Player Review: Christoph Nahr

Originally posted on the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic newsgroup. Quote: " Too many flaws for a classic but a good game still, and could be great if it's properly patched."
http://apolyton.net/ctp2/preview/nahr.shtml

[Biekert]

I definitely agree with his sentiments re. lack of an aggressive AI -- I'm playing on impossible and am cruising to the win because the other civs do little but sit back in their cities, waiting for me to "take the fight" to them. Even against each other, the AI never sends out "attack stacks" as even Civ1 would do.

This needs to be addressed in the patch, as winning on impossible should be a gut-wrenching, painful ordeal. I do enjoy the game very much despite this failing, however; many thanks to apolyton for this site!

[deathmetal]

i don't know about you guys, but my game with Impossible settings and Marauders is a really hard. They send in a bunch of stacked and MIXED units and AHHHH. But I think it's still WINNABLE. I hate the way they get to the top of tech tree in such a short time. Imagine, in the VERY FIRST turn, everyone is building a wonder which isn't available yet (i.e. Great Wall, Pyramid)....I mean how come they could have researched that?

also, there's a bug which I really hate. In a network game (LAN TCP/IP), there will come a time that when a player attacks the computer-controlled city and won (killing all enemy units), and after that "end turn", it will appear that the player's units are all annihilated and the city isn't captured at all. what's worst, the computer still have his units in perfect health. that sucks big time and takes away the fun in playing games.

another, when I login to the internet, there are only two players...what the heck? i mean, i login to WestWood and it's jampacked. i login to battle.net and it's jampacked. now, i hate lag but i hate no one to play with much more!!!!