c165# CIV3: WORST FEARS COME TRUE!

[KhanMan]

Might I remind people that CtP I implimented more-than-7-civs, and look how popular that game is. Anyone who is desperate to play against 25 opponents at once is welcome to try to get it to work, but, Activision, unlike Firaxis, doesn't believe in making playable products.

As for multiplayer games, while it would be nice to see a 10 player game, the turns would take slightly longer than PBEM, and the chances of a continue, much less a finish, are astronomical.

The choices at the moment are:
CtP I and II
(extremely buggy)
SMAC
(sci-fi, not civ)
and MGE-ToT
(nice, but outdated)

Firaxis is offering us another choice, and I, for one, won't hang them out to dry because a preliminary report scares someone.

Regards,
KhanMan of Tuatha Tribe
aka Prince Edward I of Machiavellia www.machiavellia.com

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 05-10-2001 09:53 AM Did anyone notice how Sid hasnt said ONE THING about ctp??? [...] Sid, instead of looking at what went wrong in the civ2 improvement, completely IGNORES the game!

Good! Besides, I think they have analyzed what went wrong in CTP/CTP-2 - it just that they have not done it publicly. Why should they?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 12, 2001).]

[Theben]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 05-09-2001 08:19 PMI have nothing against that awesome F-15 unit graphic. I just would be happier with some info about how are they actually going to deal with aerial combat, which was one of the biggest flaws of Civ2.

Good point, and one that has bothered me as of late. They really haven't given us any real information on how aerial, naval, and land combat will work. I REALLY hope not to have any of those "hanging bombers" anymore, but would like to see them be able to disable or destroy railroads & city structures/ certain tile improvements. Also how will stacks work, will there be an overhauled combat system (i.e., LASS, CLAS-D, or CITV), unhappiness due to unit deaths, unit commands (what, how many, how do they work), will there be structure damage (as opposed to always destroyed), unit deaths reduce population- or perhaps loss of "bushels" that reflect growth, etc.

However, the recent update has IMHO been the 1st real information given to us, and it looks promising. I especially like how certain specials "appear" on the map after you get the technology that makes them valuable. Beyond the obvious, this means that your "great" starting position may not be so great later in the game, and vice-versa. So you may never be secure in your lofty position as world leader, nor stuck to the bottom of the ladder if the early years don't bode well. Tip o' the hat to Firaxis for including this! The interaction between diplomacy, trade, and warfare looks as though it's taking shape. If they get espionage right that alone should be enough reason to get the game.

BTW Fiera: not to spoil your parade, but that last update? Colonies, expanding borders, resource trading, and resources appearing on the map after certain techs researched? Look in the List and you'll find suggestions matching these- in some cases unchanged from the original suggestion!

[Mister Pleasant]

Russian King:

I'll go so far as to say that CTP2 could have been THE Civ game (until Civ3 is released - hard to judge a product that is not out yet!), but the gameplay was FUBAR. The imbalances were correctable, but the AI never played well, and diplomacy was little more than a wibdow disconnected from the game mechanics. If you found a way to fix these problems, please email instructions to me immediately.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I can't imagine that Sid Meier could legally mention the CTP franchise. After all, they had to fight Activision tooth and nail just to get the Civilization name back. Any mention of the other's game, especially if it could be interpreted as being in any way confrontational, would land Firaxis back in the fightroom with Activision.

And from what I played of CTP1, there's very little you could say about it that was nice when you consider how good Civ2 was. Admittedly I didn't play it for more than three days, and also there weren't any patches available when I did, so I'll admit my opinion is just an opinion and not fact.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is a great game. In terms of gameplay, it takes Civ2 elements and makes them much more systematic and much more logical. It has a detailed and mature government interface (Social Engineering). It has an unsurpassed unit customization interface (Workshop). The morale ratings are important and (in the case of alien lifeforms) uniquely special.

In terms of plot and realism, it is far more mature than the projected future I encountered in CTP (Nanite Defuser?!). SMAC's future is based on feasible and mooted scientific projections; just the other day I came across an article in the New Scientist explaining the theory behind the Space Elevator, and my reaction was "wow - that was in SMAC... so it really DOES make sense".

I haven't played CTP2 so I'm not qualified to make any sort of comparison, but I still say you are gravely mistaken if you feel SMAC was a game without depth. Even a quick go on multiplayer, or a quick skim through Vel's Strat Guide, will show you how many different ways you could play the game, all of them rewarding.

Hopefully, Civ3 will take the technical/strategy of SMAC and not regress from it, since I view that as being largely unsurpassed. The main difficulty with SMAC lay in the Scenario maker, which frankly didn't have the Earth variety/setting/familiarity of Civ2's. I say that if Civ3 can keep SMAC's technical edge, and bring back tools to make familiar scenarios, it should be worthwhile as an update to the genre.

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-10-2001 07:40 PM Russian King, As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

Reasons for CTP being better:
1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square
This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one.
Bombard/ranged-This made some realism
2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well.
3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible.
4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc)
5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!!
6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me.
7. Not the best reason, but:better grahpics(xept nuke)
8. better tech tree up till genetic age.
9. More terrain
10.Less AI cheating(better AI)
11.Hotseat/PBEM w/ patch.
12.More reallistic line of sight feature.
13.More editing options.
14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market.
Maybe not reallistic, but the idea is good.
15.No # limits like 32000 gold.


Reasons for ctp being worse:

The only 2 MAJOR reasons are: The interface, i would do anything to get a better one. and the NUKE Blow animation!
and some mino things like-its faster elapsing(but that goes partly into the interface).


Now I would like you to BOW me please!

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Father Beast on 05-07-2001 08:33 PM I enjoy playing Zork now and again. I also enjoy a lot of the frustrating Nethack, since LighteNing turned me onto it. both of these are very graphics impaired. My latest obsession is XCOM, and it has got me bad, even though the pixelated graphics are pathetic by today's standards, or even 5 years ago. it's still a great game! it might be better to say that graphics are important TO YOU, Yin.

Well if SOMEBODY wants good graphics: then we should have 2 divisions(like the install modes CTP had.)

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 05-07-2001 09:22 PM Roman: I also hate animations like that and really hope Firaxis doesn't waste time with them. What I personally mean by good graphics in Civ3 is primarily a very lush and colorful land (I don't need running waterfalls), very detailed (but not animated) units that make distinguishing what's what much easier, and an interface that is very crisp and clear. Now if you look at all that, what I'm talking about are graphics that make gameplay easier. This is a VERY important point. I'm not interested in eye-candy just so I can test my video card. I want graphics that 1) help make gameplay easier and 2) help make things simply look better (I have no shame in simply wanting things to look good). Animations and 3d this and 3d that...if it doesn't add to gameplay in an important way, get rid of it. Take all that wasted time and work harder on the interface.

I have just one thing to say: EXACTLY!

[Comrade Tribune]

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 on 05-10-2001 08:07 PM There were even some graphics in Civ 1 that were better then Civ 2 in that regard! Who could forget those dirty scummy rebels marching from the side into your city? And then 2000 year later, the same scummy guys, in hippy clothing, doing the exact same thing??? And come ON, you gotta give props to Stalin's facial expressions, and the royal palace??? COME ON!!!

Underlined! I couldn´t agree more. And don´t forget some of the advisours, especially communism and modern despotism; they were hilarious!

[Pedrun]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-10-2001 07:40 PM Russian King, As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

I do prefer the CTP series then civ2.
The CTP's gameplay is much better specially because of the unconventional warfare(I loved the cleric and the Slaver they really added fun and realism), and The future techs - Sea colonies and space give the game new levels of strategy and interface.
I'm even considerig not buying CivIII because of the possible lack of this two features + only 7 civs.
Not to metion the CTP2 trade (CTP1 trade wasnt that good). It really worked and played a major role in my civ's development. The terrain and tile improvments variety. And the bombard option.

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Pedrun on 05-13-2001 06:20 PM I do prefer the CTP series then civ2. The CTP's gameplay is much better specially because of the unconventional warfare(I loved the cleric and the Slaver they really added fun and realism), and The future techs - Sea colonies and space give the game new levels of strategy and interface. I'm even considerig not buying CivIII because of the possible lack of this two features + only 7 civs. Not to metion the CTP2 trade (CTP1 trade wasnt that good). It really worked and played a major role in my civ's development. The terrain and tile improvments variety. And the bombard option.

Unconventional war: i can live w/out it. trade: ctp1 was unreallistic but fun-adds sense of control of what your buying and selling. 7 civs-bothers a little but bearable.
Overall, CTP=(1.2)*CTP2=(1.8)*civ2

[joseph1944]

To you guy that do not like candy. I just reloaded Civ 2 MGE the other day and the whole disk was 85.5/6 Megs. The basis game of Civ 3 without candy may be 50 to 100 Megs big. The last time I heard is that a CD is 576 Megs. A lot of space left over for nothing. It has been said over and over, you can turn most of it off, if you do not like it. Firaxis bring on the CANDY big time, I for one like it.

------------------

[Grumbold]

If the game is balanced and as good as they can make it technically with a couple of months to go before the deadline then let rip and design as much eye candy as possible. Unique unit, advisor, building and population art for every Civ in the game I can handle

[Cyclotron]

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 05-13-2001 03:36 AM Now I would like you to BOW me please!

Thanks for answering me. Now here what I think:

quote: 1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one. Bombard/ranged-This made some realism

I liked the combat system in theory... but I still don't understand how an abolitionist in a coastal town with no defense sunk two of my stacked ships of the line. CTP had good ideas, but the combat system was fatally flawed.

quote: 2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well.

I thought space was way too unbalancing. Putting a unit anywhere in the world completely negated all other forms of transport. In addition, in all my games the first person to establish any kind of space launcher was the winner, because they could almost instantly rush any city in the world. Not very balanced, if you ask me.

quote: 3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible.

Sea colonies, to me, were way too powerful. The fact that cities 5 times their size struggle to keep up with their industry proves this to me.

quote: 4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc)

I didn't really see the need for this. It's a nice gradation, but it sure wasted a lot of my time with upgrades (some like that) and it didn't really add anything to the gameplay for me. Just another task.

quote: 5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!!

And in my opinion, the PW system was overly simplistic and too abstract, and took control away from the player as well as eliminating strategic possibilities.

quote: 6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me.

Most of the special units were either too weak (infector, cleric) or too powerful (eco ranger, eco terrorist). I never really ever got to use slavers, as walls went up as soon as I could get my slavers to the enemy cities.

quote: 7. Not the best reason, but:better grahpics(xept nuke)

That isn't about the game, it's about the time the game was made. I'll agree, though.

quote: 8. better tech tree up till genetic age.

This was my biggest problem with CTP. Places where I used to have a huge choice in units suddenly dried up. Where went the mech infantry? The partisan? The alpine troops? The howitzer? The navy took the biggest hit, losing the galleon, cruiser, and AEGIS cruiser (as well as only having one capital ship in the diamond age!!!) It also bugs me that a lot of the advances were named after ages... Isn't that my decision what age I am in? How can I research an age?

quote: 9. More terrain

Really? I didn't see any, unless you are talking about space and sea.

quote: 10.Less AI cheating(better AI)

I thought they were on equal footing with Civ2; I was actually quite dismayed with the CTP AI's performance on even the high levels, especially in warfare and diplomacy.

quote: 11.Hotseat/PBEM w/ patch.

I don't play muliplayer often; I can't evaluate this.

quote: 12.More realistic line of sight feature.

Civ2 used flat terrain, where this was not a question. A different style of game, although I will admit I liked the mountain idea in CTP... but once again, balancing killed it.

quote: 13.More editing options.

Than Civ2 Fantastic Worlds? Not likely, unless you are talking about messing with text files which I don't do. If so, you must admit that editing in Civ2 was much easier and much more user friendly.

quote: 14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market.

The trade system lacked the luxury bonus that Civ2 had. In addition, the AI's scatterbrained diplomacy made it almost impossible to trade anything with anybody.

quote: 15.No # limits like 32000 gold.

Was this really an issue? Have you ever gotten 32000 gold? If so, you should start spending it!!!

If anything, one thing to me stood out about CTP, which was:

Good idea, bad implementation.

Indeed, stacked combat, monopolies, and special units are features I would truly like to see in Civ3. But I felt that Activision did a not so good... dare I say it, HORRIBLE job at balancing the features. The combat system could make a grown man cry (see above abolitionist incident) and there was really no improvement to the AI that I could see.

So was CTP good for the genre? Yes, because it gave good ideas and mistakes to learn from. I hope some of CTP's ideas are re-evaluated, re-done, and then re-used.

Was CTP, as a game, better than Civ2? No. See above for why.


------------------
"Third option, third option!"
Let's have civ bonuses that YOU control!
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited May 15, 2001).]

[Russian King]

I must disagree with most but one thing: good ideas. Implementation wasnt a huge problem for me, have a read::

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-15-2001 06:26 PM Thanks for answering me. Now here what I think: 1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one. Bombard/ranged-This made some realism

I liked the combat system in theory... but I still don't understand how an abolitionist in a coastal town with no defense sunk two of my stacked ships of the line. CTP had good ideas, but the combat system was fatally flawed.