10-07-2004 05:05									#151
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Don't forget to vote here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=118172

	11-07-2004 04:27									#152
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar Thats cheating, Diss

hey, Civ2 guys had a link on their forusm to vote in this poll.

and people who think civ3 sucks should not be able to view or post in this forum

	11-07-2004 05:02									#153
	Support Apolyton

Civ 3, while being a decent update to the Civ genre, really lacks in to many spots for me to play it regularly.

My biggest gripe? The utter bull waiting for the computer move its units. 5 minutes for a turn in a small world early on is annoying. 15 mintue turns and a possible game freeze in a large world? Cmon, that's just plain frustrating.

Civ2's engine didn't have all the flashy animation and to this day sits on my desktop. Modding for Civ2 is some much easier, plus I can finish a full game in a day instead of a week.

Civ 4 designer's take note: It's a computer game. We like being able to play it, not do our laundry and assorted chores between turns. Sheesh.

	11-07-2004 06:18									#154
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

5 minutes on a small map?

time to ditch the 386 and move into the modern world

	11-07-2004 08:26									#155
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Harry Tuttle Civ 4 designer's take note: It's a computer game. We like being able to play it, not do our laundry and assorted chores between turns. Sheesh.

Wholeheartedly agree, however I was able to convince the wife that I spent more time studying than playing.

	13-07-2004 21:53									#156
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber I do miss some things from Civ II: Helicopters and Bombers able to detect subs

Helicopters, yes, but Bombers? IMHO Civ2 had way too many units able to detect subs.

quote: Pikemen that are effective against horse units

Pike def = 3, Horse attack = 2 so there you are. I know you mean the 50% bonus, however this feature was pretty close to being broken because it only worked, IIRC, if both the attacker and defender had exactly 10 hps. OK for the default game, lousy for scenarios.

quote: Spearman that die when confronted with Armor

quote: Paratroopers that are useful and have an appropriate range.

Range is editable, however the Civ2 Paratrooper with ADM of 6/4/1 and only 20 hps was pretty close to useless.

quote: 'Firepower' concept (can reproduce in CIV 3 to a degree with editor though)

Not really needed due to low hps. Civ2 had some bizarre and annoying fp rules: ships lose fp when attacking land. Land units lose fp against air.

quote: Zoc control limits with fortifications (alleviated to a degree with C3C)

You didn't need forts for ZOC in Civ2. Pretty much every land unit exerted ZOC. A warrior could even block armor. In any case, the AI never had a clue how to take advantage of ZOC, while the human could employ all sorts of tricks to get around it.

The biggest thing I miss about Civ2 is the amazing number of scenarios available to play. With events and such, Civ2 is just a better scenario engine than Civ3.

	14-07-2004 06:07									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't think bombers could detect subs in civ2, could they?

Helicopters are routinely used by the U.S. navy to detect subs- in conjunction with the battle group or ship it's based off of.

	14-07-2004 08:09									#158
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator IN Response to your replys: [QUOTE] Helicopters, yes, but Bombers? IMHO Civ2 had way too many units able to detect subs.

Actually bombers did not detect subs in the defalt Civ II game but it was one of my favorite mods.

quote: Pike def = 3, Horse attack = 2 so there you are. I know you mean the 50% bonus, however this feature was pretty close to being broken because it only worked, IIRC, if both the attacker and defender had exactly 10 hps. OK for the default game, lousy for scenarios.

Um. Knights and Crusaders (in CIV II) were horse units also. Pikes should be moderately effective against ALL horse units not just the ancient unit (and in C3C an ancient cav has a better chance of defeating a pike in even combat)

quote: Range is editable, however the Civ2 Paratrooper with ADM of 6/4/1 and only 20 hps was pretty close to useless.

True.

quote: Not really needed due to low hps. Civ2 had some bizarre and annoying fp rules: ships lose fp when attacking land. Land units lose fp against air.

As I had mentioned, Fp (firepower) could be redone in the editor using HP for more advanced units. In the default game, a more powerful unit loses to an inferior unit far too often (and I won't take up the spearman-tank issue here either) The CIV II FP was a good system it should have been retained but toned down a bit (less HP difference and Fp changes only with major tech breakthroughs). The air and Sea Fp issue would be resolved with the current bombardment system in CIV III.

quote: The biggest thing I miss about Civ2 is the amazing number of scenarios available to play. With events and such, Civ2 is just a better scenario engine than Civ3.

Agreed the scenarios were better, but that is also because the editor was better; which is REALLY the biggest thing that I miss from CIV II.

	14-07-2004 23:26									#159
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Mad Bomber Actually bombers did not detect subs in the defalt Civ II game but it was one of my favorite mods.

OK, however prop fighters detecting subs never made any sense to me.

quote: Um. Knights and Crusaders (in CIV II) were horse units also. Pikes should be moderately effective against ALL horse units not just the ancient unit (and in C3C an ancient cav has a better chance of defeating a pike in even combat)

The Civ2 pike only had def=2 or 3 vs ancient horse units. Not really all that effective against the a=4 knight or a=5 crusader. Civ3 just gives the pike d=3 against everyone. Better yet, Civ3 adjusted the cost of the units so even though the knight is better, it costs 70 shields vs. only 30 for the pike. Ancient Cavalry are better however you must first invest a lot of shields into SOZ, assuming you are lucky enough to hook up ivory. The extra effort deserves the bonus.

OTOH, I do agree that the concept of extra defense against 2 movers is valuable considering all the advantages of mobility, however Civ2's method is inadequate.

quote: As I had mentioned, Fp (firepower) could be redone in the editor using HP for more advanced units. In the default game, a more powerful unit loses to an inferior unit far too often

Not IMO. In fact, this is one of the big weaknesses of Civ2. Once you got even the smallest tech lead, you could crush your opponents militarily. Civ2 combat was far too predictable. Superior units pretty much never lost a battle.

	15-07-2004 00:50									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Not only predictable, but when they win, they kill all in the stack. Imagine those stack you face in C3C of scores of units and killing them with one good unit.

	15-07-2004 02:36									#161
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Not IMO. In fact, this is one of the big weaknesses of Civ2. Once you got even the smallest tech lead, you could crush your opponents militarily. Civ2 combat was far too predictable. Superior units pretty much never lost a battle.

Which is why I want the Firepower toned down. Firaxis tried to balance the game by getting rid of firepower, but in doing so they went too far. So while I do think that firepower should return, their should be less of a difference in firepower (and Hp) between units.

quote: Not only predictable, but when they win, they kill all in the stack. Imagine those stack you face in C3C of scores of units and killing them with one good unit.

I am not asking for a return of this, only a return of individual units using firepower as a modifier in combat calculations. This function was the true reason that superior units were unbeatable in CIV II.

	16-07-2004 00:14									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

most land units were firepower of 1. With the exception of howitzer. And howitzer ignored city walls. this was the reason that unit was so overpowered.

I didn't feel armour in civ2 was that overpowered. In order to take a city with a mech inf. in it, you had to have artillery with you. Only howitzers could take cities with mech. infantry in them by themselves.

The ships had firepower of 2 though. And that's why they were so overpowering taking out units along the coast and in cities. This can easily be rectified by only allowing ships to damage units and not destroy them- as in civ3.

	16-07-2004 02:58									#163
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Dissident most land units were firepower of 1. With the exception of howitzer. And howitzer ignored city walls. this was the reason that unit was so overpowered. [quote] With, say, a dozen howitzers you could conquer the entire world. Quite a ridiculously overpowered unit. [quote]The ships had firepower of 2 though. And that's why they were so overpowering taking out units along the coast and in cities.

Um, no. Ships' firepower was reduced to 1 when attacking land units. Couple that with Civ2's actually useful Coastal Fortress and sea units were at a severe disadvantage. Yes, you could pick off Settlers or Caravans out in the open but attacking a fortified city was folly. Even if you succeeded your damaged ship would be reduced to a move rate of 2 so you'd have to spend decades limping back to port. Even the mighty battleship was good for taking out maybe two modern units at most. Later in the game you can't even use battleships because the AI has an unending supply of Cruise Missiles to lob at them.

quote: This can easily be rectified by only allowing ships to damage units and not destroy them- as in civ3.

Bombardment is one Civ3's greatest ideas. It also adds the prospect capturing artillery which played a major roll in many wars.

	16-07-2004 07:52									#164
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Capturing artillary is a great benefit...

yet having your own guns turned upon yourself is quite ugly... indeed

	16-07-2004 08:13									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dissident most land units were firepower of 1. With the exception of howitzer. And howitzer ignored city walls. this was the reason that unit was so overpowered. I didn't feel armour in civ2 was that overpowered. In order to take a city with a mech inf. in it, you had to have artillery with you. Only howitzers could take cities with mech. infantry in them by themselves. The ships had firepower of 2 though. And that's why they were so overpowering taking out units along the coast and in cities. This can easily be rectified by only allowing ships to damage units and not destroy them- as in civ3.

hmmm. I remember most modern units (particularly armor and mech infantry) having higher firepower ratings. even if they didn't there was too much of a difference in Hitpoints between units. I would like a Fp system to modify the attack and defence factors (it could be a very small modifcation, such as the AA defence factors) and to have a small increase in HP as units become more powerful. Above all I would like the current bombarment system kept as it is in CIV III. (If it means losing my cruise missle equiped bombers, so be it).

	16-07-2004 10:38									#166
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator Um, no. Ships' firepower was reduced to 1 when attacking land units. Couple that with Civ2's actually useful Coastal Fortress and sea units were at a severe disadvantage. Yes, you could pick off Settlers or Caravans out in the open but attacking a fortified city was folly. Even if you succeeded your damaged ship would be reduced to a move rate of 2 so you'd have to spend decades limping back to port. Even the mighty battleship was good for taking out maybe two modern units at most. Later in the game you can't even use battleships because the AI has an unending supply of Cruise Missiles to lob at them. Bombardment is one Civ3's greatest ideas. It also adds the prospect capturing artillery which played a major roll in many wars.

don't remind me about cruise missiles . I use AEGIS cruisers and they didn't seem to attack those.

But yes attacking a city with a coastal fortress was suicide indeed. I tried to avoid those.

	16-07-2004 10:43									#167
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I just had a rather enjoyable game of Civ3.

I did not go to war once. A completely builder game. Who says Civ3 can't be a builder game? I remember many people saying civ3 is a wargame. I beg to differ.

Yes I did have the setting on less agressive (not the lowest setting, but the one just below normal). I just wanted to show that you can play an entire game of civ3 without going to war. And win by space victory.

I'm not sure if you can do this on Diety levels- probably not. But you can do it on Monarch, as I have. I can post a save if anyone wants to see. The replay will show I was not at war. Although it does say I captured 2 cities, but that was because of cultural conversion. A look at the map and the wonders inside my captiol and nearby cities will confirm this.

	16-07-2004 10:54									#168
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that being able to stay peaceful is a function of your tech and then a secondary function of your strength.

I once made it to the 1100ad time in a sid game with out a war. But is is very hard to hold a tech lead for the whole game above Demi.

I know that you can do it if you have tech to trade or gift and lux or resources. But it gets hairy once all the land is settled and the higher thel evel the sooner that tends to be.

The bigger the map longer you have.

	16-07-2004 19:53									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I never have a tech lead in my games until the second age.

An interesting thing about this game is I was no ahead in points. The Aztecs had more land area. But it was clear I was dominating this game. I was ahead in tech by at least 5 techs I believe. And had good productivity. But they had more land area. And at one point a bigger military. Whoopee.

I was #1 in the important areas. Population, Manf. Goods, GDP, productivity, literacy. but the score showed the aztecs ahead until the end when I got the space ship score added to mine.

	16-07-2004 20:55									#170
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Dissident I just had a rather enjoyable game of Civ3. I did not go to war once. A completely builder game. Who says Civ3 can't be a builder game? I remember many people saying civ3 is a wargame. I beg to differ. Yes I did have the setting on less agressive (not the lowest setting, but the one just below normal). I just wanted to show that you can play an entire game of civ3 without going to war. And win by space victory. I'm not sure if you can do this on Diety levels- probably not.

You certainly can, at least in vanilla Civ3. I posted a save a couple years ago.

	17-07-2004 08:13									#171
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph The real activity of the Civ2 community, or sadly the lack thereof, can be seen in this thread.

Heh, I'm letting the team down.

	19-07-2004 12:21									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Civ 3, circa third millenium AD

Civ 2, circa second millenium AD...

19+8+26 >48

	19-07-2004 14:22									#173
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I you count even the "once or twice" folks on the Civ2 side (to which I belong too, with exactly 2 games), I rest my case. You really should add the "I play crappy games like Call to Power" crowd too, even though it's very small. Would make your "victory" even more overwhelming.

	20-07-2004 11:49									#174
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I installed CIV2 in the office...so when i have a break, i play. As i am more often in the office than at home -> i play more CIV2.
CIV3 is more difficult to hide.

I don't like CIV3 from the 3d age on (hate the music).
Call to Power is not a crappy game. It's a great game, just different.

Last edited by Anguille2 on 20-07-2004 at 11:57

	31-07-2004 09:34									#175
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph I you count even the "once or twice" folks on the Civ2 side (to which I belong too, with exactly 2 games), I rest my case. You really should add the "I play crappy games like Call to Power" crowd too, even though it's very small. Would make your "victory" even more overwhelming.

You must admit that the poll is NOT an overwhelming endorsement of Civ3; particularly when compared to a 1994 game.

	31-07-2004 13:38									#176
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, considering that you managed to wring out 27 'it sucks' votes by beating the grass in the Civ2 forum (and CTP? I taught I taw a puddy tat)...

btw, would you like to compare Civ2 to Mario Brothers? When did that come out?

	31-07-2004 18:42									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Civ2 and Mario bro's? Some comparison!

Civ 3 is essentially a good game... it just has some major flaws which detract from it overall.

	01-08-2004 15:41									#178
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I just posted my own thoughts on the CTP2 and Civ 3 combat models to Solver's thread comparing the two games. My post is here.

I don't know how many of us there are around here who never played Civ 2, but I'm one of them. I actually bought the Test of Time edition of Civ 2, but never got around to trying it out before Civ 3 came out. And since Civ 3 fixed some things from Civ 2 that I felt would be very seriously annoying, such as having units be supported by one particular city and having it be possible to kill an entire stack by killing one unit, I've never been all that interested in going back to the older version and trying it out.

I actually got my start civving from the original Call to Power, shortly after it came out. I got many, many hours of enjoyment out of it. I found CTP2 to be a serious disappointment, but fell in love with Civ 3 very quickly.

	02-08-2004 15:00									#179
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by deity You must admit that the poll is NOT an overwhelming endorsement of Civ3; particularly when compared to a 1994 game.

The poll is flawed beyond belief, as it lacks the option "I played Civ2 before Civ3 came out, but never again". This leads to an ambiguity and makes every conclusion you draw from it basically void.

And Civ2 was released 1996, expert!

	02-08-2004 18:53									#180
	Support Apolyton

They probably started planning it in 94....

XD