why ctp2 is worst of them all

[mosquitodriver]

i have been playing these types of games for years, many of you have too. One thing ctp2 failed to do is adapt and change for the better.

number one problem with these civ games now is they are still using combat and war systems from the late 80s and original civ days. sure they added some neat features like health bars and stacking yadda yadda but its still the same feel. for example, a modern war using world map it takes years and years to fight a war that realisticly would have lasted a few years. I guess games and gaming have a long way to go but why cant civ games take some lessons from other really good combat games.

sure sure the emphasis is not on combat true, but its just as much a part as diplomacy, trade, interface, etc etc.

why still squares on maps???? when are we getting hexagons, that can change the game entirely.

ctp2 did one revolutionary thing they should encorperate in other areas, that is public works. no longer did you rely on a little weak unit settler, now it was a pool of resources into a bank that you chose how to deal with. they did the same thing essentially for trade, what a great idea ctp team. now take those great ideas and throw them into getting rid of the arcane combat and war system of civ and revolutionize that part of the game.

why is a1 in some other games i play so good or bad depending on the level i choose, but all the civ games especially ctp2 the computer just stinks. why cant the programmers learn and use ideas from other games or programmers?

my point is ctp2 is the weakest in the evolution of civilization, i was tired of it weeks ago. its nothing new really. its not even challenging thats the worst part.

i hope civ3 is revolutionary in its design while still keeping with the idea of playing a civilization and trying to survive or dominate.

[Davor]

I have a question. I read alot of people here dont like the game and dont play it anymore. So how come you come to the forums and post replys? Nothing wrong in doing it and I am not trying to put you down. I just dont understand. I came here when I bought the game the first time but returned it a few days and never came back here since. I got it a week ago again and started coming here again also.

So why read and post if you dont like it? Just wanting to know since I may be missing something. (wich is usually most of the time.)

Davor

[Bluevoss]

Its obvious why he posts.

You get your hopes up on a new game, and then invest a lot of time playing it, and it goes flat. Hes right in that they could have really made a landmark here - the field was open. Instead, they added one or two things, made an AI that can't cross a room without walking into a table, and pushed it out the door.

I really want to love CTP2. Someone else said that one of the strong points is how you actually get to fight in anchient battles, unlike Civ, where you are pretty much into the middle ages before the conflict begins. And the PW is a brilliant concept - what a pain it was to walk all over your empire, irrigating and putting in roads. Trade wasn't bad either (better than Civ2, anyway).

I dunno about refighting world war two and all that. It IS, for all purposes, a game, and its hard to show the scale of the world, from massed trireme battles to fighter dogfights over verdun, moon landings and plagues. Things are just not going to work.

Still, it would have been nice to have some sort of combat tactics (its too much like watching TV - you just sit and root for your team). Why not have a display where you position your units on a randomized tactical ground and manover. Just think what it could be like.

Its like CTP1. It was a step in the right direction, but they should have been jogging. With the web and all the feedback (from Civ2 and CTP1 players) they should have had a clear cut idea what they wanted to achive. And they should have achived it.



------------------
Bluevoss-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mark, those aren't combat tactics, and I don't think anyone, except the most ardent defenders of CtP2 will say it is.

I, OTOH, don't want combat tactics. You're running an empire, you aren't the Commanding General as well!

[mosquitodriver]

perspective...... if you never played a civ game in your life and you play ctp2 first your going to love it like everyone loved original civ back in the day. and playing original civ after ctp2 or even civ2 would be a joke. so obviously ctp2 is improved over all the previous, it has the most things to it. but the reason its the worst of all is because it failed to live up to expectations activision built it up to be. REASON? because ctp2 is just another civ game and unless you really do some revolutionary things to a new civ game its just going to be too much like the rest.

you cant just add on to an existing game and expect it to be great. there are many civers out there, i am a huge fan of simulation/strategy and diplomacy type games. but civ is old now, its run its course and if you expect to light my gaming fire (sounds kinky huh) you cant just feed me the same civ game with add ons to it. Ok ok i guess im not trying to cut down ctp2 what i am trying to say is the days of civ as we know it are used and abused, its time for a new revolutionary/visionary game with the concept of strategy/diplomacy/world leader/etc etc type ideas. me personally i am just cived out it seems and ctp2 is just another civ game with cartoons you move around and little cartoon character battles, god awful a1 and those stupid world wonders. must have been a british idea to put them in civ games. ahhh i can go on and on about the good and bad of civ games and how i would do it different, but who cares.

civilization is a great game they are all fun but after ten years its gotten old. maybe if they mixed shadow president and civilization they could come up with one hell of a game.

let me rephrase my own topic, ctp2 is the biggest let down of all the civ games not the worst one.

and i keep watching and posting because i like to watch mark g defend the newest games from neh sayers.
he does a great job :^) kidding mark

happy new year everybody

[mosquitodriver]

and mark the hexagon idea was just a way of explaining the need (in my eyes) for a different type of civilization. heck use triangles i dont care just use something different hehe.

squares are just old school gaming, change, adapt, be unique in a game. thats how original civ became so popular it was original.

dont make another civ game and add borders or other eye candy, make a whole new concept of the civ game. just as public works was a revolution over settlers. so make a civ game that changes the rules and bends the imagination. ahhh perhaps my ranting about is just misunderstood and i just need to wait to see if civ3 is what im looking for in the next game.

thats just me though, i hope others enjoy ctp2 more than i did.

[Cyrius]

I think you are probalby saying hexagon since it has definately become the norm in war-boardgamming. And many computer games too. Many sprite-based games that do not actively show the grid use hexagons since it is the closest geometric shape to a circle while still being able to fit neatly with itself in a grid. I belive starcraft uses it. (not sure though).

[Simpleton]

Hexagons, squares,...heck Activision could have used triangle for all I cared. What I would have preferred Activision to have spent thier time on was AI and diplomacy. Of course they didn't even get that right....
As far as making CTP's or the Civ's more combat intenstive I think in this type of game you have to strike a balance because the civilization game genre is really a combination wargame/civilization building game. If you make the combat more intensive than you sacrifice the building aspect and visa versa. IMHO I would prefer the expansion of combat limited in future CTP's (although I would be very reluctant to buy another sequel/patch of this series) or CIV's and more time spent on developing the diplomacy/AI aspects of the game. For those who want more combat realism there are plenty of excellent war simulation games on the market. I think the Civ genre has to continue to develop as a whole without becoming too focused in one particular area of it's gameplay.

[Bluevoss]

Well, Simpleton made me think of something, so I'll fly it out there.

What would happen if they took a game like CTP2 and made it modular. The basic game is what you get right now. But patches you pay for (modules - about $10 for each one) beef up some of the aspects of the game.

If you got into combat, you could have a very detailed (almost like Caeser 2) combat battle. It would evolve upwards through the ages, be simple (you could fight a battle in 15 mintues) and you could CHOOSE to shut it off and have the battles resolved like they are now.

I dunno - I think all games need some sort of a break in them. In Civ2, some of your time was spent at the city level, some at the national level. That meant you were constantly doing 'new' things. In CTP2, you spent most of your time on the map, so it starts to all feel the same. Without the ground placement, you dont feel so attached to things anymore. (I'm not a hardcore supporter of the Civ2 way this was done - there just needs to be a better way to show how a city works).

What would REALLY make CTP2 fun is if the AI was smart enought to notice the stacks you were useing and based a statagy off that. You make a big stack, it makes a big stack.

Oh well, I'm all over the block tonight - happy new year, you all. Push the "next turn" button and lets get on with 2001!



------------------
Bluevoss-

[Cyrius]

PW is a revoultionary thing, but I think the most important thing CTP1 introduced was the combat system.

Voss, I understand you want combat tactics, and I agree, but the mere fact that you must think about what kind of units comprise a stack is a significant change that CTP1 introduced and CTP2 made stronger (with flankers and such). This combat system was one of the main resason I played CTP1.

I think if you were to pick out a significant change for CTP2 (and there weren't many, if any at all), it would have to be the border system. We haven't had a working one since AC, and in my opinion that one didn't work so well. Borders are the way of the future, and may any who forget this be struck down forever. I think players should be able to define borders. In a way, forts have found their first real use (they weren' useful in CIV1 or 2) in CTP2 as "border-extenders" and land-claims, which is what they were mainly used for in real world history. I just wish they weren't so expensive. Maybe I'll go decrese that in a txt file somewhere....

Another possible inovation was the diplomacy system. Unfortunately, it doesn't really appear to work logically. I mean, I'd agree to a trade treaty if someone offered me 10,000 gold or the gunpowder advance. Wouldn't you? But the AI never will. ect.

For the most part, CTP2 is a variation of CTP1. And for this I will never forgive Activison. In my opinion, if a company can't inovate, it shouldn't be making games. DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR PETE's SAKE!! But then again, here I am playing CTP2, because I enjoy it. Call me a hypocrite, but well, you know.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by mosquitodriver on 12-30-2000 06:56 PM why still squares on maps???? when are we getting hexagons, that can change the game entirely.

i fail to see why this is such a big improvement...

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Bluevoss on 12-30-2000 08:39 PM Still, it would have been nice to have some sort of combat tactics (its too much like watching TV - you just sit and root for your team). Why not have a display where you position your units on a randomized tactical ground and manover. Just think what it could be like.

when are people going to understand that the combat tactics in ctp1/2 are YOUR CHOICE of units in your stacks?

if that is not enough for you, that's another story. but there ARE combat tactics in ctp1/2....

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by mosquitodriver on 12-31-2000 05:25 PM but the reason its the worst of all is because it failed to live up to expectations activision built it up to be. REASON? because ctp2 is just another civ game and unless you really do some revolutionary things to a new civ game its just going to be too much like the rest.

since you mentioned the word expectations, 44% of our forum posters say that ctp2 was Better than expected

so if you changed the topic of this thread, it seems to me that you would have to add "for me" in the end of it...

btw, with ctp2 being released 1 1/2 years after ctp1, i fail to see how you expected a revolution in civ games

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Bluevoss on 12-31-2000 09:25 PM What would REALLY make CTP2 fun is if the AI was smart enought to notice the stacks you were useing and based a statagy off that. You make a big stack, it makes a big stack.

actually it does know how big your stacks are.
check this page http://apolyton.net/ctp2/modificatio...rategies.shtml

[BUSHIDO]

mosquitodriver
you are saying that is it just another civ game... will that is the idea. i must say that i think that the dimplomacy of civ was the best one. ok you can do more stuff. but i dont know when i am at war with somebody or when somebody is breaking a stop-tresspasing agrement. in civ2 it was simple. you would get a totally new screen with the message. so you would know when something happens. and why do you want hexagon i have played some hexagon games (imperialsm I and II)but they arent that good. look at the borders of the maps not pretty. i think that ctp2 is a great game but not many new thing and just like with ctp 1 the ****ed up the dimplomacy screen turn it back as it was in CIV II but with the new options like (request city and threaten and stuff)

remeber the words of Musashi: controlling a man is the same as contolling a army it is about communcating with him/them.



------------------
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
-Sun Tzu- 'the art of war'