Tweet
What do you like about CtP?
OK, let's get one thing straight right off the bat: I'm not bashing CtP and I'm not looking for a fight, so don't flame me. I really do want to know what you like about CtP that Civ2 and/or SMAC didn't do better. I'm thinking about possibly reacquiring this game if I can hear some cogent arguments in its defense.
Maybe I'd better describe my own reaction to the game so that you understand where I'm coming from and a few of my complaints. And I haven't played it for a long time (since it came out) so my memory may be a bit rusty -- if I say anything that is simply not true, I ask your forbearance in advance. And I didn't play it very long -- I started two games over a two-day period and abandoned them both before abandoning the game itself entirely.
The first thing I noticed was that the game looked pretty, but it seemed that the graphics slowed down the performance, especially during the very long computer turns. And I wasn't running it on some sled -- it was on a (then) top-of-the-line PII 450 with 128 megs of RAM. In addition, the 3D graphics made modifications much more difficult (although apparently not impossible). OK, slow performance I can live with, especially because you could turn some of the graphics off and marginally speed up your game. Still, it was an irritation.
Second was the interface. I know the CtP interface has its defenders, but for me personally it was cumbersome, counterintuitive, difficult to use and nearly opaque when contrasted to the elegance of both Civ2 and SMAC. I never did get the hang of it because there were simply too many different screens to look at and juggle. The city screen in Civ2 showed you practically everything you needed to know to run your city and your civ; any given single screen in CtP shows you bupkus. You may say that I didn't spend enough time getting to know the interface, and I won't deny that. However, I would countercharge that the interface shouldn't be that hard to use, and if it is then something is seriously wrong with the design.
The next thing that hit me was the disproportionate power of nontraditional units -- the slaver and whatever the next one that came out was (I don't remember which one it was anymore.) They occupied hexes, preventing your units from entering them and forcing you to build extravagant defenses that were of no use against conventional units. Like so much in this game, the idea of unconventional units was wonderful and the implementation was poor. Maybe if there was some way to turn them off it would have been better. It just seemed to me that they had a power and influence beyond their cost, and were therefor imbalancing. I admit that I didn't take a long time to learn about the units and how to use them, because I found them irritating and I wanted nothing to do with them.
Then there was the concept of improvements. I know that some of you just love the way CtP handled it, with the fund and all and you just pay for what you want, but I couldn't abide it. With settlers/engineers/formers, you got the dual sense of an investment in resources (since you had to build the unit in question and then guard it from attacks) as well as getting a hint of the time and effort such massive changes in terrain actually take, since effects only happened after several turns of work. In CtP, on the other hand, you just paid some dough and wham! you had a road or a farm or whatever. Easier, yes, but it took away a large part of the epic scope of carving an empire from the wilderness.
Another thing was combat. Again, the idea of stacks was a good one, but the implementation was (IMHO) horrendous. During one particular fight I attacked a mixed force of the weakest infantry unit and the weakest ranged unit (I forget their names -- it's been a while) in clear ground with a force of knights (again, I forget the exact unit name) that outnumbered the defenders 2-1. I expected a pushover, and I got one -- the primitives wiped out my heavily armed and armored chivalry without losing a single unit. Talk all you want about combined arms, that result was just plain silly. And from what I've read on line, that's not even the most absurd combat resolution that happens in this game. Not only does it defy logic (if logic may be said to apply to such a abstract setting as a strategy game) but it also seems to take away much of the impetus for technological improvement: I fought and scratched and clawed to develop the prerequisite technology for building knights, only to discover that I'd have been better off sticking with fire-hardened sticks and wicker shields. Extremely disappointing.
Although the details have gotten fuzzy over time, I also remember being disappointed with the diplomacy model, especially after the subtleties presented by the SMAC AI. It seemed to me that my computer opponents just weren't as smart as they should have been. I can't cite any specifics at this remove, but it was a major issue at the time.
And lastly, although this is entirely personal and a matter of taste, I just didn't think the game was fun. When I plugged in Civ2 for the first time, I was hooked from the opening turn and I just knew that I'd be losing a lot of sleep because of the game. SMAC took a bit longer to get into, but within an hour of the beginning of my first game I was hooked, wanting to explore more, build more, develop new tactics and beat the p!ss out of the Believers. With CtP, on the other hand, after two days of more or less continuous playing, it was still an unpleasant chore to start the program and a lingering, painful task to play each turn. I don't know what it was, exactly, because all the things I've listed above don't quite explain it. The game simply did not make me want to play it.
In fairness, I must say that the way CtP handles trade is one of the most elegant and beautifully executed concepts I've ever seen in a game. I only wish the rest of it had lived up to that promise.
[This message has been edited by Ubergeek (edited February 10, 2000).]
Maybe I'd better describe my own reaction to the game so that you understand where I'm coming from and a few of my complaints. And I haven't played it for a long time (since it came out) so my memory may be a bit rusty -- if I say anything that is simply not true, I ask your forbearance in advance. And I didn't play it very long -- I started two games over a two-day period and abandoned them both before abandoning the game itself entirely.
The first thing I noticed was that the game looked pretty, but it seemed that the graphics slowed down the performance, especially during the very long computer turns. And I wasn't running it on some sled -- it was on a (then) top-of-the-line PII 450 with 128 megs of RAM. In addition, the 3D graphics made modifications much more difficult (although apparently not impossible). OK, slow performance I can live with, especially because you could turn some of the graphics off and marginally speed up your game. Still, it was an irritation.
Second was the interface. I know the CtP interface has its defenders, but for me personally it was cumbersome, counterintuitive, difficult to use and nearly opaque when contrasted to the elegance of both Civ2 and SMAC. I never did get the hang of it because there were simply too many different screens to look at and juggle. The city screen in Civ2 showed you practically everything you needed to know to run your city and your civ; any given single screen in CtP shows you bupkus. You may say that I didn't spend enough time getting to know the interface, and I won't deny that. However, I would countercharge that the interface shouldn't be that hard to use, and if it is then something is seriously wrong with the design.
The next thing that hit me was the disproportionate power of nontraditional units -- the slaver and whatever the next one that came out was (I don't remember which one it was anymore.) They occupied hexes, preventing your units from entering them and forcing you to build extravagant defenses that were of no use against conventional units. Like so much in this game, the idea of unconventional units was wonderful and the implementation was poor. Maybe if there was some way to turn them off it would have been better. It just seemed to me that they had a power and influence beyond their cost, and were therefor imbalancing. I admit that I didn't take a long time to learn about the units and how to use them, because I found them irritating and I wanted nothing to do with them.
Then there was the concept of improvements. I know that some of you just love the way CtP handled it, with the fund and all and you just pay for what you want, but I couldn't abide it. With settlers/engineers/formers, you got the dual sense of an investment in resources (since you had to build the unit in question and then guard it from attacks) as well as getting a hint of the time and effort such massive changes in terrain actually take, since effects only happened after several turns of work. In CtP, on the other hand, you just paid some dough and wham! you had a road or a farm or whatever. Easier, yes, but it took away a large part of the epic scope of carving an empire from the wilderness.
Another thing was combat. Again, the idea of stacks was a good one, but the implementation was (IMHO) horrendous. During one particular fight I attacked a mixed force of the weakest infantry unit and the weakest ranged unit (I forget their names -- it's been a while) in clear ground with a force of knights (again, I forget the exact unit name) that outnumbered the defenders 2-1. I expected a pushover, and I got one -- the primitives wiped out my heavily armed and armored chivalry without losing a single unit. Talk all you want about combined arms, that result was just plain silly. And from what I've read on line, that's not even the most absurd combat resolution that happens in this game. Not only does it defy logic (if logic may be said to apply to such a abstract setting as a strategy game) but it also seems to take away much of the impetus for technological improvement: I fought and scratched and clawed to develop the prerequisite technology for building knights, only to discover that I'd have been better off sticking with fire-hardened sticks and wicker shields. Extremely disappointing.
Although the details have gotten fuzzy over time, I also remember being disappointed with the diplomacy model, especially after the subtleties presented by the SMAC AI. It seemed to me that my computer opponents just weren't as smart as they should have been. I can't cite any specifics at this remove, but it was a major issue at the time.
And lastly, although this is entirely personal and a matter of taste, I just didn't think the game was fun. When I plugged in Civ2 for the first time, I was hooked from the opening turn and I just knew that I'd be losing a lot of sleep because of the game. SMAC took a bit longer to get into, but within an hour of the beginning of my first game I was hooked, wanting to explore more, build more, develop new tactics and beat the p!ss out of the Believers. With CtP, on the other hand, after two days of more or less continuous playing, it was still an unpleasant chore to start the program and a lingering, painful task to play each turn. I don't know what it was, exactly, because all the things I've listed above don't quite explain it. The game simply did not make me want to play it.
In fairness, I must say that the way CtP handles trade is one of the most elegant and beautifully executed concepts I've ever seen in a game. I only wish the rest of it had lived up to that promise.
[This message has been edited by Ubergeek (edited February 10, 2000).]
) i can understand some people find them annoying, but they can be a lot of fun too. an option to turn them off (like with pollution) wouldn't have gone astray though. that way people can choose one way or the other. so i agree with you there. but with so many people shouting for realism, some sort of unconventional warfare is definitely needed. and kudos to the designers again for having the balls to add something rather different. perhaps it was unbalanced, but it wasn't an inherantly flawed concept.
Comment