The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
"The world is too small in Vorarlberg". Austrian ex-vice-chancellor Hubert Gorbach in a letter to Alistar [sic] Darling, looking for a job...
"Let me break this down for you, fresh from algebra II. A 95% chance to win 5 times means a (95*5) chance to win = 475% chance to win." Wiglaf, Court jester or hayseed, you judge.
Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Platform:
PC
< snip >
Average Reader Score:
5.56 out of 10 (17 ratings
You'd think people know how to follow links around here.
The game's nice. It was quite a success at the GDC this year. It looks a lot like the Total War series though, so if that's your thing, you'll like it; otherwise, probably not.
IMHO the battles are a LOT different from the Total War series, the 'isometric' view of the battles is just that- only a 'view'. You can *pretty much* only chose your initial formations, decide when and how to attack and then if to retreat or not.
The game is turn and tile based for the most part, which goes into the isometric view to show you how the battles pan out, this part of the game is not very interactive at all and you can even turn it off if you like and auto resolve the battles.
The interface is easy to learn and the graphics, while nothing special, are ok
If you like TBS's where you research new units/technologies etc it's a good game (not as good as Civ obviously), but don't buy it if youre expecting a 'Total War' type wargame because its definelty not that.
If you go to Slitherines site theres a demo that contains the training part and the first couple of scenarios.
Ah, well, I should have been more specific. I thought that the turn-based reminded me of the Total War games. Although I should have said that I have only played Shogun a little bit, and even then only played a battle once, but mostly played the turn-based game auto-resolving the battles. Guess my lack of knowledge of the TW series showed there. Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Legion had very weak AI and a friend I trust said the same about Chariots of War. I frankly don't trust Slitherine to produce a good game at this point. The hands-off battles are a novel approach but local commanders should be able to occasionally behave more intelligently than blindly following one plan.
"The world is too small in Vorarlberg". Austrian ex-vice-chancellor Hubert Gorbach in a letter to Alistar [sic] Darling, looking for a job...
"Let me break this down for you, fresh from algebra II. A 95% chance to win 5 times means a (95*5) chance to win = 475% chance to win." Wiglaf, Court jester or hayseed, you judge.
Originally posted by Leonidas
I have Legion Gold.
Has Spartan improved over it?
I'd say that it is more of a focus on improved eye candy rather than an improvement on deeper gameplay.
I have tried the demo, and I keeep an eye on the official forums. Here's my take on it.
Based on comments on Slitherine, they have not significantly upgraded the diplomatic angle of the game. On the plus side, they have put in the means to direct your research choices.
They have added more unit types and expanded your army size to 16. AI army composition is still weak, as well as how the AI uses its forces.
The basic premise is like a TBS version of Age of Empires. Build up your economy to stop the incessant military thrusts the AI does against you. It ends up being a little tedious after a few times. Build an army, deploy it, build an army, deploy it, build an army, deploy it...(At least in AOE, you can finish a game after a few hours)
For some players, this might be what they want, but I have enough games that already do that, so why spend the money for another one.
Maybe when it hits the (very) cheap bin...
Yes, let's be optimistic until we have reason to be otherwise...No, let's be pessimistic until we are forced to do otherwise...Maybe, let's be balanced until we are convinced to do otherwise. -- DrSpike, Skanky Burns, Shogun Gunner
...aisdhieort...dticcok...
I'd say that it is more of a focus on improved eye candy rather than an improvement on deeper gameplay.
I have tried the demo, and I keeep an eye on the official forums. Here's my take on it.
Based on comments on Slitherine, they have not significantly upgraded the diplomatic angle of the game. On the plus side, they have put in the means to direct your research choices.
They have added more unit types and expanded your army size to 16. AI army composition is still weak, as well as how the AI uses its forces.
The basic premise is like a TBS version of Age of Empires. Build up your economy to stop the incessant military thrusts the AI does against you. It ends up being a little tedious after a few times. Build an army, deploy it, build an army, deploy it, build an army, deploy it...(At least in AOE, you can finish a game after a few hours)
For some players, this might be what they want, but I have enough games that already do that, so why spend the money for another one.
Maybe when it hits the (very) cheap bin...
I found Legion Gold got old real fast.
Very simple gameplay.
The "Tactics" mainly consists of positioning your forces in various formations and telling them to either wait or move.
In the end, it all devolved into a mindless slugfest with the AI commanders having no more "tactical" sense than a 5 year old.
I know it was n't exactly 'historical' but I think weve got Gladiator to thank for the likes of the Alexander flims, Troy and the Spartan films getting the nessarcery funding.
BTW and thoughts on Colin Farell as Alexander? I have my doubts........
Comment