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
"Well I think it's safe to say there's a clear difference of opinion here. Personally, I prefer strategy games with a wide range of possible successful stratagies to play rather than being forced by the game to essentially play only one or two distinct types of strategy (hey, that'll be fun in MP!). "
What one or two distinct types of strategy? Given 6 different ways to win in CIV3 that must result in 6 different strategies almost defacto. I have played Civ3 games where I am the all conquering bringer of doom and woe. I am currently playing one where I am Mr. Nice...never start a war, and am absorbing cities culturally. In Civ2 it was always the SAME strategy over and over again. Blitz tech to tank and then go to Fundie and spy spy spy til your head explodes. Weeee!
"It's nothing to do with "working for victory". For me, Civ is not about whether you win or lose. I can win the game easily (granted I have not played on Monarch or above) by simply applying the same bog standard strategy. The problem is that the game forces me to make certain decisions. I'm not sure sometimes whether I'm fighting the AI or the game itself. "
That is the inherent nature of the entire CIV genre...to force the player to make tough decisions and to juggle priorities. You seem to have a problem with this. You have a problem with having to make tough decisions. May I suggest a chieftain level game on a huge map with 1 opposing CIV? Then you can operate fully free of those annoying decisions (er constraints) and can build your dream civ without any nasty interference from the game. I wish they had a zero enemy civ option for you...maybe they can patch that in.
"If I want a wargame I'll play something else. "
So now you have a problem with having to fight for things? If you want a non wargame play Sim City. And for someone who just brushed off the entire war aspect of the game you do some mighty loud whining about lack of certain war units. Once again, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
"Civ isn't about running around bullying everyone else to get resources (although apparently, Civ3 is according to you). "
It is about doing what you need to do to get the things you need to get. Sometimes it is best to wheedle or beg for things. Other times to intimidate. And others to fight. You find this a design flaw? Your arguments become more and more spurious and non-sensical as this debate progresses. I often have quite an easy time getting the resources I need without fighting thank you very much. But then again I am capable of more than one-dimensional thinking.
"E.g. in a recent game, I played the Aztecs and controlled a large chunk of the world, had several sources of all strategic resources (5 Coal etc etc.) and a load of luxeries too. However, I obtained a lot of those by fighting border skirmishes with the other Civs. I got near the end of the game (had Mech Inf blah blah while others were back in the Middle Ages) and built the UN. Well, I lost the game because of it. Why? Because I'd run around attacking everyone as soon as a new resource appeared and everyone hated me. "
Boo hoo! You can repair your reputation you know. Did it occur to you to make peace with everyone and lavish them with gifts BEFORE calling for a vote? Too complicated for you huh? Did it occur to you, since you say you gained the resources in border skirmishes, implying they were near to your border, to move your palace near those borders and build up culture and gain the cities and resources peacefully (maybe aided by espionage)? Did it occur to you to perhaps maneuver the civ with the resources into wars with other civs so that they are weakened and then intimidate them into giving you the cities and resources you needed?
Civ3's greatest strength is that it punishes one-dimensional thinking. You cannot just blitz science or blitz military. You have to set up...plan...maneuver...and think!
"It also seems as though you've dodged answering my points above (yet again) and instead prefer to insult me rather than discuss the issues I raise. It's OK for you to slate me and Civ2 but if I tell you about what I feel are legitimate issues with Civ3, then it's because I can't play the game and I'm a whiner? "
Yes....your posts make it clear you DON'T know how to play the game. EVERY problem you have presented is simply one of strategy that needs to be overcome by clever counter strategies. Nothing you have presented is insurmountable. Take your little pathetic Aztec example above. Do you know how many Civ3 players are laughing at you for whining that YOU had the stupidity to call a vote in the UN when YOU had made enemies with everyone and YOU had done nothing to repair your relations with them? Don't bash the game for your bad play. I have suggested at least 3 broad ways you could have accomplished what you wanted. They are not brilliant strategies by the way, they seem pretty basic to me.
"I'll let everyone else be the judge of your reasoning power. "
That's probably best because you obviously don't have the faculties to judge anything regarding Civ3.
"You're taking most of what I'm saying far too literally."
Hah! I am taking what you say as what you say. If you don't mean what you say, then start saying what you mean!
"What I'm proposing here is not the game exactly as I play it but rather general situations and scenarios that either I have encountered or can (and do) arise in Civ3. Why is that so difficult for you to see? It seems (yet once more) that you feel happier blaming my (apparent) shortcomings rather than admit I might have a point? "
You don't have a point. You are stuck in the CIV2 box and are afraid or too lazy to break out of it and master this much more complex game.
"The issue here is that sometimes it is not possible to just fight a little precise war for exactly one resource that you want. Other civs can get involved, the civ you attack may fight back more aggressively than you expect, you may not want to for diplomatic reasons (e.g. that Civ is trading a load of lux with you that you need). At least this is one aspect where Civ3 is not as entirely simplistic as you make it out to be. But, I'm fairly sure you'll skip right over this... "
Yes...sometimes things don't go according to plan. That is also the sign of a good game. A good game PLAYER will react to these unexpected situations and come out of them on top. But your postings are presenting these little scenarios you have cooked up as some sort of insurmountable indictment of the game. That is just plain rubbish. You worried about other civs attacking you if you try and fight a limited war for a resource? Then ally with all the civs against that one enemy. Sign mutual protection pacts with half of the civs on the map...each one adjacent to a civ you haven't signed the pact with.
Example:
You are the Americans and want to fight a limited (6-8 turn) war with Persia to get oil. You are worried the Russians will attack you if you do. The Russians are neighboured by the English. Sign a mutual protection pact with the English. If Russia then declares war on you, the English will declare war on Russia, forcing Russia to deal with their neighbour rather than bother you.
Almost any civ at war with you, unless you have just been a complete backstabbing bastard for the entire game to them, will make peace with you in 10 turns after war. You should be able to manage war weariness for 10 turns. If you are a Religious civ, just switch to Communism for the war period, since Religious civs only get anarchy for 1 turn. If you are not Religious, then make a lot of trades for luxuries with civs that are favourably inclined to you, make sure you have Universal Sufferage and Police Stations if possible, and cathedrals and colosseums if you do not, and every 2 turns of the war boost your luxuries slider up 10%. As cities still start to go into disorder, take their labourers down to no growth and use every spare for Entertainers.
I have sustained a 100 year war in the 19th century in a huge Democratic Empire against from 4-11 at war civs this way with mild enough war weariness that my core cities could still produce military units.
Will tech suffer and cash suffer? Yes. But that's what is nice about CIV3, you have to weigh trade offs. Build a cash reserve BEFORE you fight a war.
"No, actually more like; "How sad that there used to be many good winning strategies but now there's only a couple and they're both pretty lame. Ohhh.. that took me what, 3 games to master. Great." "
Obviously, you HAVEN'T mastered CIV3 yet. This is clearly evident of your posts.
"Once again, this isn't supposed to be Risk with resources. But I think sadly, in a way you've proved me right. Civ3 is too war-centric. "
Yep. That's right. That's why in my current game as Egypt on a huge map with 16 civs I am playing completely peaceful (it is 1700 and I have had a single 5 turn war with the Russians...and they started it). Yet I am in the lead in tech and culture, have all the strategic resources I need through trade, and have absorbed now 7 other civ cities through culture alone. The other civs are happy enough with me that I probably have my choice of space race victory or UN victory and certainly point victory.
This the game right after I played the Iroquois and kicked everyone's butt and could have conquered the world but due to real life time constraints had to finish up the game so I went space race at the last minute.
Yep...you're right...it's impossible to win peacefully. My game is just a hallucination isn't it?
"Did you notice how points per turn for World Peace have also been removed? There is no precedent for playing a peaceful society in Civ3. "
Other than winning through culture or diplomacy? Duh!
"I think it's actually the opposite; more underwhelming than overwhelming. "
Yeah..right. And 2 + 2 = 5.
"It is a lot of effort in the modern era, but the effort is mainly in moving settlers to clean up pollution and waiting for another 4 turns for your next advance. Certainly a lesson in patience anyway. "
Sure that's all it is when you are so ignorant of how to manage your diplomacy that you basically fall on your own sword with the UN wonder.
"I probably will. I think I'll play another game or two of Civ3 when the patch is released to see if that makes any difference."
It won't for you, since your main problem does not seem to be related to air interception bugs and the like.
What one or two distinct types of strategy? Given 6 different ways to win in CIV3 that must result in 6 different strategies almost defacto. I have played Civ3 games where I am the all conquering bringer of doom and woe. I am currently playing one where I am Mr. Nice...never start a war, and am absorbing cities culturally. In Civ2 it was always the SAME strategy over and over again. Blitz tech to tank and then go to Fundie and spy spy spy til your head explodes. Weeee!
Yeah..right. And 2 + 2 = 5.
That is the inherent nature of the entire CIV genre...to force the player to make tough decisions and to juggle priorities. You seem to have a problem with this. You have a problem with having to make tough decisions. May I suggest a chieftain level game on a huge map with 1 opposing CIV? Then you can operate fully free of those annoying decisions (er constraints) and can build your dream civ without any nasty interference from the game. I wish they had a zero enemy civ option for you...maybe they can patch that in.
But then again I am capable of more than one-dimensional thinking.
So now you have a problem with having to fight for things? If you want a non wargame play Sim City. And for someone who just brushed off the entire war aspect of the game you do some mighty loud whining about lack of certain war units. Once again, talking out of both sides of your mouth
My game is just a hallucination isn't it?
It is about doing what you need to do to get the things you need to get. Sometimes it is best to wheedle or beg for things. Other times to intimidate. And others to fight. You find this a design flaw? Your arguments become more and more spurious and non-sensical as this debate progresses. I often have quite an easy time getting the resources I need without fighting thank you very much. But then again I am capable of more than one-dimensional thinking.
You don't have a point.
Boo hoo! You can repair your reputation you know. Did it occur to you to make peace with everyone and lavish them with gifts BEFORE calling for a vote? Too complicated for you huh? Did it occur to you, since you say you gained the resources in border skirmishes, implying they were near to your border, to move your palace near those borders and build up culture and gain the cities and resources peacefully (maybe aided by espionage)? Did it occur to you to perhaps maneuver the civ with the resources into wars with other civs so that they are weakened and then intimidate them into giving you the cities and resources you needed?
Once again, talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Civ3's greatest strength is that it punishes one-dimensional thinking. You cannot just blitz science or blitz military. You have to set up...plan...maneuver...and think!
Yes....your posts make it clear you DON'T know how to play the game.
Yes...sometimes things don't go according to plan. That is also the sign of a good game. A good game PLAYER will react to these unexpected situations and come out of them on top. But your postings are presenting these little scenarios you have cooked up as some sort of insurmountable indictment of the game. That is just plain rubbish. You worried about other civs attacking you if you try and fight a limited war for a resource? Then ally with all the civs against that one enemy. Sign mutual protection pacts with half of the civs on the map...each one adjacent to a civ you haven't signed the pact with.
Boo hoo!
Example:
But your postings are presenting these little scenarios you have cooked up as some sort of insurmountable indictment of the game.
Yep. That's right. That's why in my current game as Egypt on a huge map with 16 civs I am playing completely peaceful (it is 1700 and I have had a single 5 turn war with the Russians...and they started it). Yet I am in the lead in tech and culture, have all the strategic resources I need through trade, and have absorbed now 7 other civ cities through culture alone. The other civs are happy enough with me that I probably have my choice of space race victory or UN victory and certainly point victory.
That is just plain rubbish.
All of the quotes I've used to answer your points above are things you've posted as counter-arguments to me.
Now you run along and fun arguing with yourself there Devin. Take your rude and condescending attitude elsewhere, because I don't care for it.
"All of the quotes I've used to answer your points above are things you've posted as counter-arguments to me.
Now you run along and fun arguing with yourself there Devin. Take your rude and condescending attitude elsewhere, because I don't care for it."
Ah yes...the last refuge of someone who has run out of good points to make. Vuh vye!
For your information...I'm staying. You can feel free to ignore my posts or can run along back to the CIV2 boards where you can rejoice in the rapture of gaming that is CIV2.
While debating the now defunct rid102, I considered the whole strategic resource issue and his contention that this somehow limited a player's option.
To this I have two points.
First, he makes the statement that it is unbelievable for a civ to be able to build spaceships because it has access to oil, aluminum, and rubber but unable to build railroads due to lack of coal. I agree that it is unbelievable, but one has to wonder what the solution to this problem is. Is it to require coal to build spaceships? What about iron? You probably need iron for spaceships too. So the solution to this particular problem is simply to require civs to have access to coal and iron along with the other 3 resources in order to construct a spaceship.
The problem is that this solution, while addressing his believability problem, exacerbates his other problem with strategic resources....the constraint of having to get them.
So on the one hand rid 102 is decrying the fact that you can build a spaceship without coal, the solution of which is to require coal to build a spaceship, and on the other hand, he is decrying the effort it takes to have to gain these resources (or the constraints it places on him to have to get them).
Which is it? Do you want more believable strategic resources or none at all?
Second, his argument that strategic resources constrain the game, forcing it into narrow corridors of play is preposterous.
Let's look for a moment at CIV2. What are the possible at start variations in CIV2 that affect the play of the game? I can think of only one....starting location. That's it. Starting location is the ONLY determinant factor present at the start of the CIV2 game that varies from game to game. This is why CIV2 became boring. I can basically categorize starting locations in CIV2 into a few broad categories:
1. Start on a small island
2. Start on a decent sized island by yourself
3. Start on a large continent with neighbours with good terrain in the middle of the map (i.e. near the equator)
4. Start on a large continent with neighbours with bad terrain in the middle of the map (i.e. near the equator)
5. Same as #3 but near a pole
6. Same as #4 but near a pole
That's about it. There are basically 6 game paths in CIV2 and you are doomed to repeat the same 6 games over and over again.
Now let's lok at CIV3.
First, you have all of the 6 criteria listed above. Add to that the following:
1. Which strategic resources are nearby (this present a huge combination of possible variations just on its own....do you have iron or horses? That affects the early game quite a bit. Do you have access to the terrain types that oil comes into? If not, then that is going to affect your end game. No desert access? Saltpeter may be a problem). Playing in the ancient world without iron is a big BIG difference than playing with iron. Same with horses.
2. Which civ do you choose to play? Unlike civ2, where one civ was as good as another, now the choice of civ is extremely important as the Egyptians play very very differently from the Romans.
3. Which civs are your neighbours? Again a HUGE variation of possible neighbours, especially is you play the 16 civ huge map game. Are the Romans near you with access to iron? Watch out! The legions are a-comin! Are the Babylonians near you? Be prepared to fight their culture. Germany next door? You might have some breathing room until panzers.
Now take all 3 of the above and matrix them. Are the Romans your neighbour? That's one type of game. But do they have iron? Romans with iron are one type of game....Romans without iron are another. The Egyptians are neighbours? Do they have horses? If not...so much for their war chariots.
If one were to matrix the possible combinations of the 6 geographical starting location types with the 16 civs with the resources one would arrive at literally MILLIONS of potential combinations. This means that it is VERY unlikely that a given game of CIV2 is ever going to feel a lot like any other game of CIV3.
So...rather than viewing things like strategic resources as constraints, as rid 102 does, I view them as part of a means to allow the game to have such a wide variety of strategic variability and play variability that it is unlikely I will ever get tired of CIV3.
Hi Cutlerd,
I'd just like to say that you make some excellent points about the potential for variation in the game. The possible placement of resources+Civ you pick+who is your neighbour does give the game a MASSIVE replayability factor, but you forgot one thing: what type of victory you wish to achieve. By adding 2 new ways to win (culture and diplomacy) as well as improving the world conquest victory, you just have so many more ways to play the game!!! This will effect even how you begin your games, as well as influencing your strategy mid to late game!!
Coupled with the VASTLY improved AI (which actually makes diplomacy worthwile), this game is just an order of magnitude better than it's predecessors.
Thats not to say that there are NO problems with the game, but most of these are minor issues which will either be solved by future patches or are not seriously hampering game-play.
The thing about people like Rid102 is that no attempts to improve the game will satisfy them, and they seem to have nothing better to do than complain!! Like you said, if they hate the game so much they should go back to Civ2 or, better yet, SimCity!!!
Great point Aussie Lurker about the new victory conditions adding even more variability to the game. Although I certainly enjoy all styles of Civ play, from militaristic world smashing to intricate perfectionist civ building, my preferred style of play is civ building punctuated by warfare.
I find it quite awesome that, in Civ3, I can build a truly nice, perfectionist civ and get tangible results from it. Hell, I can actually take over the world without firing a shot. If McDonalds and Pepsi can do it....why can't I?
I am very much enjoying my current game where I have vowed to be Mr. Lawful Good and not start a war. Believe me...it is tempting to go and smash those weak neighbours of mine, but that temptation recedes when I see that 7 cities of my rivals (I won't say enemies since we have never fought a war) have defected to me....and a few of them were large cities in the heartland of the enemy.
My challenge now is to see just how far my culture can truly spread in a 16 civ game on a huge map.
And from my vantage point around 1700AD, I have the luxury, technically, of going for a diplomatic win (which I could probably pull off....all but one of the civs likes me, though that could change), going for the space win (I am ahead in tech by between 3-6 advances), going for the point win (I am ahead in that by a few hundred), or should I decide to break my Lawful Good role I can go for domination. That's more options than I ever had in Civ2.
The thing about people like Rid102 is that no attempts to improve the game will satisfy them, and they seem to have nothing better to do than complain!!
I am just disappointed that a lot was changed rather than directly improved. The emphasis here being on "attempts", I think...
Civ2 satisfied me over Civ1 (read back on the posts and you'll see this was the converse for the other guy), why do you feel as though you need to jump on the judgemental bandwagon?
There seems to be an inordinate amount of persecution occuring on these boards against anyone who has anything critical to say of Civ3... yes, a lot has been added to the game but many of those things are double-edged swords, and not just in my eyes but also in the eyes of others too...
"There seems to be an inordinate amount of persecution occuring on these boards against anyone who has anything critical to say of Civ3... yes, a lot has been added to the game but many of those things are double-edged swords, and not just in my eyes but also in the eyes of others too... "
Well first, coming to a CIV3 forum and saying the game basically stinks and that you are going back to playing CIV2 is non-productive, non-constructive, and really not what CIV3 players want or need to hear. That does NOT mean all posts have to be love fests, but there is a difference between someone with constructive criticisms to post in the hopes that CIV3 will be made better thereby and someone who basically is a CIV2 partisan and will never be happy and is basically just trolling for a fight.
Second, I got on you because your arguments were contradictory and illogical IMO, and that was a sure sign that you are posting with a chip on your shoulder and an unmitigatable bias against CIV3, and that to me is the definition of "trolling".
Third, it pisses me off when someone condemns a game with a mantle of knowing the game authoritatively and then, by way of his examples, illustrates that he has no idea how to master the various depths and complexities of the game. This leads me to believe that you are an incompetant player (which for the record I don't think you are) or that you basically have, once again, gone into CIV3 with CIV2 blinders on and will tend to dislike anything CIV3 has to offer if it deviates in any way from CIV2. The problems and obstacles you presented in your posts are an inherent part of the game and are over-come-able with good play. The fact that you were unable to smacks of someone who basically tried the game, played it like they played their CIV2 game, got trounced, got huffy, and decided to condemn the game.
I can show you or you can see for yourself many MANY posts in the CIV3 forums critical of CIV3 that did not get trounced on and where the poster was not, as you term it "persecuted". Given that, maybe you should look to what it was in your posts that differentiated you from those people who have criticized CIv3 and not been "persecuted".
"I've told you already I'm not getting drawn into a flame war with you (which seems to be what you're after)."
No flame war necessary. You pondered publicly why you were being "persecuted", and as someone you surely had in mind when you made that statement, I chose to try and enlighten you as to the reason why.
Tweet
Comment