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
1. To those that say spearmen are actually guerillas with modern weapons a la the Northern Alliance, that could work except for one thing. The Aztecs I am playing against don't even have gunpowder. How would they be able to have these sort of weapons without having any knowledge of gunpowder, or any prerequisite knowledge?
2. What is the point of researching new units if they lose to old ones? The AI is supposed to be challenging, so should it now be able to keep up with me in technology? In Civ 2, the civs that only had pikemen and knights were trampled by other civs with cavalry and artillery. It's just survival of the fittest. To fix the problem of there only being 3 AI and a human at the end of the game, they should've made it so that the AI can keep up with the human a little better. An AI that has crappy units shouldn't win against my modern army.
3. I have nothing against a weak unit winning because of terrain modifiers though. I lost a cavalry attacking knights in the jungle and I didn't mind. It makes sense that the knights knew the terrain and could've slaughtered my cavalry. What doesn't make sense is that my fortified cavalry defending a town were somehow slaughtered by longbowmen. As for the idea of a powder explosion, that should be considered a "random combat event" and specifically told to the player. It should have a higher chance of occuring the further away you get, but shouldn't be above 35-40% chance of occuring.
4. Nobody has told me how the riflemen defending a size 12 city managed to die to an attacking knight.
Also, does anyone have any ideas on what other paths I could use to capture the city? Combat and trying to buy the city haven't worked.
-even in civ2, it was considered poor strategy to use cavalry as defenders.
-The modern units still have an edge over the older ones, it's just a lesser edge.
-There's no need for some in-game simulation of gunpowder exchange. Think of it as a turn lasting for at least a year and the units being armys. In the course of their combat some fo the old guys get a few guns from swiping them. It's at least as realistic as phalanxes marching around in the modern era...
Originally posted by calefein
Can we for a moment consider what would happen if your solution to the "problem" was
implemented and firepower was brought back from the dead. This would place a point
where a tech advance would put you vastly superior to everyone else.
This would be more realistic, but would it make for a more fun game? I think not. Players
would scramble up the tech tree to get to gunpowder, and afterwards they could slack of
tech wise because of the significant bonus of their new troops over their counterparts.
If the AI got gunpowder before you, you would try to get it at all costs knowing that your
troops had little chance of holding up. You would throw as much money as needed to
either bribe or steal it out of them. I hope I’m not wasting my breath here and you can at
least see where I'm coming from.
You have precisely described the fatal combat flaw of Sid M.'s Alpha Centauri only it's not a weapon tech it's a tech that allows for a choper unit chassis that moves 10 and can attacks as many times in a turn as it has moves. If you get this a few techs ahead of a nearby opponent you can effectively build a moderate force of them a clean you opponent out before he gets the tech or even has time to build his own choppers. I don't think it would be much different if tanks were as powerful as some here would like them to be. All in all it means poor gameplay.
Given that Firaxis made SMAC, and Firaxis makes CIV3, I have to give them credit for not making the same mistake twice.
"This solution sounds more the end game of a Real-Time Strategy game.
Build a bunch of units and throw them at the computer until it dies. Rinse and repeat. Hey, isn't that taboo among this crowd?
If your strategy is to bombard cities until every defending unit is drooling teeth, a tech advantage would be moot. You could capture such cities with inferior equipment as long as the defenders only had one hit point (Under the current system.) No wonder you haven't been having any problems.
Shouldn't I be able to sweep in against a weak foe and capture the city relatively intact, and save the artillery for cities belonging to my equals and superiors? Why do I need to go all out against such a primitive force? What if that big force is needed elsewhere, but at the same time I need to quickly and easily impress some extra cities into my fold, or deal with a intellectual midget of a civ on my other flank? I guess I'm screwed since the only way to win is throw 100 units at the computer until it dies.
And the "tactics" you mentioned are basically common sense when playing the game. Given considerations, not intricate planning's. "
Do you honestly think I can bombard a city full of modern infantry to 1 health with capapults?
Do you propose that the alternative is to build a few tanks and crush every other civ in the world?
I am just helping someone who explicitely asked for some advice on how to capture cities. Are you saying that everybody should keep their mouth shut because these tips are "common sense"?
Do you think I can get 300 units without any careful planning, building and work when playing on Monarch level by the year 1400?
Originally posted by Monoriu
Do you honestly think I can bombard a city full of modern infantry to 1 health with capapults?
Do you propose that the alternative is to build a few tanks and crush every other civ in the world?
I am just helping someone who explicitely asked for some advice on how to capture cities. Are you saying that everybody should keep their mouth shut because these tips are "common sense"?
Do you think I can get 300 units without any careful planning, building and work when playing on Monarch level by the year 1400?
Well. How many catapults do you have, and how many infantry do they have? I've frequently seen single AI catapults hurt my fortified-in-a-city modern units. With equal occurrence have I seen swordsmen score hits against my elite defenders. Remember, with the throw-rocks-at-a-city-until-every-building-falls-down strategy it doesn’t make as much difference what unit is used to attack, since all it needs is one hit. Therefore it stands to reason if there had been enough of them there would have been a mess of trouble. “Enough” varying from case to case. In my case, the archaic equivalents of what you had previously listed attacking an average city of mine would have been more than enough. Way more.
If you have the infrastructure to build a large amount of units then you must also have at least a modest research department. As such I doubt you'd be that far behind in research anyway.
If you lack said infrastructure, for which to facilitate at least average research, then you would be losing for a different reason entirely. Unlike research, the game is quite unforgiving for players who fall behind in domestic development. As it should be.
Or, in the case of the situation you are speaking of, you yourself are in the industrial/modern age, but propose using catapults instead of modern artillery? In that case yes, you probably still could win. If you had the necessary industrial output you could crank out the necessary amount of units and overwhelm the enemy. After all, the modern units were nerfed to keep you from losing if you had no resources. It would come down to the civ who could put out more units. “Quantity is it’s own type of quality,” after all. Since the AI isn't really prone to creating quite so many units it's only a matter of time before they are beaten (Barring any other types of mistakes.) And don’t tell me solution to that is having the AI try to create 300 units of it’s own.
*Imagines waiting for 2000-4500 units to finish moving* >_<
I made it abundantly clear that enemy civs on an equal footing should require some thought to defeat. That’s where I want the challenge to be. Against my contemporaries. When it comes to easy wins I am strictly speaking of hapless civs that are backwards and out of date. You'd still need more than "a few tanks," even with the changes I would like to see happen. No, I don't want to build five or so units and crush every enemy no matter how they stack up in the rankings.
If someone is unaware of basic considerations for the game then by all means, enlighten them. However, the general vibes I've been getting from the "It's fine" group is that of vaunting condescension (GP, I'm looking in your direction ) who think everyone on my side of this argument are 100lb weaklings who don't know how to play the game. So, when you offer an obvious (Albeit specious; Yes it works but I don’t think it should be necessary against an inferior opponent) answer it is all the more irksome. No offense intended.
And when I spoke of “intricate handlings” I was talking about military planning, not overall strategy.
Can we for a moment consider what would happen if your solution to the "problem" was
implemented and firepower was brought back from the dead. This would place a point
where a tech advance would put you vastly superior to everyone else.
Yeah, like the invention of siege weapons (catapults) heavy cavalry, gunpowder, flight, and armored warfare. Kinda like real life.
This would be more realistic, but would it make for a more fun game? I think not. Players
would scramble up the tech tree to get to gunpowder,
Well no $hit!
and afterwards they could slack of tech wise because of the significant bonus of their new troops over their counterparts.
Huh? Slack off? There is always another advantage to be found. Just because you invented gunpowder doesn't mean you are gonna ride that gravy train when you opponent develops flight.
If the AI got gunpowder before you, you would try to get it at all costs knowing that your troops had little chance of holding up.
Yeah like that never happened. Freaking duh dude, why do you think everyone developed gunpowder units? And you can beat gunpowder units with non-gunpowder units, but not one on one. It'll take two...
Should a knight be able to kill a cavalry unit just because
he was defending? Well yes because otherwise you would have trampled the AI because
of gunpowder, the game's combat system is designed to reward players for using units the
way the designers intended.
This is just nonsensical...
The knight is an offensive unit, so is the cavalry, it's more
advanced but the cavalry was defending, you are penalized for using an offensive unit to
defend a city, and for only using one (two etc.).
Sigh...a cavalry unit should not lose to longbowman. He didn't complain that an offensive unit lost to a defensive unit. He complained a modern unit lost to a medeival one. He complained because a unit that costs massive research and two resources lost to a unit that requires none of that. He didn't require realism, he required reasonableness...
The bonus for superior tech in this game
is a bonus it's significant, but not so great as to lessen everything else.
It's a step backward and in the wrong direction, not to mention into an alternate reality...
How about this - fix the combat, but now most of the civs can match your research power or best it - and the one or two that just can't make the cut are run down. Would that be acceptable? Any unfairness of a Tank always beating a Knight is fairly moot if such a scenario is only possible against two out of group of 7-15 civs. And if you're on the receiving end it means you're really, really awful at the game.
While I'm on this subject, are all of the AI civs equal in intelligence? If so, that's pretty lame. A healthy mix is necessary for proper flavor. There should be randomized (Or better - customizable!) intelligence for each individual AI civ.
And yes, even though I'm a longtime subscriber to the "Common Sense Technique" I still run into wacky results far too often for my tastes.
Leave combat as is (but fix all bugs, like air superiority).
Add/subtract a point or two of attack or defence here or there.
Modern Tanks killing warriors 99% of the time.
Battleships killing galleys 99% of the time.
A modern age power over-running a stone age power with a 30 unit army within 10 turns.
I cannot accept:
I have cavalry, you only have musketeers, I make 20 cavalry and wipe out 10 of your cities in 5 turns.
Playing as Deity level, I am in the middle ages, and the AI is in industrial age. AI makes a bunch of cavalry and overrun my empire in no time. I counter-attack with longbowmen when the AI makes the tactical mistake of fortifying a city with cavalry and I still have zip chance.
A modern age power making 3 modern tanks and over-run a stone age power (and you complain when it doesn't).
People complain that combat is broken when they use the units carelessly (cavalry fortied in city example).
This kind of assertion needs to be better backed up with facts. That kind of claim was the norm in the old days, but we are more scientific nowadays from all the OCC and Oedo stuff. You need to have more than a feeling. Read the Civ2 Strategy forum to see how well people understand the game nowadays...
Hmmm yes I must admit that such research is convincing... maybe it is my own bias I am seeing in the game after all. Interesting reading, even if the subject is a bit dated. Thanks GP.
On Civ2 deity there is no combat advantage for the AI (except barbs).
2 years of jail for Grim Legacy.
:P
So combat was the same regardless of playing Chieftain or Deity? Whaa... never thought it would be like that. Then again -I never played anything else but Deity.
From glancing over the Civ2 doc, I didn't notice any test of the particular last-rifleman in the city situation I spoke about. However, even if I was wrong in that situation, it isn't very relevant anymore. We should check how this works in Civ3 instead.
GP directed me here to answer some of the combat issues. Please, stop flinging the insults for a minute! I didn't bother to read the first 9 pages, just number 10.
The only last defender bonus in CivII is the last city defender of your only city. This fellow, even a defense=0 unit, is immune to barbarian attack. The AI can still kill him, tho. Two caveats that may or may not matter:
1) Only tested with the capitol - not in a second city after the first city got razed.
2) Not tested in capitol after all other settled cities were lost.
In other words, the bonus might possibly vanish after a second city is settled, regardless of what happens in the meantime.
The primary defender of a stack is the one best able to defend against that particular attacker. The lone pikeman among a pile of legions, archers, and phalanx will be the one to defend against a chariot attack. An AEGIS will defend against a cruise missile, even with veteran battleships in the stack. Those battleships will defend if the attacker is a sub, etc etc etc.
There is NO KNOWN AI combat advantage based on difficulty level. Barbarians do have a difficulty level modified attack strength, however. This does not exclude the possibility, but it looks extremely unlikely.
Regardin Civ3:
Gameplay is foremost in the structure of how it works. I don't have Civ3 yet so I can only speak from what I've read in posts. I am a fan of firepower, but I suspect the removal of this factor was done for one simple reason -
TO FORCE THE PLAYER TO USE MORE STRATEGY WHEN BATTLING!
Should archers kill cavalry in the field? No! But they will if the cavalry is not used as intended. The addition of bombardment, retreat, and other elements simplify the combat a bit (too much?), but force you to play with multiple unit types and a strategic approach. I think most of the "bugs" or complaints are simply people who haven't adjusted to the new system. In a year you'll read your own post and laugh that you were so frustrated with what will then seem so obvious.
The first President of the first Apolyton Democracy Game (CivII, that is)
The gift of speech is given to many,
intelligence to few.
If someone is unaware of basic considerations for the game then by all means, enlighten them. However, the general vibes I've been getting from the "It's fine" group is that of vaunting condescension (GP, I'm looking in your direction ) who think everyone on my side of this argument are 100lb weaklings who don't know how to play the game. So, when you offer an obvious (Albeit specious; Yes it works but I don’t think it should be necessary against an inferior opponent) answer it is all the more irksome. No offense intended.
And when I spoke of “intricate handlings” I was talking about military planning, not overall strategy.
Moi? How dare you accuse me of that! Now drop and give me 20! You 100lb, maggot, you!!
But one serious observation. Most of the complainers about the new combat system are complaining because of losing units. Oh very occasionally one of them will say that they don't want it to work the otjher way...or will claim not to mind losing units if evenly matched. But the general squeeling is very much about losing battles.
Originally posted by Setsuna
How about this - fix the combat, but now most of the civs can match your research power or best it - and the one or two that just can't make the cut are run down. Would that be acceptable? Any unfairness of a Tank always beating a Knight is fairly moot if such a scenario is only possible against two out of group of 7-15 civs. And if you're on the receiving end it means you're really, really awful at the game.
While I'm on this subject, are all of the AI civs equal in intelligence? If so, that's pretty lame. A healthy mix is necessary for proper flavor. There should be randomized (Or better - customizable!) intelligence for each individual AI civ.
And yes, even though I'm a longtime subscriber to the "Common Sense Technique" I still run into wacky results far too often for my tastes.
Why not just have the game give science techs out. No research. just you get techs as time goes on. Seriously...
The judge is coming...
) who think everyone on my side of this argument are 100lb weaklings who don't know how to play the game. So, when you offer an obvious (Albeit specious; Yes it works but I don’t think it should be necessary against an inferior opponent) answer it is all the more irksome. No offense intended. 
so I can only speak from what I've read in posts. I am a fan of firepower, but I suspect the removal of this factor was done for one simple reason - 
How dare you accuse me of that! 
Now drop and give me 20! 
You 100lb, maggot, you!! 
Tweet
Comment