Just one more turn."
And it works. Real-time would not hold my attention past an hour.
A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."
This is far too conservative. Civ1 and 2 WERE turn based. If you made an optional-RT civ, it would be a new (and probably better) civ.
I really don't know what is wrong with some ppl.Yes civ would be totally different in RTS but how do you think you'll ever be able to play a game of the same size like you're playing now???(AoE-maps and C&C-maps are smaller then even the little maps of civ,and how big are the armies in those games?20 units?30?,what about managing your cities(all 30 or more))
This is really a place where ppl should be conservative.
Shade
ex-president of Apolytonia former King of the Apolytonian Imperium
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)
shameless plug to my site:home of Civ:Imperia(WIP)
Originally posted by Fresno
This is far too conservative. Civ1 and 2 WERE turn based. If you made an optional-RT civ, it would be a new (and probably better) civ.
Thats as stupid as saying that a Real-time (optional) Starcraft game would be good... Sure, you could make a game like that, possibly make it fun, but you would have to mutilate the game-play so much to get it to work, that the resultant game would bear little resemblance to the original.
I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
For city management- (2 options)
1.) AI Management
2.) Click-Management: IE click once, bring up an option screen, it shows the needed structures, cost, % needed by people, %need for the empire, etc. After evaluating the costs, you can accept or decline.
3.) RTS with Pause. (Technically simultaneous-TBS)
All these options would help city management
#1 and #3 would be the most favorable.
#2 would make Civ RTS an extremely challenging game... I doubt many people outside Korea would buy it
-->Visit CGN!
-->"Production! More Production! Production creates Wealth! Production creates more Jobs!"-Wendell Willkie -1944
Tweet
The bloodthirsty majority here doesn't appear very 'CIVILIZED' to me...
Comment