Announcement

**JosefGiven** · January 18, 2001, 16:01

Nice one! This is a good collection of all the strong points of the various civs.

I can't agree that the underwater cities in CtP were good. I like to see the seas and oceans as vast, limiting borders that hem the player in, and give him/her a sense of strategic security, too. Take these borders away, and the planet becomes somehow featureless. Is this a fair comment?

Civilization II:

quote:

Great Wonder Movies (Real Video beats crappy CGI any day)

EnochF Yes! I totally agree, but I was a bit afraid to say it!

CtP:

quote:

A Few Good Overlooked Technologies (Geometry, Quantum Physics, Alchemy, Ballistics, Electrification, Bureaucracy, Fuel Cells, Nationalism, Pharmaceuticals, etc.)

Yes, again, but it contained some dodgy futuristic concepts, too...

------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

**Ralf** · January 18, 2001, 16:39

About Alpha Centauri and Call to Power:

quote:

Originally posted by EnochF on 01-18-2001 02:46 PM[*]Good Pathfinding

What?
Have you ever looked at how mayor-controlled settlers move around? Thats "good pathfinding" in your eyes?

AI unit-pathfinding is per definition ALWAYS bad in Civ-type games; partly as a consequence of the general AI-complexity of the game, and partly also as a result of using random computer-generated maps. Its really not something that is "bad" in one civ-game, and "good" in another. Thats all in your imagination, i believe.

My biggest hope is that Firaxis can bypass the built-in unit-pathfinding problems; at least somewhat, by abandon the idea of moving around stupid settlers in order to found AI-cities and develop AI city-areas.
Below topic deals with an alternative method to those city-placements (never mind the stupid title - read on about more effective AI city-placements instead): Should the map-generator be scrapped?

**EnochF** · January 18, 2001, 17:08

JosefGiven:

Another one, is Call to Power had "Shipbuilding," which I thought was more precise than Civ II's rather vague "Seafaring." For the most part, CTP's tech tree sucked. It had weird advances like "Age of Reason" and "Industrial Revolution" and "Drama" (that might be CTP2, actually). But mixed in there were some good ones. "Printing Press" was another one I liked.

Agreed about the Call to Power future techs. I've given future tech a lot of thought, and I used to be an advocate for its implementation in Civ 3, to the point where the late game would include colonization of the Moon and Mars. But I've changed my mind about that, mostly because, even among people who like future tech, no one can agree which future tech is too silly to include. Call to Power and CTP2 had dumb things like "Nano-Assembly" and "Fluid Breathing," and stupid stupid units like the Plasmatica and the Cyber Ninja. Yech. But on the other hand, I liked "Asteroid Mining" and "Neural Interface" and the Star Tower, and some people thought those were just as silly as the Plasmatica.

So, my new position on future tech is this: Give the player the ability to design lots of new technologies, new city improvements (complete with new effects), new wonders, underwater cities, bridges across ocean tiles, space cities, maybe even colonization of the moon, but don't include any of it in the standard game. Let every player design his/her own perfect future tech system, complete with whatever units or techs they think are appropriate. In order for that to happen, they'll need unlimited slots for new techs, units, improvements, and stuff.

Ralf:

Oops. That's not what I meant by pathfinding. I meant, when you tell a unit to "Go To" a city, it actually goes there, and it knows how to use roads and railroads to get there quicker. In Civ II and even Test of Time, units wander around aimlessly when you try to get them to automatically go to a city. But the feature was correctly implemented in SMAC and CTP.

I wouldn't trust a computer AI to run my cities or control my settlers. That's what micromanagement is for.

**Grandpa Troll** · January 18, 2001, 19:19

(Reaching into my small,shallow....barely filled pockets....AAHHH.HAH!!..I do have "2-Cents" to give)

Seriously....I am aa World Empire Builder..perhaps Tantamount to making U.S. Foreign Bases..if case of War..or needed intervention of Economic sanctions/Aid..or having a close Direct support of a Friendly Nation...at any rate..i do a lot of exploring..finding ruins..getting Gold, Tech, Units and Oh Yes the very valuable cities to either settle or disband and move..but if say I am on A Gigantic Map..then it takes forever to move closer to my land..or Kingdom..I wish we could somehow maybe pay a small Fee..and say he catch a bus or something like that..at any rate..be able to go to a city within your region..instead of moving 50+ turns..just a thought..

One thing I did like about Call To Power was when someone demanded you stop tresspassing..if you agreed..then you unit would be sent home..QUICKLY!!(Instantaenously).but in Call To Power 2..you have to move and then it takes forever to get back home..

Just a thought..or request..

Have a great day..looking foreward to Civ III...

Later

Troll..

**Cannes** · January 18, 2001, 19:32

If "industrial revolution" was a weird tech in CTP the how did "Industrialization" fit into the civ2 tech tree? (I don't remember if civ had a similar)

Fluid breathing is hardly a future tech since it has already been invented! I haven't played CTP2 so I don't know what context it is in, so I can only guess... If they mean inventing a device so you can breathe like a fish, then it is of course debatable, but if it's just engineering a fluid that we can breathe then it has been here quite a while! Did you ever see the Abyss? Remember the scene where they "drowned" Ed Harris in a pink fluid. That was not a trick! They actually flodded his lungs with that stuff! And his body was supplied with the oxygen it needed through that fluid...

**lago** · January 18, 2001, 19:41

Excellent Call To Power Feature: Public Works

Let Settlers do what they do best, creating new cities. Why should you take a hit in population in order to build a road- & mine-building unit?

**EnochF** · January 18, 2001, 21:09

Iago:

Polite disagreement.
I left Public Works out for a reason. If Civ 3 goes with that system, I won't consider it the end of the world or anything, but I'd hate to lose the flexibility of the Civ 2 Engineer system.

Cannes:

See, this is what I'm talking about. I think Fluid Breathing is silly, you don't. (Although it did add an element of plausibility to David Brin's Startide Rising. He had intelligent dolphins and humans living together, breathing "oxywater.") I remember getting into the strangest arguments on this message board whenever the subject of future tech came up. For some reason, Harel and I got into a war of words about nuclear fusion... The only solution I can see is to give every player enough slots and customizability to write their own future tech tree.

**Koyaanisqatsi** · January 18, 2001, 21:12

quote:

Originally posted by EnochF on 01-18-2001 08:09 PM
If Civ 3 goes with that system, I won't consider it the end of the world or anything, but I'd hate to lose the flexibility of the Civ 2 Engineer system.

Actually, it's funny, the reason I didn't like PW is that it was too slick. My PW points would just silently build up, and without settlers asking for instructions every so often, I'd forget to build up my infrastructure...

**EnochF** · January 18, 2001, 21:21

Oh, er, and about Industrial Revolution. I suppose it's debatable exactly what is and what is not a "tech advance." It's clear that such advances, at least in Civ 2, were not always technologies. "Mysticism," "Polytheism," "Invention," "Industrialization," "Miniaturization," and "Leadership" were all a bit vague. But they were all, in some way or another, concepts. They were concepts that encapsulated the evolution of philosophies and technologies of human society.

So, when Call to Power began confusing concepts with events, it ended up feeling incongruous. "Age of Reason" isn't a concept; it's a period of time. Once the "Age of Reason" is over, it's over. The same would be true of the Renaissance, or the Industrial Revolution, or the Reformation.

The kinds of advances that really bug me are:

1. Events (e.g., Agricultural Revolution)
2. Old technologies with "advanced" or "modern" in front of them (e.g., Advanced Flight, or Modern Medicine)
3. Vague advances (e.g., Leadership, Tactics, Religion, etc.)

I can put up with a handful of #3, at least in the interests of tying military units and Wonders to specific technologies. I put up with it in Civ 2 because it just "felt right" most of the time. I can even maybe put up with even one or two #2. But #1 just grates on my nerves.

(blah blah blah blah blah, I'm a talkative guy...)

**MrFun** · January 18, 2001, 21:34

What Civilization I and Civilization II did wrong:

1) allocated military maintenance costs to each city rather than entire civilization - ridiculous that it takes longer and longer to build each successive military unit - too difficult to maintain an actual mass military force for war

What Call to Power and Call to Power II did right:

1) allocated military maintenance costs to the entire civilization rather than each city - made for a much more realistic level of military force and units are easier to produce while you still have time to utilize them

I believe this aspect is very important for peace-keeping players as well as war-mongering players.

**lago** · January 18, 2001, 23:14

MrFun, I agree completely. That city by city maintenance is a pain in the butt.

The Public Works budget is still a simpler way to handle infrastructure things, eliminating a lot of micromanagement. It doesn't preclude having separate units that can do some of the same things, such as Combat Engineers who could build Roads & Fortresses, etc.

But I don't see why this should be handled by Settlers. You can build armies by the hundreds and never once lose population, but if you want to create one unit to build roads and dig mines, you take a loss. That's silly.

**Koyaanisqatsi** · January 18, 2001, 23:24

quote:

Originally posted by lago on 01-18-2001 10:14 PM
But I don't see why this should be handled by Settlers. You can build armies by the hundreds and never once lose population, but if you want to create one unit to build roads and dig mines, you take a loss. That's silly.

Oh, definitely. I like how SMAC handled it with formers and colony pods.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 19, 2001, 01:54

I know you don't like CGI, but SMAC's Wonder Movies blew Civ2's out of the ****ing water!

**Tiberius** · January 19, 2001, 02:33

EnochF, please add the CityView to Civ I. It was great in Civ but completely sucks in Civ2. Otherwise nice list and good idea!

I also like more settlers/engineers than PW. Making TIs with PW is so boring. The problem with engineers is the micromanagement nightmare in the endgame. I think SMAC's colony pods and formers handled better the problem. Hopefully Firaxis will do one more step ahead (but can we dream to a perfect autosettler ? )

[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited January 19, 2001).]

Announcement

What They Did Right (Civ/Civ2/SMAC/TOT/CTP/CTP2)

What They Did Right (Civ/Civ2/SMAC/TOT/CTP/CTP2)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment