All this talk of Civ3 and CTP2...

[hetairoi22]

Originally posted by Venger

-snip-

Advanced Metallurgy
[...]
Force Coordination
Vectored Flight

-snip-

Venger

Cool, that something positive is being said about ctp2. Until now i've only heard regular b!tching. I may by it sometime (when the price is below 20$ )

OT: What do you mean by the above techs BTW? They sound interesting.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Moraelin


The AI in CTP 2 isn't necessarily bad, it's just unrealistically peaceful. If you don't really annoy someone, they'll tend to leave you be. (And even that can be changed.)

I remember it had also some serious Problems with Traffic Jams.
Most times it built only One Road/Railroad from one City to the next.
If there were some Units to move from one City to the next for most of the time the units would pile up in the midst between the two cities and no other unit would be able to pass this congestion because of the Unit-Limit per Tile.
If you started a war against the AI this would be a real hindrance for a succesful defence, cause the AIs Units would alway be somewehere else from where it should be.
Has there ever been a solution to this problem aside from setting the AIs Preference for building Roads higher?

[Moraelin]

Just about the _only_ thing from Civ 3 that I wish CTP 2 had is civilization advantages. You know, those Industrious, Commercial, and stuff. It kind of cut on replay value, having everyone start on 100% equal footing. Maybe an option to have a more aggressive AI would have been nice, but then even in Civ 3 I most often go for other victories, not conquest. I don't really mind an AI that respects a peace treaty.

But that's about it. Everything else it either already did -- and did far better -- or was better off without.

It already had borders, and the AI actually was aware of them. At the risk of repeating myself, the Civ 3 AI doesn't look like anyone even told it about those funny lines drawn on the map. Other than that it won't settle within your borders, it will cheerfully move around like it's still in Civ 2.

It already had special units, only they were slightly more logically based on the government, not giving an inherent ability to build better ships to a civilization which may not even ever have a port. E.g., if you were a Theocracy, you could unleash your priests and teleevangelists on the enemy cities, while if you were a corporate state you could send your lawyers on them.

You COULD already tweak whether you want to go for happiness, quick building, or making lots of money, or something in between. In fact, you could do it both on a national scale, or in each city by selecting what improvements and public works you build. E.g., if you built lots of advanced mines around your city, you'd get different results than if you built hydroponic farms.

The public works from CTP2 I still consider to be a vastly superior concept to having 5 minutes between turns even with animations turned off, because there are 50 workers on automatic. And seeing a whole dozen workers pile up to build a road in the same square. It also fit a more realistic economic model than having workers that need no food and no housing in your cities. It was also a far more fit model for a national economy, than the almost independent city state model of Civ 3.

It already could capture workers. That's what slavers were for. In fact, you could even use defeated military units as slaves. Or defeated barbarians. Which is VERY realistic for an ancient civilization. You also could try to free slaves from the surrounding empires, if you felt so inclined.

It already had armies, and no, you didn't have to go through loops to get a leader first. You could just group units and send them that-a-way. As opposed to Civ3's having to move your settler and its escort one by one, one square at a time, all over a 100 square road, just to make sure they stay together. You could also add or remove units from the army later.

The combat model of CTP2 was IMHO vastly superior to Civ3's over-simplified screw-up. They didn't fight one on one, waiting their turn like in Jackie Chan movies. They actually had a battle where your samurai engaged the enemy head on, while your cavalry flanked them, and your archers provided missile support. THAT is a good combat model.

The tech tree, as was already stated, was richer and made more sense. So did the wonders. E.g., your Pyramids would give you a tourism bonus, not be a giant granary.

[DarthVeda]

The Battle Engine in Call to Power 2 is FAR superior to Civilization III.

it's really a sham, er shame...

[Christmann]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Christmann, as opposed to... what? To Civ 3 which doesn't even have ANY scenarios, AT ALL? Gee, that's got to be an improvement over CTP2. No, really.


Civ 3, by the looks of it, is at most going to get a few extra units in mods, but no real function changes ever. In fact, if it were only by the lame supplied editor, you couldn't even add ANYTHING new, just change stats on what's already there. (Thanks to whoever hacked that lame editor.)

As opposed to civ2. I agree with your points though regarding civ3; I won't be playing it much if usermade scenarios aren't created. However, CTP2 isn't made better by pointing to missing features in another game.

[Venger]

Originally posted by hetairoi22


Cool, that something positive is being said about ctp2. Until now i've only heard regular b!tching. I may by it sometime (when the price is below 20$ )

OT: What do you mean by the above techs BTW? They sound interesting.

Those were from my never released Whoopass modpack...

Advanced Metallurgy required Mass Production and Superconductor and allowed you to build the Main Battle Tank and Fast Attack Submarine...stuff like that. I had about 6 extra late game techs, and about maybe 10 units, including Siege Mechs, Terminators, Fast Attacks, Mobile AAA Battery, A-10 Thunderbolt, etc...

Venger

[N. Machiavelli]

Personally, I think that if Civ3 had incorporated the CtP 2 combat system and some parts of the AI, it would be perfect. As it currenty stands, an 'Army' in Civ3 is a single unit with alot more HP. In CtP, an 'Army' was just that. Civ3 keeps this concept of one-one combat: no matter how big your force is, you battle it out 'gladiator' style. In CtP, it indroduces the concept of 'massed' combat: a group of units attacking another group of units. Take this comparison of a knight and a catapult attacking an enemy pikeman:

In Civ3, you would first bombard the pikeman with your catapult. Mabye it will hit, mabye it won't. Mabye it will then do damage, mabye it won't. Assuming that the catapult did it's job and weakened the pikeman, you then attack with your knight. Mabye it will take out the remaining 2 HP, mabye it won't...but I wouldn't go to Vegas with those kind of loaded odds.
In CtP2, you instead have an army of of 1 knight and 1 catapult attacking that pikeman. Here, they attack at the same time, meaning that the knight is attacking the pikeman while simultainously recieving the ranged attack 'backup' from the catapult. This is how combat is done in the Real World, and there is a reason for that perhaps. If Civ3 were to adopt this style and change the combat system to be less reliant upon loaded odds, then it would be great.

Like previously said, the AI in CtP would actually honor their treaties and borders. Amazing. They could show resect to you without you having to constantly physically kick them out every turn. That and treaties can last more than 20 turns in CtP.

I doubt that these will ever be incorperated, so untill Civ3 becomes a little better after the patch. I'm playing Empire Earth, which takes nearly as much time to play a single game as Civ3.

[FALVES]

Shure, the CTP2 combat system is all nice and reallistic, except when you notice that it is still hampered by the fact that you have no control over unit placement on the tactical screen, and that you are essentially reduced to being a spectator as the battle unfolds. Watching valuable units die because of seemingly random map placement can be frustrating.
I still prefer the good old civ combat sys.

[madmario]

I really enjoyed the Alexander the Great scenario -- the others were good and enjoyable but that one was really very good and got me to reinstall the game a few times just to play it. Someone in the apolyton community designed it... Harlan? Locutus?

-mario

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by FALVES

I still prefer the good old civ combat sys.

Bully for you. The system itself had some flaws, but that is a coding problem, not concept. The concept of massed armies is far superior to 'gladiator' style one-on-one Civ battles. The mechanics of the CtP 2 sys had a few bugs, but the concept was better.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


Bully for you. The system itself had some flaws, but that is a coding problem, not concept. The concept of massed armies is far superior to 'gladiator' style one-on-one Civ battles. The mechanics of the CtP 2 sys had a few bugs, but the concept was better.

Anybody like the way master of magic does combat? Max size of armies is 8 or 9 units. Combat happens between armies on a small tactical map. You can place the units yourself and each unit fights individually. There is actually a reason to have a balanced army with strong attack, defence, and missile units. Its also pretty fast because the tactical map is small, and it only takes a few hits to kill a unit. Only drawback is sometimes it can be repetitive. An auto-resolve feature can resolve that. Sometimes I think maybe civ 3 will be even better if it does combat this way.

Master of Magic II, /drool

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Monoriu


Anybody like the way master of magic does combat? Max size of armies is 8 or 9 units. Combat happens between armies on a small tactical map. You can place the units yourself and each unit fights individually. There is actually a reason to have a balanced army with strong attack, defence, and missile units. Its also pretty fast because the tactical map is small, and it only takes a few hits to kill a unit. Only drawback is sometimes it can be repetitive. An auto-resolve feature can resolve that. Sometimes I think maybe civ 3 will be even better if it does combat this way.

Master of Magic II, /drool

Hehe. MOO2 had the same thing. Although longer, I found that conducting combat myself yielded better results than letting the comp decide. It was the same with Lords of the Realm and the ancient, buggy, but worth-while game called "Conqueror: 1086 A.D.".

A TBS game utilizing RTS combat is awesome, and I also wish Civ had used this, but these types of games can take 10X as long and the average player has the patience/attention span of a gnat.

[yin26]

Is that like Heroes of Might and Magic? I really enjoy those battles ... HOMM 4(?) is coming soon!

Sid mentioned this specifically, actually. He thinks doing such a thing add needless and unfun complexity to the game. So now we have hours of unit by unit tedium Sid-like fun!

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by yin26

Sid mentioned this specifically, actually. He thinks doing such a thing add needless and unfun complexity to the game. So now we have hours of unit by unit tedium Sid-like fun!

At least spectators in the Roman collosseums got to see blood. The closest we get is imagining a Tank's crew being burnt to a crisp when it blows up. Oh well, I've moved to Empire Earth for a while and unless the patch works a miracle, I'll stay there.

Empire Earth = Age of Empires on sterroids!

[yin26]

Yeah, I've started playing EE and then decided my life can't handle that much sustained computer intensity (my wife and daughter have become more demading ). Still, awesome game. Makes me kind of wish I was single and jobless.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by senowen
If you guys want to play CTP2, you had better go to the forums here and find all the good patches because the game absolutely sucks without having all the right patches in place. You guys should probably go over there and ask some questions and such.

You'll need more than the patches. The game sucks even after the patches. It still sucks after the mods.... In the end the game is awful. CTP was average but CTP2 was just plain bad.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Simpleton



You'll need more than the patches. The game sucks even after the patches. It still sucks after the mods.... In the end the game is awful. CTP was average but CTP2 was just plain bad.

Thank you for that informative and example-rich post! Your unfounded opinions warm my soul, please please, write more!

[Changmai Beagle]

Wow - Another reference to Master of Magic battle screens. I've suggested that for every game that has come out since I found this forum.... sigh....

Yes, Sid did comment on why he didn't include that type of combat, but I respectfully disagree. And if I remember correctly, it was optional?? If not, it certainly could be made so (see Age of Wonders). Even Conquest of the New World (which was a horror show on my computer - it took 10 minutes to load and would only load successfully every third time or so) had an interesting tactical battle setup.

If Firaxis were to add something nice and tactical like that, I'd even plump for 'new edition' (maybe).

[kimmygibler]

"If CTP2 had the AI of Civ3 it would be a showstopper"

This is the truth. The list of features for ctp2 was endless. (corporate branch, slavers, pirating trade routes) But the ai was brutal and many features were implemented poorly. (if you think the ai ignores your borders in civ3...) Civ3 is a step backwards in terms of innovation but a huge step forward in ai. The real question is whether or not Civ3 is a step forward from SMAC...

[player1]

Why Civ3 doesn't have a scripting language?

Why it doesn't have modifiable AI?

Those modifications helped CTP2 to improve AI from POOR status to average status.

What could be done in Civ3 with such tools?

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by kimmygibler
"If CTP2 had the AI of Civ3 it would be a showstopper"

This is the truth. The list of features for ctp2 was endless. (corporate branch, slavers, pirating trade routes) But the ai was brutal and many features were implemented poorly. (if you think the ai ignores your borders in civ3...) Civ3 is a step backwards in terms of innovation but a huge step forward in ai. The real question is whether or not Civ3 is a step forward from SMAC...

1) corporate branch = boring, repetitive, stupid unit
2) slavers = too powerful
3) pirating trade routes = ridiculously tedious and boring AI pirating it before being obliterated in response. i guess pirating was a feature that should remind you that out there there was AI empire lurking and that you should perhaps smash it with a single army.

[Tilemacho]

CTP2 combat system was exellent and the units were placed mostly correct....it's so annoying that civ3 didn't take any of CTP2 good ideas.
Unfortunately both games don't have MP......I mean just look at CTP1 multiplayer thread it still has 40.000 post quite a lot more than whole CTP2 section just because of MP......

[Proteus_MST]

Yep, I agree.
A Civ-Game with the Combat-System of MOM would be really cool. :d:
Even the Combat-Concept from CTP would be better than the current Gladiator-Battles of Civ3 (although with a better Placement of Units [no, it wasn´t nice, when the Compzuter sometimes placed your Artillery-Units right in Front of the Balltefield and used your Tank-Units as Artillery-Support]).

[Moraelin]

Yep, the Master of Magic fights were the real thing.

[Monoriu]

But one thing though, if you do tactical combat you gotta do it right.

Good examples: Master of Magic, Master of Orion.

Bad Examples: Imperialism I and II.

[FALVES]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Yep, the Master of Magic fights were the real thing.

Man, I burned a lot of eye-lash playing that game. That game ruled and more recently I had a good time playing Age of Wonders too. The combat systems are similar, but the rest of the game plays a lot like Heroes of Might n Magic, wich sucks.

It makes me wonder why hasn't anybody remebered to do a Master of Magic 2. With the current advances in graphics and AI the game would really kick @ss!!

Btw, anybody knows where I can find a copy of MoM?

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by kimmygibler
CTP 2 has way more features and options, but the ai is insanely bad. The civ3 ai is a million times better. I would never play the unmodded CTP again. (Also, Activision's patch was useless)

Yes, the unmodded AI wasn't so hot but the mods improve things considerably. Also I almost always play CTP2 as a multiplayer game against other humans so how good or bad the AI was is of no concern.

If CTP2 is played MP against Humans then it is, IMHO, the best civ off shot so far. Of course I am an MP fanatic so I don't plan on buying Civ3 until MP support comes along.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by Simpleton
You'll need more than the patches. The game sucks even after the patches. It still sucks after the mods.... In the end the game is awful. CTP was average but CTP2 was just plain bad.

Of course this opinion was given to us by a man who calls himself a simpleton....
:-)

[JamesJKirk]

While I've played and enjoyed CTP and CTP2, it really does get old just winning so easily, even not through conquest, but just expansion and gold and science. This was much more true in 2 than in 1, but the interface was much much nicer in the second one.

You need to take this into consideration about CTP2 AI doesn't even conduct diplomacy with each other, the best mod makers are just barely eaking out some bare forms of Ai diplomacy, and this is probably one of the most revolutionary steps in the modding of the game. But, it's incredibly modable, SCRIPTING LANGUAGE and all that.

Another thing about the CTP series was that I felt I was playing against anonymous enemies who may or may not have even had separate colors. The diplomacy screens were crap, and all civs essential acted the same, regardless of size or situation.

Still, they both do have a small place in my heart, and I also desire getting that best of both worlds of each series