Tweet
Oh, you also can only have 1 army per 4 cities.
-
This is a bad idea. It creates an atmosphere of ICS. IT should be 1 army for every 4 cities of size 8"Everything for the State, nothing against the State, nothing outside the State" - Benito Mussolini -
Hehe. CTP was made by amatuers in a garage.Originally posted by faded glory
You are in the minority. Most think the stack on stack is unrealistic and annoying. If anything, the combat in CTP was alot better. Civ2 was lame. charging a tank into a lone city! Then chargin 9 more behind him. I think its ridiculous.
Armies are grouped in reality. But still, if you want it so real go buy a real-time game or something.
That wasn't the worst part of CTP. It was the gameplay itself. They could not have possibly messed the game up more and limited replay ability.A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."Comment
-
I have an excellent idea
Civ3 should have Age points. The older the unit- the less effective it is. So a warrior would only have a sliver of health left after being around 500 or some odd years
Thats brilliant! What a way to real life enforce attrition!Comment
-
You lie. Others will back me up. As I already saw posts confirming it.Originally posted by faded glory
That doesnt happen in CTP.....1 tank vs 4 phalanx the tank will win. Unlike Civ2......
CTP stack combat is way better than Civ2 Unit vs Unit. You end up wasting so many good units in Civ2.
It doesn't matter how good the combat is. The game SUCKS. It will never change that Activision ripped off a noble idea and made it into crap. They haven't achieved more than marginal success with both games, and the only reason they did is because they suckered long time civ fans.A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."Comment
-
CTP battles are SOOOOO Much better!!!
What kind of mushrooms did you eat when you saw phalanx beating Fusion Tanks? I just took opened up CTP and set up a 9 phalanx vs 1 tank and the tank won. It just took a long time.
Single unit combat is so weak!!!To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
Hmmmmmmmm. I'm sure it was.Originally posted by Lung
but Civ2 was nothing but flawed!
In gameplay Civ 2 is vastly better than CTP and CTP2. Those games are crap. I played them both extensively and they stink. They're horrible.
The replay ability of those games was non existent. I would go for weeks without touching them. Horrid, depressing, and crappy scenarios that weren't even designed right made the experience that much worse.A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."Comment
-
Sharpe sounds like he has the incedents recorded. So I would believe him, and I've seen similar results before.Originally posted by SoulAssassin
CTP battles are SOOOOO Much better!!!
What kind of mushrooms did you eat when you saw phalanx beating Fusion Tanks? I just took opened up CTP and set up a 9 phalanx vs 1 tank and the tank won. It just took a long time.
Single unit combat is so weak!!!A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."Comment
-
sorry it was CTP 2.... I'm sure CTP had bugs that were fixed...
Civ serious is still better... if only Civ had CTP like battles...To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
I wouldn't mind the national manager either.[SIZE=1]
Civ serious is still better... if only Civ had CTP like battles...Comment
-
That's in. You have continental governer, empire governers, and city governers.
Also the governer does learn, you can tell him what never to produce, and they also can suggest things in cities based on the patterns you exibit thru your rule.A wise man once said, "Games are never finished, only published."Comment
-
I really dont care for "smart" govoners, because they aren't. A national manager requires no AI, it's simply a way to manage build queues for all or part of your empire.
That said hopefully there is going to be smart advisers,
like tradeguy reccomends"build more marketplaces!"
So I tell him do it now!
And then he goes away, figures out which cities would benefit most from a marketplace
, and inserts marketplaces in the queues.
What I dont want is Artificial Idiots doing things which I didn't give them explicit permission to do.
If the govoners must be smart, then I would like a very bloody execution scene for the govoner which builds a coastal fortress for a duckpond base.
Unfortunately this would probably put all govoners off building coastal fortresses 
, see what I mean by they cant be smart?
But anyway, I'm fairly hopefull something will be worked out which wont result in any untimely deaths.
Comment
-
Governors (or any other auto-AI crap) are for gamers who are too [fill in the blank] to play the game. 
Comment
-
Civ2 was dumb in every way. Sometimes I just felt like I was moving units around cause they needed to be moved.
CTP doesnt gimme that feeling..... I honestly wish Firaxis would have made combat stacking
------------------------
Amen brother Lungster, Testify !!Civ2 was nothing but Flawed!
Comment
-
Dan commented in another thread that movement points will have an impact on combat. Increased movement points will allow a unit to withdraw from combat before it is destroyed (if it's losing). Similar to SMAC.Comment
-
Unfortunately I must agree. Then again cause and effect can be a bit blurred, is the player using govoners because he is crap, or is his playing crap because he is using crappy govoners?Originally posted by Steve Clark
Governors (or any other auto-AI crap) are for gamers who are too [fill in the blank] to play the game.
SMAC had some of the worst AI helpers I've ever seen, they weren't actually intrinsically bad. If it was possible to program them I would have used them. The key example being automated formers, in SMAC you can use a strategy where forest is the only terraforming used, so effectively your formers become "forest planters" (and also leveling rocky tiles so forests can be planted).
There was automated former settings, so you could prevent them doing things you didn't want them to. Unfortunately the only forest option was "Don't plant forest" and there was no "Don't build mines" or "Don't cultivate farms". So there was no way a former could be configured to only plant forest. (hence a week or two of my life has been spent moving formers and hitting Ctrl-F for forest.... yes, I played way too much SMAC)
One of the major failings of govoners is they lacked global scope, they strictly worked on the basis "Now what can I do to improve this base" rather than "what can I do to improve the empire", the first govoner sees a base producing 2 commerce and thinks "ah-hah! I'll build a marketplace to improve commerce", however a global govoner realizes it's much better to build a marketplace in the base producing 20 commerce (the first increases empire-wide income by 1, the later 10), and perhaps a military unit in the smaller base. Isolated govoners are at best haphazard with there build orders, in order for Civ3's to work they will need to be able to collaborate and maximize global growth.
Usually govoners are considered "only for newbies", because they make newbie decisions, their "thinking" isn't on the same level as a veteran player, however this need not be the case, and I have faith in Firaxis. Ofcourse all I really want is fully configurable automations which make no allusion to intelligence.
Comment
Comment