Why are Civ snobs so against CTP2?

[mslama]

Just my opinion. I checked CivIII first and then CtpII. And my first feeling and experience with CtpII was bad. In comparison CtpII does not look so nice as CivIII - graphics and GUI. Also I have to learn some differences. After some time I got used to CtpII and now I appreciate such things like setting things for city queues simultaneously, PW, .... and do not care about skin . But as I said first look was simply better with CivIII.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Look, CoT and some others here also bash Civ3 often and didn't even play it yet. They take their wisdom from the rant posts of the usual Civ3 whiners and their DL's. And I also got flamed in this forum several times just for civilised saying my opinion.

Well i agree i'm guilty as charged(and i still don't own Civ3, i'm waiting to see how the MP turns out), still i don't know the in's and out's of who is who on the Civ3 forums - but when i read threads that seem well argued, and with points that seem to indicate a rushed product, well i find it a sad state of affairs and enough to make me hold off from buying. It's as simple as that - i don't want to waste more of my money on games that have been pushed out by an unsympathetic publisher. And if i've offended you in some way for stating my 'opinions' then i'm sorry, i've never flammed you(or anyone for that matter), and as martin said, at least you had the decency to try modded CTP2 - more than most of the civ3 'yes' men who as Oerdin points out will bash CTP2 in just the same way i kinda bash Civ3
I wanted Civ3 to be the game we all wanted it to be and i agree it shouldn't be about which tbs game of this type is best, as that is always going to boil down to personal choice, but we should be glad we have a choice so we can decide which we prefer.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by child of Thor
...but when i read threads that seem well argued, and with points that seem to indicate a rushed product, well i find it a sad state of affairs and enough to make me hold off from buying. It's as simple as that - i don't want to waste more of my money on games that have been pushed out by an unsympathetic publisher.

Everybody with a sane mind will agree, that Civ3 is rushed. That's a fact. But a fact is also, that in 6 months came 3 patches, the last of which made a darn good game out of it. Most gamers say this, at least those who play it. I think, the upcoming PTW expansion will have the potential to be a top game. Several people say, that it's feature should have been included in the original game. But that would have meant, that the game would have been delayed a year. So is one year more playing worth the $35 for the XP? My answer is a clear yes.

If you like CtP2 (and I think you do), then Civ3 is probably not for you. It's hard to like both, as they are very different. Some people manage this though. I can't. Many others too.

So these endless comparisons should stop. They lead nowhere. Imagine, people arguing about apples. Sorts, taste, insecticides, needs for growth, etc. And now somebody makes a statement about pears and says, that they are far better than apples. He may be right with no doubt, but his statement is ... well ... misplaced. A former apple debatant may get angry and reply: You go away with your crappy pears! A flame, nothing else, but I can understand it. So are the CtP2 comparisons in the Civ3 threads. They lead to nothing but flames.

And if i've offended you in some way for stating my 'opinions' then i'm sorry, i've never flammed you

Well, your mentioned "ignorance" offended me, but I appreciate your apology. And true, you never flamed me.

[Immortal Wombat]

I'd like to point out that I'm getting Civ3 very soon, so will be better able to compare the two games.
And the CtP2 AI still gives me a hard game

[Dale]

This is just my 2 cents.

I actually don't mind Civ3, and will play the odd game (though currently it's been shelved as for some insane reason I've gone back to EU, even CTP2's shelved at this point). But my point is, Civ3 is a good game. My only problem with it is the amount of mega-micromanagement required to co-ordinate all those workers in the later stages. Sure, there's the automate settings, but I don't like them. I'm a Commie (Vive Le Revolution!), so I like full control and hate governors and automating stuff. That's the one reason I don't play Civ3. And if you look through every comment of mine where I've said I don't play/like Civ3, you'll see this is my common reason.

Besides, I prefer to move hundreds of military as opposed to hundreds of workers each turn.

[centrifuge]

I really enjoy the diplomacy of Civ3. I've owned it longer and have played it more than CTP2. In the past few months, however, I've played nothing but CTP2. I tried to play a game of Civ3 the other night, but soon lost interest. I mainly enjoy playing scenarios, because after a certain point the original game becomes to repetetive. This I assume will be changing at least somewhat with Civ3 PTW.

So in conclusion, let's just say that I like both games, they both offer something unique, and both have their highs and lows.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
If you like CtP2 (and I think you do), then Civ3 is probably not for you. It's hard to like both, as they are very different. Some people manage this though. I can't. Many others too.

I guess that I'm one of the rare few , yippee (but, In my heart I think that I lean more to CTP2)

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
So these endless comparisons should stop...They lead to nothing but flames.

I couldn't agree more.

[Tamerlin]

I agree with the last posts, opposing CtP2 to Civ3 leads nowhere, they are very different games sharing some common concepts.

I like both games though I prefer CtP2. Even if there are some aspects of Civ3 I find boring (the workers, the nano-management...) and though I have not been satisfied with my first Civ3 games I will give it another chance very soon because I'am convinced it's a good game.

What is really important, as Child of Thor wrote it earlier, is the fact we have a choice and that we can play the 4X game we want.

Somehow, we are all right, be it CtP2 or Civ3 we are all playing what we consider to be the best game.

Isn't this thread sliding out of subject... for the better.

[Alexander's Horse]

CTP2 was a big disappointment. Does the multiplayer now work? Where can I get a game?

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
the 4X game we want.

4X game?

[Tamerlin]

"4X" stands for "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate" a computer game genre which includes games like, Civilization, CtP, SMAC, Space Empires, Stars!, Europa Universalis, Imperialism...

This abbreviation is commonly used in english language magazines (paper and online) to classify games.

If I had the opportunity to do so, I would remove the last "X" which stands for "eXterminate" as this action is, fortunately, not always required to play and win those games. Actually, I tend to favor games which allow a pacific victory.

[hexagonian]

Actually, I broke down last night and installed civ3 after having the disk since Christmas. I did stay up until 1:30 last night playing - something that I haven't done for any game in awhile. This may be because it is, to me, a new game, so I am more interested in seeing how everything works.

My initial impressions were in line with what I suspected about the game - good, but there are issues in the game that I do not like that are based on preferences for me. (this does not mean it is a bad game either). I'm not blown away by it to the point that I think it will become the game of choice for me, unlike when I started playing Pharaoh, EU2, or the CTP series.

Basically I played more from the standpoint of seeing how everything works and not spending too much time thinking about strategic issues. (Playing at Warlord)

1. Graphically, the game is nice looking, but the same problem that bugged me about SMAC and TOT are present in this game - that being the 'soft' look of everything. The sprites are not as differentiated and crisp as they are in CTP2. And at the same time, the terrain, although acceptable and probably a little more realistic than CTP2, has too much of a less-defined and blended look - the tiles seem to run into each other because of this.

2. I did not get into any wars so far (currently at early AD) other than barbarian attacks. Too bad they are more of an annoyance rather than a threat to take cities from you.

3. I miss stacked armies...I miss them a great deal. It also is very easy to inadvertantly send a unit where you do not want it to go, though I never did that. Another thing is that it would be nice to have a number above units in the field that says how many units are on that particular tile.

4. Same with PW... Moving workers around is a chore - at the same time I like to have control over it, so I cannot get myself to automate them.

5. No warning that the AI is building a Wonder makes it a real guessing game - something I am not sure I like yet. Still, I managed to get Colossus after losing out on Pyramids and Oracle.

On the positive side, I do like the resourse system, and made it a priority to link up luxuries/strategic goods with roads quickly. That was cool...

Beating the AI to a strategic resource was very satisfying - and the ICS strategy that the AI follows does not particulary bother me. The trick is to figure out how your borders will expand to cut off the routes of expansion. (is this how to stop it???)

The diplomacy model is what I expected, in that it is geared toward giving the AI a better deal. No real problem there though.

Finally, concerning the whole issue of having opinions about a particular game without having played it. True, there is a greater weight to those who have played the game - at the same time, I do not see most of the criticism leveled at any of these games (civ3 or CTP2) as invalid. I could tell, based on the criticism that I saw, that I would probably prefer CTP2 over civ3 without even trying civ3. It really boils down to a particular preference how things are done.

It is at this point where comparison is valuable, because it allows a player to make a choice. Posting comparison threads in a particular forum allows players who are discontented with a game to see the alternatives that are available. For instance, a player may not like to have to manage hundreds of workers (a la civ3) - at the same time he may have a built-in bias about the CTP series and will not even consider looking at these forums. There are CTP2 players here who would of never even given the Modded game a chance, but were able to read the comparisons in the civ3 forum, see the validity of it and were ultimately rewarded with a good gaming experience.

Besides, I think we are all able to mentally filter out the flame crap... These are only games, after all. Lighen up, everybody!!

[Immortal Wombat]

AH,
MP does work, probably not as well as Civ2, but it is certainly playable. If you haven't downloaded a new servers.dat file, check that yours (ctp_program/ctp/servers.dat) is 3kb rather than 33b. If not, download the non-corrupted one. Check the FAQ for a donwload location.
There's also a multiplayer registry at the top of this forum, sign up there, and contact the people in the list if you want to arrange a game.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
1. Graphically, the game is nice looking, but the same problem that bugged me about SMAC and TOT are present in this game - that being the 'soft' look of everything. The sprites are not as differentiated and crisp as they are in CTP2. And at the same time, the terrain, although acceptable and probably a little more realistic than CTP2, has too much of a less-defined and blended look - the tiles seem to run into each other because of this.

2. I did not get into any wars so far (currently at early AD) other than barbarian attacks. Too bad they are more of an annoyance rather than a threat to take cities from you.

3. I miss stacked armies...I miss them a great deal. It also is very easy to inadvertantly send a unit where you do not want it to go, though I never did that. Another thing is that it would be nice to have a number above units in the field that says how many units are on that particular tile.

4. Same with PW... Moving workers around is a chore - at the same time I like to have control over it, so I cannot get myself to automate them.

5. No warning that the AI is building a Wonder makes it a real guessing game - something I am not sure I like yet. Still, I managed to get Colossus after losing out on Pyramids and Oracle.

On the positive side, I do like the resourse system, and made it a priority to link up luxuries/strategic goods with roads quickly. That was cool...

Beating the AI to a strategic resource was very satisfying - and the ICS strategy that the AI follows does not particulary bother me. The trick is to figure out how your borders will expand to cut off the routes of expansion. (is this how to stop it???)

The diplomacy model is what I expected, in that it is geared toward giving the AI a better deal. No real problem there though.

Hex, first of, it's good to see you tried a game rather than blindly criticise it or to repeat rants and whines of others. As I said, it's hard to like both games. I liked CtP2 (even though it was only playable at "very hard") and disliked it after Civ3 showed up. But that's just my opinion and I will respect others. A few comments to your game testing:

1 - Although graphics can be an issue, but it's only a minor one. As we all know, basically TBS games are just computer aided board games, and they would be playable on a piece of checkered paper as well.

2 - Lucky you. But at warlord the AI is pathetic, it actually gets a production penalty. The "fair" level is Regent. Btw: The barbs don't take cities anymore, and this is at least historically correct (they are barbarians because they don't live in cities), but they do other unpleasant things, like steal gold, destroy improvements, kill citizens and sabotage the production (again historically correct), and they tend to massive uprisings (up to 24 horsemen!), so you better deal with them.

3 - Everybody misses real stacking (it will be in PTW), although stacked movement works well now. But the combat system has also positive details: You can exactly determine the order, in which your units attack. This often can make a difference, especially in the higher levels and if you attack with differently experienced or already injured troups. In CtP2, you have combined arms attacks , but OTOH battles run automated and IMHO ineffective . Good and bad close together. Numbers of units would be a nice-to-have. These numbers are represented by a column of short lines, but it shows the exact number only till 8.

4 - We somehow can't get rid of the infamous 200 workers, can't we? Well, to a certain point you are right, early automating is inefficient and micromanaging annoying. But with a bit experience, it's no big deal. First: one worker per city is enough! So you must have 200 cities for the often mentioned 200 workers. Second: They need several turns for an improvements, so you haven't to move everyone every turn. Third - Due to corruption, tile improvement is most effective around the palace and forbidden palace. So if you have done there, 80-90% of the effect is achieved and even automation can't hurt anymore. Fourth - and most important - After you have finished the basic improvements (mining/irrigating, which happens early on), you can safely automate workers, they to not worse than you would. Just use Shift-A to automate, this preserves existing improvements. I usually keep a small task force, for instance to build a decent strategic railroad network, and let the rest build the railroad sleaze (looks ugly, right, but see it symbolic as tile development) and pollution cleaning automated. They do a darn good job, stack up automatically if needed, and I can turn the display of their movement off, so I don't even see them run around. They even hide in time in the nearest city when I get attacked. No annoyance here, none at all. And, often repeated, the concept of ethnic workers is fun!

5 - You get a message about wonder building, when you have an embassy in the particular Civilization. I wonder, that you didn't realize that. What is gone, is the warning "... will be finished in a few turns". This gave the human players a clear advantage, because the AI didn't rushbuy wonders, and I don't mind that it's gone. Btw, you can see a summary, who is building what in what city in the F7-screen, but only after you have contact with the appropriate Civ.

Finally: The AI doesn't ICS at all, but builds up near the editable "Optimal number of cities". Human ICS is still powerful, even though it's toned down by corruption. And the pricing rules in diplomacy are quite sophisticated. For instance, a resource (strategic or luxury) is valued the higher, the more citizens the other civ has to supply. So if you are bigger than the AI (which should be the case at Warlord), you will have to pay more. Prices for advances depend on difficulty level. Generally it's fun to haggle with the AI, once you know the mechanics, although the interface is implemented poorly.

About comparison threads: You are welcome to post more, all I wanted to state is, that most posters (including me) see them as an off-topic annoyance. We haven't to fear it, by god, but ... talking about pears when the subject is apples ... you get it. So if you want to state your opinion at all price, go ahead. Just don't wonder if some posters lose control and begin to flame. I don't find that good, but I can understand it. You are free to ignore them, just as the big part of the Civ3 folks is free to ignore you.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Hex, first of, it's good to see you tried a game rather than blindly criticise it or to repeat rants and whines of others. As I said, it's hard to like both games. I liked CtP2 (even though it was only playable at "very hard") and disliked it after Civ3 showed up. But that's just my opinion and I will respect others. A few comments to your game testing:

I knew I would eventually get around to trying the game, as I got it as a Christmas present. Part of the problem for me though is that I have limited time to devote to any particular game. I was one of those who was looking forward to getting civ3, to the point that it was at the top of my list for Christmas. Having read the forums beforehand put the brakes on that wish though, because of the so called 'rants and whines' of people, which gave me a much clearer picture of the game than anything promoted by reviews or Firaxis. Loyal players may be defensive about criticism, but the critics often raise very valid points - the trick is to filter out the tone of the post.

I still ended up with the game (I told my wife a few days before Christmas that I wanted EU2 instead, but she ended up giving me both), but I didn't fire it up because I saw that the game did not offer what I was looking for. (and at the same time, I was playing EU2.)

I've actually getting to the point where I will check the forums for a game that I may be interested in before buying it. So I pay a great deal of attention to what is being said.

And to be honest, I have been very critical of Activision and unmodded CTP2. At the same time, I admit that there are areas even within my Mod (and actually all of the Mods) that I wish were different. The AI still does stupid things...

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
1 - Although graphics can be an issue, but it's only a minor one. As we all know, basically TBS games are just computer aided board games, and they would be playable on a piece of checkered paper as well.

Its somewhat funny that most of the older TBS players probably started out on some kind of board game. I, in fact, created a whole series of hex-grid games (printed on a basic and plain map) for me and my friends back in the early 1990s, before I ever got a computer. It would be hard for me to go back to that now...

Still, for me at least, the graphics are somewhat important, because if I am staring at a screen for a long period of time, I want to enjoy what I see, but more importantly, I want the info to be clearly presented. I'm a graphic artist, so my job focuses on visually presenting info in a clear fashion.

Take the terrain (and I downloaded sn00py's terrain package last night and this helps a little). Overall, it is more pleasing to the eye than CTP2, but the blending effect makes the tiles run together, and I find I have to work a little harder to determine what is on the tile (I since turned on the grid, something I didn't have to do in CTP2, but this takes away from the overall atmosphere).

Another question - is there a way to indicate on the map just where your city radius is at in comparison to your other cities. (I know that you can see this on the city screen, but this is a weak solution) I know that in CTP2 you can have city, as well as national border turned on for the main map. Again, this is something that would make the game present its info in a user friendly manner.

The sprites and goods icons have a softer feel to them, and at the same time, are smaller than the CTP2 ones. I find that they end up blending more into the terrain, and because they are smaller, this makes them look more and more alike. (Yes I know that you should be able to tell the difference between a tank and a spearman, but what about a spearman and swordman). I know they are there, but I have to click on them to determine what they are.

This last issue is the more critical issue for me. Again, I would rather have a stronger visual to prevent this from being the norm during gameplay, because this eventually detracts from the desire to play. I sit in front of a computer all day, and if I have to do so at home, I do not want my eyes to work so hard at it.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
2 - Lucky you. But at warlord the AI is pathetic, it actually gets a production penalty. The "fair" level is Regent. Btw: The barbs don't take cities anymore, and this is at least historically correct (they are barbarians because they don't live in cities), but they do other unpleasant things, like steal gold, destroy improvements, kill citizens and sabotage the production (again historically correct), and they tend to massive uprisings (up to 24 horsemen!), so you better deal with them.

I'm not worried about the AI - I know that it is pretty good. Based on reports from players, that game is not supposed to be a pushover, even on the easiest level. I have never been critical of the AI in civ3 either...

The barbarian issue is one that is probably a carryover from what I've experienced in CTP2, because although they do not capture gold/shields in in CTP2, they will pillage, kill units and will capture cities with formidable forces that will evolve over time. Now from a civ standpoint, they will never advance very far once they capture a city, but it forces a player to retake the city, expending units to do so. And another feature is that cities that do revolt in CTP2 will form new civs rather than barbarian encampments (modded). In my current game, I started out with eight civs, and now have 15-16. The idea of evolving civs...

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
3 - Everybody misses real stacking (it will be in PTW), although stacked movement works well now. But the combat system has also positive details: You can exactly determine the order, in which your units attack. This often can make a difference, especially in the higher levels and if you attack with differently experienced or already injured troups. In CtP2, you have combined arms attacks , but OTOH battles run automated and IMHO ineffective . Good and bad close together. Numbers of units would be a nice-to-have. These numbers are represented by a column of short lines, but it shows the exact number only till 8.

I was looking at it from the standpoint that ultimately, the end result is the same. Players need to use balanced forces (front-line and ranged/bombard) in both games. CTP2 reduces the micromanagement of these forces, not only in movement, but also in the actual battle.

In my current CTP2 game (at turn 675, with about 180 units in my army), I can run about 6-10 turns an hour. I do not feel that will be the case for me in a civ3 game due to the one-on-one combat and the pseudo-stack command in place - I'm afraid it will be 1-2 turns an hour. That crosses the line from micromanagement into tedium.

And yes, the lack of a simple number placed above the units is one of those design weaknesses that ultimately makes a player work harder to gain basic info. I want to know at a glance what the general strength of the forces on a tile is when looking at the map, especially when I have a long front with another civ and have to figure out where I need to concentrate forces.

Still more info fixes that can be addressed - when selecting a building/wonder in the build queue, having a short description there of what it does, upkeep etc. would be helpful, rather that having to run to the Civotopia.

General game messages need to be in a format where I can access them any time during a turn, rather that appearing at the beginning of the turn and then disappearing - or am I missing something?

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
4 - We somehow can't get rid of the infamous 200 workers, can't we? Well, to a certain point you are right, early automating is inefficient and micromanaging annoying. But with a bit experience, it's no big deal. First: one worker per city is enough! So you must have 200 cities for the often mentioned 200 workers. Second: They need several turns for an improvements, so you haven't to move everyone every turn. Third - Due to corruption, tile improvement is most effective around the palace and forbidden palace. So if you have done there, 80-90% of the effect is achieved and even automation can't hurt anymore. Fourth - and most important - After you have finished the basic improvements (mining/irrigating, which happens early on), you can safely automate workers, they to not worse than you would. Just use Shift-A to automate, this preserves existing improvements. I usually keep a small task force, for instance to build a decent strategic railroad network, and let the rest build the railroad sleaze (looks ugly, right, but see it symbolic as tile development) and pollution cleaning automated. They do a darn good job, stack up automatically if needed, and I can turn the display of their movement off, so I don't even see them run around. They even hide in time in the nearest city when I get attacked. No annoyance here, none at all. And, often repeated, the concept of ethnic workers is fun!

Good to know this...

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
5 - You get a message about wonder building, when you have an embassy in the particular Civilization. I wonder, that you didn't realize that. What is gone, is the warning "... will be finished in a few turns". This gave the human players a clear advantage, because the AI didn't rushbuy wonders, and I don't mind that it's gone. Btw, you can see a summary, who is building what in what city in the F7-screen, but only after you have contact with the appropriate Civ.

Another good thing to know - This feature was in SMAC, but you also knew just how many turns you had, (if you were Planetary Governor, which was too powerful, IMO)

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Finally: The AI doesn't ICS at all, but builds up near the editable "Optimal number of cities". Human ICS is still powerful, even though it's toned down by corruption. And the pricing rules in diplomacy are quite sophisticated. For instance, a resource (strategic or luxury) is valued the higher, the more citizens the other civ has to supply. So if you are bigger than the AI (which should be the case at Warlord), you will have to pay more. Prices for advances depend on difficulty level. Generally it's fun to haggle with the AI, once you know the mechanics, although the interface is implemented poorly.

I always felt that the AI had to be more aggressive in peaceful expansionism, and when the reports came in about the way it was doing it, I felt that Firaxis generally did the right thing. One of the main ways to win in these types of games is to outproduce/outscience/outgrow your opponent, so this type of strategy is a must for programmers to pull off. The problem is that there is no easy way to do it, because game conditions vary so much, and there is a oftentimes a changing dynamic within the space of even a few turns. So how do you program that...

I do like the diplomacy aspect that tells you if what you are presenting is a good deal or a waste of time.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
About comparison threads: You are welcome to post more, all I wanted to state is, that most posters (including me) see them as an off-topic annoyance. We haven't to fear it, by god, but ... talking about pears when the subject is apples ... you get it. So if you want to state your opinion at all price, go ahead. Just don't wonder if some posters lose control and begin to flame. I don't find that good, but I can understand it. You are free to ignore them, just as the big part of the Civ3 folks is free to ignore you.

No offense taken - at the same time, I hope player have an open enough mind to consider all options. After all, the games are based on very similar principles.

Like everyone else, I feel the greatest validity of any critic is wheter he has actually played the game - at the same time, there is also the tendency to discount any opionion presented as wrong, if it does not match up with your perception. So some people get bent out of shape if anyone criticises the game, and is dismissed as an idiot, even if that person raises valid points. I did not have to have played the game to see the potential design flaws in it.

Does this make civ3 a bad game?... No - Does this make CTP2 Modded the greatest game?...No.

I'm not going to deny the fact that I would love to see my Mod become a standard for players, and yes, pulling players from civ3 into the CTP2 camp brings a certain satisfaction...but it is based on the feeling that Modded CTP2 is every bit the game that civ3 is. Yes there are differences between the two games - and sometimes its like comparing apples and oranges, but like any advertiser knows, the product needs to be promoted, oftentimes in hostile areas.

Readers have the choice to ignore what is being discussed too.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Another question - is there a way to indicate on the map just where your city radius is at in comparison to your other cities. (I know that you can see this on the city screen, but this is a weak solution) I know that in CTP2 you can have city, as well as national border turned on for the main map. Again, this is something that would make the game present its info in a user friendly manner.

This feature isn't that important in the Civ series, as unlike in CtP2, the city radius does not change, it's always the same "fat X", same size as the 1st expansion (with 7..18 pop points? Don't remember...) in CtP2. I usually simply Ctrl-G to turn the grid on/off quickly and I figure it. Also, with the latest patch (you applied 1.21f, did you? You should...), if you send a settler and point him with the mouse cursor to the destination tile, you see a blue line which represents the change to your borders if you found the city there. This also helps.

Btw: After, say, the 3rd game, you will tell the difference between a spearman and a swordsman easily. There are not much different units. And they have different movement animations (if you have turned them on, I don't...) and a make different sound.

About move time: If playing a monster game on a huge (or even custom) map and founding 200+ cities (I did), you can really make only 1-2 turns/hour, especially if you are at war. But that is seldom the case and pretty much depends on your computing power. I remember Aeson telling about a monstrous deity game on a huge map for the CivFanatics Hall of Fame (he scored about 65000, which is almost unbeatable), he had hundreds of cities and at one point over 900 workers (including captured). That's freaky! He reported, that he needed a hour for his moves. But that are exceptions. If I play a standard map game (30-50 cities), I make a turn in 1 minute (maybe up to 5 minutes if at war), at a huge map (60-100 cities) I may need 3 minutes for my turns, and 10-15 if at war. The AI turns come in seconds on standard and about 2-3 minutes on a very complicated huge game in the late stadium with many units in the sight radius. That's acceptable. But as I said, depends on the computing power. To play a huge game on a 128MB PII/400 is certainly not fun.