CTP-The True heir to civilization

[JohnT]

You bumped a four year old thread for that?

[Colonâ„¢]

[DrSpike]

Play Civ2 more. Failing that SMAC > CTP.

[Alex]

A four year old thread! And people were commenting on how they thought that CTP was promising...

Play SMAC.

[Main_Brain]

CtP=Civ /w some Innovations
SMAC= A whole new Civ

[Locutus]

I think you reversed the two there, main_brain...

[Colonâ„¢]

Neither, play Europa Universalis.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Locutus


I think you reversed the two there, main_brain...

Meh, actually you have to admit that SMAC was more different from the original civ branch than CtP.

[Locutus]

You're joking right? One could apply many of the same strategies from Civ2 to win in SMAC. Bluntly put, SMAC is just Civ2 with even uglier graphics, unit workshop, SE and a better storyline. It is still a good game, but CtP is a lot farther removed from Civ than SMAC: space & undersea layers, vastly improved combat model, new & better tile imp system, unconventional warfare, empire-oriented approach (city limit, support costs, UI, empire sliders, trade, etc), much higher moddability, macro management, etc, etc, etc. Just because the setting of SMAC is different from Civ2 doesn't make it a different game...

[DrSpike]

I think Locutus is right. Of course different does not imply better......especially in this case.

[Az]

Why should one choose between SMAC and CTP?

[Solver]

Well, SMAC did, on the surface, have more different stuff. I agree though, that it was much easier strategically. I actually started SMAC with my Civ2 strategies, and was winning, while lost that in CtP.

CtP at the first glance felt more like Civ, and was great! Just one thing... no civ-game can beat SMAC story-wise.

[Locutus]

I'm not saying that one game is better than the other (though my personal opinion may have subconsciously slipped through in my previous post ), I'm just saying CtP is farther removed from Civ than SMAC. Obviously, SMAC is more different on the surface, but I tend to ignore such superficialties (is that a word?) and focus on more important matters, in which case CtP wins hands-down.

Both games are quite nice and both have some great things that no other Civ game has (e.g. SE and story for SMAC vs PW and combat for CtP). Which game is better I'll not discuss here, but my personal opinion should be obvious to all

[Spiffor]

Congrats for the bump GP

Well, I'd advise you to play SMAC. It is much less boring than CtP by any standard, and is much more original. The only cool thing in Ctp is that you get to trick your enemies by sending them priests, lawyers, televangelists and whatnot. Otherwise, it is wholly uninspired.
SMAC, on the other hand, has tons of new ideas, and takes place in a completely different and involving setting. However, the colour scheme sucks.

I'd advise you to move to Civ3. Except for the lack of scenarios (which will hopefully be relieved this fall), it is the best Civ game so far, with a much better AI than the previous ones, and good ideas in regard of trade and aerial missions. Besides, the interface really rocks compared to the Old Civs. I was a big Civ2 player, but there's a reason why I don't play Civ2 at all anymore, now that I have Civ3

[Solver]

I'd advise you to move to Civ3. Except for the lack of scenarios (which will hopefully be relieved this fall), it is the best Civ game so far, with a much better AI than the previous ones, and good ideas in regard of trade and aerial missions.

Ask Locutus, and he will confirm that CtP2 AI with mods isn't inferior at all to Civ 3 AI.