 |
| |
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrKazanovaKK
One thing always amused me about Civ3 was the concept that some learned person sitting in a hut would think that if he found a large, not too wild animal, he might ride it, then when he finished this thought, the animal would appear outside somewhere. Or think, if I had a metal, I might be able to heat it up and make something.
|
Absolutely,
especially amusing thing if you discover Iron Working or Horse Riding,
although there are no Horses or Iron nearby and,
even several hundred years after discovery,
you are not able to get a grip on said Resources 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
 |
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dis
I can't explain exactly. The game seems so cool when reading the instruction manual. But the gameplay just doesn't grip me for some reason. |
Well, I can understand the weak AI in vanilla turning off players - and it may be that your impressions of the game are tied into that aspect a little more than you may realize. But I think I can say that we've resolved that issue...
The basic concepts are the same - build up an empire in a TBS format. In my mind, the greatest differences are how some of the gameplay concepts are handled.
PW vs workers. In CTP2, you have a more streamlined system with the PW system - and even the basic concepts of how the tiles are worked are different in the 2 games - (single tile/single worker of civ3 vs a cumulative ring tile format of CTP2). I'd admit that I do like the single tile format of civ3 over the ring tile of CTP2, but it is definitely not a gamebreaker for me.
Stacked combat. Again, a more streamlined approach in CTP2, with the use of stacked combat vs single-unit combat.
The end result is the same in both games in these gameplay elements though. Both systems allow a player to exploit tiles though the creation of improvements, and these improvents require the player to expend resources to do so - and the more resources he expends, the greater his return.
With combat, both games do require a player to generate a mix of unit types (offense, defense, ranged). Both games allow for artillery useage in a bombard capability.
Ultimately, the main difference in the games is the amount of micromanagement that you have to do in all periods of the game - and whether you consider that micromangement as tedium or not.
I would probably be playing more civ3 if the game had a setup that would allow for the effective management of these two areas. A simple feature to create locked substacks of workers and military units, and the ability to issue build commands to multiple workers or combat orders to multiple units with one click of the mouse would help a great deal, but it is not in place at the level it should be. civ3 bogs down for me once the map is flooded with units, and there is no effective means to manage those units - at least not nearly as effective as in CTP2/AOM.
The one area that I do feel civ3 is better than CTP2 is in the atmosphere created through diplomacy (emphasis on atmosphere). I do not particularly care about the structure of civ3's diplomacy setup that creates the need to tech-whore, and I do not care for the trade imbalances either, but I can accept them as gameplay elements. Yet I feel that the overall atmosphere of the civ3 diplomacy system is a little more refined than in CTP2.
To AOM's credit, Stan is working on diplomacy though, and has just posted an update for it.
I'd still challenge you to at least take a look at the readme for AOM, and since you have CTP2, to consider playing some AOM. Different is not necessarily bad. I've been able to get enjoyment out of both civ3 and CTP2/AOM because I can accept those differences. (To be honest - I've probably played as much civ3 as CTP2/AOM over the past year.) Sure, I may have a favorite, but it does not mean that the alternative is bad either.
Break out of your civ3 comfort zone...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stankarp
|
|
australia
Feb 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
So it makes sense not to see it (as it would give an advantage to the human player who already knows what they are). |
by Dis.
Firstly, its a balance thing. Civ 3 and AOM give the AI players extra starting advances and research bonuses.
Both give the Human 2 ways to get extra advances, trade and espionage.
However, AOM is bigger and more intensive and military technology is more important. So I put in the ability to use a resource to get an advance (for a heavy cost) and the ability to capture an advance from another civ.
IN AOM, the fact you have an Iron deposit does not mean you can race off and get iron working. You can get only one advance per good most of the time, so to get to iron working you have to expend up to 6 nomads on 6 different copper/iron goods (plus gold and PW), then still research at least 3 advances not available from a good.
The net effect is that if you have several of a key resource, your technology in that area can be advanced in that way, which is more realistic. If you have access to 3 horses and camels you can have the best cavalry for a while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
smithldoo
|
|
I have played Civ extensively, but ended up going back to CTP2 happiley for Cradle and now AOM.
Have just about completed a grand campaign with the diplomacy update.
AOM has a different feel about it, especially once you get over your aggression level and the Ai begin to look at you like a hitler. The first 120 turns are fun and tense and a little unpredictable. Then you get established and can do an Alexander or Caesar and conquer someone and get them to surrender rather than fight to the last warrior or turn into rubble. An early surrender can be a huge boost as it was for those 2 great gentlemen.
Then consolidate for the Dark Ages, then move on into your specific government for the medieval period that, with city defences, give that period its own flavour. After defeating the AI armies, you have to conduct sieges to get into the cities.
Then instead of a boring, guaranteed victory as you grind everything to dust, you have to plan your way to the target of 2500 points, balancing your government restrictions, corruption, un cooperative AI, and still a few barbarians. I am keeping an eye "on the clock" as the mongols and the black death start in 30 turns and I want to try to win by then.
AOM has a couple of minor bugs (probably left over from CTP2) but they do not affect gameplay. Overall, it is a reall challenge and new feel. Most people who build a few cities and move a few units find out the AI sort them out fairly quickly. You have to have a plan, resources and geography are very important. Supply means war costs a lot to wage (repairing units takes reources).
AOM takes you out of the civ3 comfort zone and puts you in the real world of civilization building IMHO. You can loose a game of AOM with indecisive play (and I have). You are under at least a little pressure ALL the time. Yin said it was a game you cannot afford to cruise for even 10-15 turns in. Hex is right, that is a great compliment.
 to the AOM team.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
I downloaded AoM,
put it into a separate Folder and tried to start it.
At the beginning everything works nice,
until I want to start a new game.
After I have adjusted all the settings I want and click "Launch", it says that no CtP2 - CD is within my CD-ROM (which of course is incorrect)
I assume that it might have something to do with my CD being the german version of CtP2, but with another english mod, i.e. "Call to Conquest" (also in Combination with the Modswapper) it works just fine.
So I dunno, maybe you have some Ideas how to get it to work with the german CD, hexagonian (for example replacing the file that checks for the CD with its german version [I donŽt know which file it is else I would have done it already]).
(oh and yes, after encountering the problems I uninstalled CtP2, reinstalled it again and also applied the patch that came with the zip, but it didnŽt help)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
stankarp
|
|
australia
Feb 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
I assume that it might have something to do with my CD being the german version of CtP2 |
Unfortunately yes AFAIK. One person with the French version managed to get it to work but never explained fully how he got it to work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
skrobism
|
|
Thanks Hex!
I look forward to this challenge. I will keep everyone posted with my game struggles and victories, but mostly struggles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Protra3211
|
|
While wait for Age of Man disc in mail.
Been playing the latest CtP2 playtest 08 02 05 . The updates are showing the hard work many are doing. AI to AI diplomacy has improved. Wars last abput 40 turns between them along with other treaties.
To spice up game play I have taken the( numbers) from the DiffDB text file in Apolpack mod and replaced them in the playtest file. Try impossible level its hard to play against the AI now as it will uses many ranged attacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
smithldoo
|
|
quote:
While wait for Age of Man disc in mail. |
by Protra3211
AOM has been available for download from Apolyton for months, including the latest diplomacy update from this week.
With due respect, what I saw of the source code is mainly bug fixes and many reports of problems with time taken for turns to execute and caravans etc.
I played CTC, Cradle, Med Mod before AOM.
CTC seemed to take care of the major issues with CTP2 (mainly timid AI), but what was really noticeable was the lack of the scale of Cradle. In 250 turns, 2nd game on max difficulty etc I mastered it because units repaired so easily, so I never finished it. In that 250 turns I never saw a full stack of enemy units and had only built my first one towards the end.
AOM takes the best of Cradle and CTC and adds 20+ new concepts that make it play like a new game, and the scale is bigger than even civ3 on gigantic map). The AI are pretty focused and certainly aggressive, in fact Stancarp toned them down a bit after people claimed they were murderous. In my last full game, just won, the Dutch were gradually building a very big empire (48 cities odd) at the expense of the Turks and the Phoenecians. And there were other ai with 30 + cities.
With the diplomacy update the AI now responds better to the diplomacy state between it and the human. I am interested in gameplay, and AOM is very well thought out so the new concepts balance and force you to be positive and decisive in gameplay.
Sounds like you have not tried AOM Protra3211.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smithldoo
With due respect, what I saw of the source code is mainly bug fixes and many reports of problems with time taken for turns to execute and caravans etc. |
The turn length issue (caused by a previous AI change IIRC) has been fixed. The caravans cost is also fixed, and of course work is always continuing.
quote:
CTC seemed to take care of the major issues with CTP2 (mainly timid AI), but what was really noticeable was the lack of the scale of Cradle. |
To be fair that was not the aim of CTC, or the original game, which is similar in scale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus9
|
|
Well . . . if you end up with any more give aways then I'll be willing to try.
My reasons for not purchasing CTP2? They tie back to CTP1:
Public Works: Sorry, but I just could not get into it for two reasons. 1) I didn't like the idea of being able to suddenly lay out a continental wide railroad in just one turn (or a slew of farms, etc.). 2) Moving workers around may have seemed like "work" to many people but it was "fun work" to me. When I finally finished that continental railroad, all that "work" I did made me feel as if I EARNED that railroad . . . not just simply tweaking a slider and suddenly spilling out all those rails in an abstract fashion.
Unfriendly Interface: I recall having to sift through five or six tabs in the lower right portion of the screen. This was somewhat painful. The one city screen concept in the regular Civ series was FAR SUPERIOR and EASIER.
Irregular Economics: City improvements used half multiples (such as 2.5) instead of using whole numbers. Furthermore, if I recall correctly, the science/taxes/happiness ratios were handled an an empire level (or something wierd like that). The bottom line was that it took extra effort to figure out data at a city level. This was important to me because I wanted to know if building a bank was really cost efficient to me at the time.
Having an economic system that is easy to read and understand, and yet challenging to balance, is very crucial to me and is one of the reasons why I was put off a bit by CTP and Europa Universalis. In Civ, you knew exactly, and quickly, what any economic change would/could do . . . from city buildings down to moving a single city worker from plains to grasslands.
In addition to the above, AOM appears to have additional features that I would be concerned about:
Bloodbath Galore: From what I've read, it sounds like this game is nearly all about fight, fight, FIGHT! Kind of tedious from a peaceful builder's perspective. Please don't get me wrong . . . I enjoy the challenge of having some big bully coming along to take over. But I also want to enjoy the other aspects of the game . . . clever diplomacy, grim and tight trade bargaining, and developing a good friendship with another nation or two.
Historical Entrapment: I understand there is a Dark Ages event and a Succession of Kings. Sounds somewhat interesting but, quite frankly, I want the ability to rewrite history completely and not be forced to prepare for some kind of barbaric bloodbath that is guaranteed to come (at least, this is my little understanding of it).
Crippling Events: This is the least I know about, so please bear with me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, there are events that take place that can really cripple you. If the devestating events occur on a very rare basis, then fine. But too often can make the game feel pointless (nearly take over the world . . . asteroid hits earth . . . BOOM! You lose!  ). I'm exaggerating, of course, but I think you get my meaning. Events that present a challenge (even if a bit more frequently) without near anhilation (sp?) I think are the way to go.
Well, that's it. Thanks for listening and if you do have an extra copy I'd be happy to give it a try (though it may take a while to complete a game). 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
smithldoo
|
|
CTC also had the problem the original game had, ie, the shorter time scale meant that there were not as many units and often by the time you marched from one civ to another, the units could be outdated. I also remember some units stats were wrong, eg, hoplites beat legions.
As far as public works goes in CTP, the civ series is far more unrealistic. You build a worker for not much and he lives and builds stuff for NO MORE EXPENSE EVER for 5000 years. Spare me, about as unrealistic as you can get thanks. The PW mean that youy use a portion of your production all the time to make improvements. And you can only build them in your national borders.
I disagree about the CIV 3 interfaces, they are inadequate full stop IMHO. Not even mentioning those stupid faces you have to interpret.
I have not played a AOM game that was "Bloodbath galore" unless you went on a unlimited aggression spree. Unlike CTC where some AI just went for you even if you had not explored. In AOM The AI aggression is tied to your aggression, but you can now immobilise AI with treaties.
I disagree about historical issues. If you want to totally write your own history, why have civs with historical names, or units or wonders or structures????? There are 4 scripted events in AOM over 550 turns, which simply test out how effective your management is. If you are well prepared and pro active, you can turn some to your advantage and even the Dark Ages (which killed the biggest empire todate at the time) are a short term consolidation during a period that led to a huge upheaval in many civs.
Rewrite history without being historical seems like a bit of a contradiction.
I do not know of one "crippling event" in AOM that you cannot plan for or avoid or do something to reduce the affect of. There are a series of disasters and bonuses that have a chance 3-5% of occuring each turn. From 18-30 turns apart on average that AN event will occur. The event can be bad (60% chance) or good (40%) chance. If you use the MULTIPLE tools provided in the game, after a while the net affect is that the good EVENTUALLY outweigh the bad. ie, you will get more pop growth and happiness than losses and unhappiness. AOM even displays a little movie over each city that has an event.
In my last game, I ended up with 20 outposts on food goods, this reduced the chance of a famine by 60% if it occured in each city, less the affect of buildings and wonders. Cities under 30 in size actually had more chance of growing because I had used the tools provided, rather than shrinking. In the end I had more than twice as much chance of a harvest as opposed to a famine. ie, famine might affect 5-6 biggest cities, while a harvest would benefit 30+ cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
angrybowen
|
|
Australia
Aug 2005
time: 15:37
|
|
I agree that AOM is a different scale to CTP2/CTC, that is why I like it. To invade an AI after turn 250 requires 80+ units, supply trains, and pw for supply points. Then you have to defeat the field armies, then start taking the cities. Just like Alexander and Caesar. However, the best single feature of it is that an AI will not fight to the last man or spawn cheat units to prolonge its resistance. If you outnumber the AI sufficiently and capture a city, there is a chance the AI will surrender to you. Add stack combat to streamline things (where units actually have functions and specialties) and this part of AOM is on a different world to Civ 3. AI requires you to employ military tactics.
I gave up on Civ 3 because I thought the combat system was childish, but not the only reason. It was overloaded with outright AI cheats, even the lack of ZOC helps the AI, it floods past your strongpoints and attacks weak points because it knows exactly what is there. I havn't played in a while but there is no overall city manager where you can look at a list of cities and what they are producing AFAIK.
AOM has more depth and is more historical and realistic. That is its problem. It has too many options and tools and it has NO COMFORT ZONE for average players to hide in and fantasize in. Every aspect has more depth. Each game is different, resources, geography are very important. Even who your neighbours are will affect your ability to build a civilization that will get you a winning score.
Workers who live 5000 years and build roads, mines etc out of sweat and thin air more realistic???? Spare me please. It takes turns to accumulate PW and turns for the improvements to appear after they are laid out. It may be an "abstract" concept but is far more realistic if you don't mind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
Gnawing on your mind...
Jun 1999
time: 23:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Public Works: Sorry, but I just could not get into it for two reasons.
1) I didn't like the idea of being able to suddenly lay out a continental wide railroad in just one turn (or a slew of farms, etc.).
2) Moving workers around may have seemed like "work" to many people but it was "fun work" to me. When I finally finished that continental railroad, all that "work" I did made me feel as if I EARNED that railroad . . . not just simply tweaking a slider and suddenly spilling out all those rails in an abstract fashion.
|
You probably will not be able to do this to a great degree in CTP2/AOM because PW funds (which are production shields that are taken from a local level and pooled on a national level) are required to repair units, as well as for the construction of TIs. This is a major and realistic improvement from the civ series where you could instantaneously heal units with no cost.
So you will suddenly have to choose what to do with those funds - and many times will find that you cannot do everything you want to because of these multiple requirements. (...a 'guns or butter' choice) And if you choose to go to war, you will have to EARN it.
I've said it before - I'm not opposed to the worker system of civ3, but the implimentation in civ3 that forces the player into endless micromanagement and endless mouseclicking to build TIs in the later game creates tedium, when a simple grouping command and a single mouseclick to issue orders to multiple workers on a tile would accomplish the same thing in an efficient manner. There is a difference between good gameplay that is well-designed and gameplay which sinks into a time-wasting black hole, and it is inexcusable that 4 versions of civ games (civ1/2/smac/civ3) still have not fixed this problem when they had the tools to do so. (I hope/believe civ4 will fix it)
So I will take the more streamlined system of CTP2/AOM - until I get the grouping command and the ability to issue build orders to multiple workers with a single click of the mouse.
The end result is the same in both games - the creation of TIs. And I take as much pride in CTP2/AOM when I'm able to link up my empire, as you do in civ3, because it does cost me too, and it requires decisionmaking that is more challenging than what is in civ3, due to a guns or butter approach.
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Unfriendly Interface: I recall having to sift through five or six tabs in the lower right portion of the screen. This was somewhat painful. The one city screen concept in the regular Civ series was FAR SUPERIOR and EASIER.
|
The CTP2 setup is not a tab system anymore, and is closer to the classic civ setup. (I did prefer the CTP1 system though) I will say that the city screen of civ3 is probably better than the CTP2 setup for a quick overview and adjustments, but I find that there are other things about the civ3 interface that I do not like.
Bottom line - I have adjusted to both the civ3 and CTP2/AOM setups through repetitive gameplay - once I knew what I needed to do in both systems.
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Irregular Economics: City improvements used half multiples (such as 2.5) instead of using whole numbers.
|
CTP2/AOM multiplies every economic factor that is in civ3 by 10 (one shield in civ3 translates into 10 shields in CTP2/AOM) which allows for more flexibility and subtlety in the system. I won't go into the use of HPs/FP/Armor values in CTP2 that are not present in civ3, but allow for more flexibility and realism in the area of combat too...
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Furthermore, if I recall correctly, the science/taxes/happiness ratios were handled an an empire level (or something wierd like that).
|
...which is not much different than what is in place with the use of civ3's two global sliders of luxuries and science. You have a more subtley complex and nuanced setup in CTP2/AOM because of the addition of food and production sliders too. This setup allows for greater flexibility in your government choices.
As an aside, my guess is that the civis setup of civ4 will be a lot more similar to the CTP2/AOM setup than it is to the civ3 setup. Civics are merely the means to affect your civ on a global level.
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Bloodbath Galore: From what I've read, it sounds like this game is nearly all about fight, fight, FIGHT! Kind of tedious from a peaceful builder's perspective. Please don't get me wrong . . . I enjoy the challenge of having some big bully coming along to take over. But I also want to enjoy the other aspects of the game . . . clever diplomacy, grim and tight trade bargaining, and developing a good friendship with another nation or two.
|
I will not lie - AOM's system is probably more geared toward war, but I want to highlight several things.
civ3 on the higher levels also favors the war-oriented player.
The history of civilization is built on the premise of war.
Stan laughs at me because I have a peaceful builder mentality (I once told him that I'm benevolent, somewhat lazy and would rather create another building than build an army), and my goal in working on AOM has been to provide the insight in development that allows that type of player to succeed. My impression with AOM is that you can be rather peaceful, but you have to be smart about it too. You have to be vigilant, AND you have to back up your empire with strength...which is actually a good reflection of human nature in play. (Even Rome at it's height had to deal with incursions and the constant need to police itself against neighbors.)
The choice of map setting will also affect the type of game you have (I favor 8 civs over Stan's reccommended 10-12) because of my playstyle too. A little more breathing room...
The current build of AOM has focused on diplomacy and the creation of better AI/player relations. Based on reports, it plays well (I haven't had a chance to try it yet because I am in a AOM succession game with a friend, and I have another AOM game in slow process.)
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Historical Entrapment: I understand there is a Dark Ages event and a Succession of Kings. Sounds somewhat interesting but, quite frankly, I want the ability to rewrite history completely and not be forced to prepare for some kind of barbaric bloodbath that is guaranteed to come (at least, this is my little understanding of it). |
I would say that one of the main differences between civ3 and CTP2/AOM is the degree of long-term planning that is required in both games. This may scare off some players, but I think it is the best thing about CTP2/AOM because you have to preplan for long-range events - and all events in the game can be managed and dealt with. I just got through the Dark Ages in my current game, with some suprises, but also intact.
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus9
Crippling Events: This is the least I know about, so please bear with me if I'm wrong, but from what I heard, there are events that take place that can really cripple you.
|
There are unexpected events in CTP2/AOM, but they are not too harsh, and amount to a pinprick. There are also some drastic events, but they are scripted and can be prepared for.
And to take an example - the Dark Ages Barbarian spawn in CTP2/AOM is the same type of thing that occurs with Barbarians in civ3 at the end of the Ancient Age.
All games require some sort of foresight, but it is emphasized more in CTP2/AOM than in civ3. The game cannot be put on cruise control - and for some players, that is a refreshing thing in the world of civgames.
Last edited by hexagonian on 17-08-2005 at 21:40
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2005 08:13
|