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
That's comparing apples and oranges. Which do you like better AoK or Civ3 - if civ, then GalCiv, if AoK then RoN.
- "A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it still ain't a part number." - Ron Reynolds
- I went to Zanarkand, and all I got was this lousy aeon!
- "... over 10 members raised complaints about you... and jerk was one of the nicer things they called you" - Ming
Yeah, what The Templar said; these are two games from very different genres. There are extensive demos available for both games, so you can try them out before buying.
Having spent too much time on both of them, I'd say they both do a great job extending their respective genres; GalCiv is a terrific 4X TBS game, and RoN is a great RTS game. Ironically, one of the best new parts of RoN (expanding culture with attrition) was taken directly from TBS games. It's implemented beautifully, though; after this and Civ3, I can't imagine a TBS game coming out that doesn't have "culture" in some form.
The AI is one of the few things you can attempt to compare between them, I suppose. GalCiv has more clever acting AI opponents and gives the feeling of a personality to the main races. RoN AI feels a bit weaker overall but handles tactical movement intelligently and is much more aggressive about pushing towards a win.
I agree with everyone else here adding one more thing. Both games are great and worth your money. They are not botched attempts at gaming while extorting your hard earned cash like Moo3 is et al.
I have them both and if you like TBS get Galciv, else RoN. If I had to chose at owning only one based on what I know now I would choose GalCiv only because I'm a TBS'er at heart.
Throw both games up in the air ... the first one to land is the one you should buy. Then, a few weeks later, do the same thing, except leave out the first game you bought. The game that hits the ground in that toss should then be purchased. Hope this helps.
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001
"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
Tass, over in the RoN creation forum, you have a thread in which you posted a mod. I assume, given the date, that means you had the beta. So you should be pretty familiar with RoN right now, yes?
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Wait just a sec...
Tass, over in the RoN creation forum, you have a thread in which you posted a mod. I assume, given the date, that means you had the beta. So you should be pretty familiar with RoN right now, yes?
I'm biased but I also really like Rise of Nations. I've been playing it for awhile (Stardock makes the Rise of Nations visual style for Microsoft in one of those bizarro world coincidences).
The single player is good and the AI is quite good in single player too. It's the first RTS I've enjoyed playing single player.
Multiplayer is a bit of a tougher issue. I've had trouble getting games started. It's finicky with routers for instance. But it is remarkably free of cheese tactics.
If I had any suggestions it would be:
1) Make air units much much much more expensive
2) Make artillery units much much more expensive
3) Make the default speed slightly slower.
But these are very minor things overall. I highly recommend it.
Originally posted by Draginol
I'm biased but I also really like Rise of Nations.
Now I'd really like to know Brian Reynolds' view on GalCiv.
"As far as general advice on mod-making: Go slow as far as adding new things to the game until you have the basic game all smoothed out ... Make sure the things you change are really imbalances and not just something that doesn't fit with your particular style of play." - WesW
Both of them are nothing more than slightly improved retreads of games everyone was sick of two years ago.
Personally I think Age of Kings is still a better game than RoN, primarily because it is set in a single era instead of inappropriately trying to cover the whole history of civilization in an RTS. Sending a horde of paladins against an enemy city, for instance, does not offend my sense of immersion. Sending twenty tanks racing overland to take "London" does.
Galciv does a nice job with the alignment system, but other than that it is mostly a step backwards for TBS games. The economic system is ridiculous, even by 4X standards. Combat is tedious and highly exploitable.
Personally, I recommend spending your money on game designers with new ideas, instead of encouraging producers to rehash the same old designs over and over.
Galciv does a nice job with the alignment system, but other than that it is mostly a step backwards for TBS games. The economic system is ridiculous, even by 4X standards. Combat is tedious and highly exploitable.
The combat system is just par for the course with purely strategic 4x unfortunately. This is one of those instances where MoO3 had a damn good idea (although somewhat lacking in execution). Even MoO2 and SE4 tactical combat somewhat cuts down on the first fire advantage. I actually like the economic system - even if it is a little trade dependent. Has Brad been reading lots of interdependency theory or something?
- "A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it still ain't a part number." - Ron Reynolds
- I went to Zanarkand, and all I got was this lousy aeon!
- "... over 10 members raised complaints about you... and jerk was one of the nicer things they called you" - Ming
I think this actually works pretty well in the game. However, I also think the idea of trade interdependency is somewhat bogus. Prior to WW1, many people thought that war had become "impossible" due to the economic interdependancy of the major European powers. As it turns out, of course, not only did the European powers not collapse due to the war, they actually expanded quite nicely.
Tweet
Comment