Will There Be A Ctp3 ?

[J-S]

Just wanted to know if anyone has news wether Activision ever thought of releasing a Call to Power 3... I'm sorry if this is posted in the wrong forum

[hexagonian]

No - Activision has bailed out of it. (although keep an eye on the Source Code project in the CTP2 forums)

You can hope the Firaxis wakes up and impliments the good features of CTP into civ4.

Of course some players think that there is nothing redeeming in CTP/CTP2. Blind loyalty sometimes does that...

[Az]

Of course some players think that there is nothing redeeming in CTP/CTP2. Blind loyalty sometimes does that...

Quite sad, isn't it?

[Inverse Icarus]

i think the first 2 sucked enough.

[Shogun Gunner]

I wouldn't say they sucked entirely...there were several good ideas that were improvements from Civ2...however, the gameplay lacked something, the bizarre futuristic techs, too many lawyer units -- that was really weird IMO...anyway, the product [/i]missed[/i]

[Frozzy]

They won't. Activision no longer develops ANY games, not to mention most of the former CtP developers have either been laid off or left.

[Asmodean]

Of course some hope that the Source Code project will eventually turn in to some kind of a sequel.

Asmodean

[Inverse Icarus]

sequel of suck.

[J-S]

What really sucks are "this or that sucks" posts

Anyway, CTP1 imho implemented at least 4 things that Civ games haven't yet dared to do (for unknown reasons):

• 1) stack combat.
  2) public works.
  3) space atmosphere.
  4) futuristic technologies

CTP2 on the other hand, I didn't like so much...

It's a pity that Activision baled out on all of us CTP fans... and the worst thing is, that they had a great innovative CTP1 game on their hands... all they had to do for me to enjoy CTP2 was improve graphics and interface, and add a couple of units and imps.

Good thing they released the source code tho... I'm totally optimistic on what the community will accomplish with it.

[Fosse]

I agree that stacked combat and public works were great new things, disagree vehemently that the space layer and futuristic technology are good ideas.

And agree that "suck" posts do indeed suck, and game "loyalty" making people hate similar games is downright absurd.

CtP had a lot of good ideas, and Civ 4 will the be poorer for ignoring them, if indeed that is what Firaxis chooses to do.

[Inverse Icarus]

1) stack combat. - meh. coulda been better, but good idea.
2) public works. - sucks.
3) space atmosphere. - elaborate.
4) futuristic technologies - sucks.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Fosse
And agree that "suck" posts do indeed suck, and game "loyalty" making people hate similar games is downright absurd.

i've played the both, and i feel that CtP is a bastardization of one of the greatest series of all time.

[hexagonian]

...and I think CTP was an expansion on it.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Kuciwalker]

1) stack combat.

The benefits of this are arguable.

2) public works.

A lot of people hate this, some like it, the tile improvements themselves really sucked.

3) space atmosphere.

OVER MY DEAD BODY

4) futuristic technologies

see above

[Jon Miller]

I agree with skywalker

Jon Miller

[hexagonian]

It stands to reason that whenever I post, skywalker and jon miller will automatically be diametrically opposed to it. (I'm still waiting for Sir Ralph to add his opinions more than he has so far...)

Such is life... Though suprisingly, I do get a lot of agreement on the stacked combat issue so I must be on the right track

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

2) public works.

...the tile improvements themselves really sucked.

As opposed to the lack of multiple level tile improvements currently in civ3, as well as the infinite rail movement fiasco... (and it seems that there is also a lot of support for fixing these two issues too.)

[Solver]

I'll pop here to support Hex...

CtP series are innovative. There are indeed many better ideas in those games. While the stack combat is an open debate, the majority of players agree it's good. I've seen a ton of threads complaining about civ 3 combat system, and very few complains about that in CtP .

The moddability possible in CtP is still far beyond Civ 3. And Civ 2, for that matter, although not to such an extent.

Public Works take some time getting used to, but most actually end up liking them. Unconventional units and future techs, though, are the two things that cause much controversy, but personally, I love both.

[alva]

1) stack combat. - meh. coulda been better, but good idea.

Like both Civ and CTP way of handling it ( might be nice to what Firaxis would do with CTP-style combat)

2) public works. - sucks.

Wouldn't seeing this implemented in Civ4

3) space atmosphere. - elaborate.

Came way too late in the game to be of any use IIRC, same as underwater cities, and let's face it, all it really does is adding more MM at a time in the game where you don't really need anymore of it. (And again IIRC it had a terrible effect on my low-spec 'puter. It took ages to switch between earth and space mode)

4) futuristic technologies - sucks.

Can live without them, great for scenario's but rather not see them in the epic.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by J-S
1) stack combat.

I'm still not convinced that the CTP way of combat is that great. Actually the only thing I like about it is the advantegeous certain units have, like ranged archers or flanking cavalries. But with the retreating capability of horses/cavalries and 0 range bombardment for archers, civ3 is not far either in depicting the differences between units.

From the civ3 style combat I like armies and bombardment. How would that work with stacks?

What I really missed until civ3 was stacked movement and what I am missing now is stacked bombardment. I don't think while playing: "Wow, this battle would be so cool if it was stacked!" It might be good for civ if implemented right, but I'm still very reserved about this.

2) public works.

To quote skywalker:
Over my dead body
I really hate it. Implement it in Civ4 and I won't buy it.

3) space atmosphere.
4) futuristic technologies[/list]

I don't really care about these.

Now, what else what that great about CTP, that it should be blend with civ3 into a new civ game? I would stay far away from it, both in ideas as well as implementation.

[Peter Triggs]

Well there's (gamespot review):

But the single best aspect of Call to Power is that, for the first time in this series, it puts the concept of "empire" front and center. This might seem like an odd statement - after all, the Civ games are all about empire building, aren't they? Actually, they're not. They're really about city-level management - many cities and many levels to be sure - and with few exceptions, the Civ games' policy-management controls, support schemes, and even interfaces are oriented around individual cities rather than the empire as a whole.

Not so in Call to Power, which takes a global approach to empire building. A few key examples: Units no longer are supported by a specific city, but by the empire itself; city improvements (tile improvements) are no longer built by settlers, but financed and supported by the empire; and while city-specific management is allowed, it must always be done within the parameters of the empire's global fiscal and social policies.

But they already copied that. (edit: except for the public works system.)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Tiberius
From the civ3 style combat I like armies and bombardment. How would that work with stacks?

Rather than type everything out again, you can go through these threads. They basically cover the gamut, including your concerns about stacked combat.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103316
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=103349

The one thing I will say is that each of those combat/movement elements in place in civ3 are not necessarily bad in and of themselves - tedious, yes, but not bad.

But it is the combination of
1. infinite stack size making size the overriding factor and basically places front lines IN your cities nullifying a field game
2. the inability to efficiently combine different TYPES of units for movement purposes
3. a weakened ZOC rule
4. and infinite rail movement
all added together that greatly compound tedium and greatly limits strategic and tactical considerations.
(and I address all of these factors more specifically in the threads above)

If you like the system, that's your right... (I'm certainly not going to begrudge you if you want to spend 10-15 minutes a turn in Industrial Age(+) battles resolving single unit combat and movement - when a streamlined stacked combat system would only take a couple of minutes for basically the same end result) but at the same time, the poll for stacked combat vs single unit combat is currently running almost 4:1 IN FAVOR OF stacked combat, so there definitely is a desire to see it in civ4 or to strongly consider it.

Besides, you have nothing to worry about. Firaxis is sure to take the easy way out, which is minor alterations to the present system - thereby relieving your wallet of another $40 with minimum effort. (PTW anyone???)

Originally posted by Tiberius
What I really missed until civ3 was stacked movement and what I am missing now is stacked bombardment.

Stacked bombardment is in CTP2 already.

As for space/future techs, I have no particular feeling either way. After all, I play my own CTP2 Mod that is primarily based in the Ancient/Medieval Age, so you know where my preferences lie...

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by hexagonian

the poll for stacked combat vs single unit combat is currently running almost 4:1 IN FAVOR OF stacked combat, so there definitely is a desire to see it in civ4 or to strongly consider it.

I haven't voted in the poll yet and I doubt I will. Honestly it is a very poorly done poll. I know I don't want a civ2 style combat, nor a ctp style combat.
(btw, you should post the poll in the civ3 forums and watch the outcome.)

Stacked combat has its merits and like I said I'm not really against it, but I'm not for it either. However, the whole civ4 list seems to me as if it was a ctp3 list and I think that keeps many civ3-ers away (that and the forum's title: couldn't we have a Civ4 List forum, in the same way as the old Civ3 List forum?).

[Maquiladora]

(btw, you should post the poll in the civ3 forums and watch the outcome.)

Civilization Games General/Future is a neutral forum, seems like a good place for a poll, unless you think ideas for civ4 can only be made by civ fans and not CtP fans?

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, I'd bet there are more CtP(2) enthusiasts here. It seems many of the C3 people never venture out of the C3 forums.

[Maquiladora]

Poll results:

Stacked Combat - 47
single unit - 13
banana - 7

There are barely 47 current regular CtP'ers on Apolyton, let alone that come to this forum.

[Kuciwalker]

Still, I dare you - post in in the C3-General or C3-Conquests forum

[Peter Triggs]

On Dec 12, Ras posted in the Civ 4 thread in Civ3 General reminding people about these threads. I immediately followed with

There's some heated discussions about how CTP2's system of stacked combat is better than the Civ system. But very few Civ3 players are turning up to express their opinion.

That thread has just over 1800 hits.

[Maquiladora]

Still, I dare you - post in in the C3-General or C3-Conquests forum

Youre right i wouldnt dare, or bother would be a better word.

But the real question is how many of those are experienced civvers or civ3 is their first civ experience? I can say with quite abit of confidence all of the CtP'ers have played civ2 (at least) beforehand and made a conscious choice for CtP1/2.

As for CtP3, not from Activision, but youre all welcome in the CtP2 source code forum. There was only an idea today to change the combat system. Anything is possible, can the same be said for civ3?

[alva]

There's no reason to do this Civ3 versus CtP thing imo, a waste of time.
I played civ2/ctp1/ctp2/civ3...
Liked them all ( for various reasons).
What's more I have often said that a mix of both games would be more then welcome.