 |
| |
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
a while ago Yin said I could do this so I having an hour I will
for any who post here (not very likely)
go like this
put the game: put the mistake, put "1st reasoning/example", put "2nd reasoning/example", put "3rd reasoning/example"
then firaxis will not be doomed to repeat previous errors
smac = sid meiers alpha centauri
civ 2 = civilization 2
ctp = call to power
xsmac = sid meiers alein crossfire
civ = civilization
feel free to add any others
this will also make it very easy to summarize
I'll start
smac: to easy to be aggressive in war with offense always 2 or more times the defense
smac: offensive technology is to easy to get, "I have had 13 offense while having only 3 defense", "it is very easy to get 4 offense and much harder to get 3 defense"
smac: it is stupid to have sheilds provide defense and weapons provide offense, "so all I need is a bunker and titanium armor to fight off a tank?"
ctp: stupid units, "preist", "telvision guy", "ecowarrior", "cyberninja"
ctp: no such thing as military engineers, "I want to be able to build forts and stuff in enemy land for extended campaigns"
smac: graphics look like made for some small tactical combat map, not for planetwide game, "the mountains and things take a long way for evelation changes and do it in the way of individual mountains that are continet wide, this would look extremely bad on earth"
civ: graphics look old
there that should be a start
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
randomturn
|
|
NYC US
Aug 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Hey this is a great idea for a thread. 
* There are a few things that one game does noticeably better than the others, so I just listed it under that game rather than in the negative for each of the others.
SMAC - Game became somewhat boring after a dozen games. Not sure if it was because of specificity of faction personality, but SMAC did not have Civ's replayability.
* Diplomacy. Man, this diplomacy system rocks! Having the small fry give up at the end instead of having to capture every damn one of their cities is great, and more realistic. The Council is excellent, especially the global decisions (like salvaging the core). Multiple ways to win also nice.
CTP - interface counter-intuitive, slow.
Combat stupidity - no tank should ever lose to a stack of bronze age phalanxes.
Special unit insanity - give it a rest, will ya?
Play Balance -- what play balance? Special units, especially, threw the balance totally out of whack.
Wonders & wonder movies - what a let down. That's all I get for building this damned thing?
Scenarios -- include some next time.
* Wow, these graphics do live up to the hype. I hear that the heavily patched version can support up to 32 tribes in one game, which I think is an important option that should be in the players' hands, not the game company's. The public works system and queues make end-games much more manageable.
Tot -- bugs, bugs, bugs.
You've got to have a map editor embedded.
* multiple maps. Flag system and scenario flexibility
Civ 2 -- End game gets so bogged down it's hard (and not much fun) to play.
* play balance is still the best ever
|
|
| |
|
|
|
evil conquerer
|
|
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
May 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
TitanTim: Can you clarify what you mean by "goal-choosing"? SMAC lets you either research in four different categories ("blind research" option) or research the technologies the traditional way a la civ2. Is that what you mean, or is it something else?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JamesJKirk
|
 |
Dixon, CA USA
Jan 1970
time: 21:14
|
|
I for one, am going to have to stick up for the cleric in CTP, among with SOME of the other unconventional warfare units:
Each government has some of these units potentially available at a certain point, and adds an inbetween to war and peace, I think they're a great innovation.
but on to the mistakes!
(I'll mostly stick with ctp & civ (I & II), as they're historically based and easiest to criticize.)
ctp: definitely definitely needs improved diplomacy, a cross between ctp's trade and smac's diplomacy engines would be outstanding.
ctp & civ (I & II)- the ancient ages pass way too fast, it doesn't take 500 years to build one phalanx
ctp & civ (I & II)- you are forced to research social trends which come to a society as a result of research, ex: a democratic government would not research communism, most likely, but it would appear throughout the masses, as a result of industrialization.
ctp & civ (I & II)- Leader-chosen revolutions, while possible, should be rare, you should set yourself on an eventual governmental goal, which you reach as your research permits, most revolutions should be caused by popular discontent.
ctp & civ (I & II)- Civs should come and go much more quickly, as in history, and including your own civ, successor civs would often take they're place
And I think that's it, sorry for making this too wordy!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
connorkimbro
|
 |
Seoul Korea
Jan 1970
time: 23:14
|
|
smac: graphics really really really suck. sure gameplay over graphics, but COME ON.
smac: sound really really really sucks. same as above. .
ctp: the tech development was poor. . too wide of jumps in amount of research needed really killed gameplay. . smac was better in that each tech discovered made the next one take a *little bit longer* . . but having a set that takes 100, the next set takes 200, the next set take 300 (or whatever). . that just is a pain
smac: story is interesting, sure, but it TOTALLY kills replayability, which is crucial for a tbs. same thing with the very defined factions.
ctp: it really bothers me that the colors are random. .
civ2: the wonder movies sucked
civ2, ctp: no end of game replay?
smac: the end of game replay, while at least it WAS included. . sucked. (i feel sorry for those who have never played civ 1, you should try out at least one game, so you know what the end of game replay is, and how great it was)
ctp: diplomacy. . yuck
smac, civ2: get rid of the bloody formers/settlers . . public works system was way better. . (not saying its the best potential way at all. . but it was better than having settlers and formers do it)
thats all i can think of right now, but theres more im sure. .
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ruinexplorer
|
|
London, -, UK
Nov 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Problems, hmmmm. Most have been covered so I'll just go over a few that annoyed me, which may have been covered.
SMAC) No real background on the techs, just a a sentence or two... didn't convey much.
SMAC) No memorable symbols for tech etc. Just a one-coloured symbol on black.
SMAC) No quick visual refs for pollution etc. you have to look carefully at the city screen to see what is going on. Very annoying compared to Civ 2.
SMAC) Worm attacks are silly and OTT rather than a staged-up thing. The punishment should fit the crime. I've had 15-20 great boils appear for minor pollution... Silly.
CIV II) Barbarian "Spawn Points" go crazy sometimes. I had one isolated city surrounded by 25-40 Barbarian, Revolutionary, Fundamentalist Units, just because it was near one... They never attacked, just milled around and destroyed all the land improvements.
CIV II), SMAC) etc. Land units travel for free on rails/mag tubes, yet planes and so on
have to fly themsleves, undermining suspension of disbelief and be silly and annoying. We all know planes are faster than trains, so they should be able to go further (SMAC somewhat corrects this, but not enough). Planes should have limited range, not moves, and should be able to hop from town to town the way ground units travel on trains.
SMAC), CIV II), Etc. Computers rarely buy anything but garrison units to completion even when you repeatedly snatch secret projects from under their electronic noses.
SMAC), CIV II) No colour choice in most of the games... Or limited... Should be able to choose freely.
CIV II) ICBMs aren't... They are neither intercontinetal or ballistic... one you have rocketry you should be able to develop better version of rocketry that allow longer ranged heavier payload missiles. If you can put satellites in space you can drop nukes on anyone.
SMAC) More subtle control over the blast size of Planet Busters would be nice. You should be able to make them both advanced and have a small blast.
SMAC), CIV II), etc. You should be able to detonate blast weapons on empty squares so the blast catches units on the edge.
Enough for now. I'll think of more later.
------------------
"You're standing on my neck."
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Ruinexplorer (edited November 27, 1999).]</font>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dStryker
|
|
Saginaw, Michigan
Nov 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
In Civ II were there satellites in space?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johnmcd
|
|
Edinburgh
Oct 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Yes, if you count the Apollo Wonder, no if you don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I made certain comments on SMAC's shortcomings in New King? They're both pretenders to the throne! way back in April. But some should be brought up in this context.
SMAC has swapped the function of industrial development and technology research.
A faction shouldn't need to reinvent the wheel, as literally required in SMAC [Doctrine: Mobility is required for Speeder unit]. Everybody knows this: wheels fast, feet slow. Even the most rudimentary knowledge of historic blitzkrieg tactics is sufficient to "start the ball rolling" on armored warfare.
A faction does need to develop industrial infrastructure to make the production of armor units possible. That is what city/base structures are supposed to represent.
A faction shouldn't need to reinvent aerodynamics. Initial propeller aircraft production should be available without special tech or base/city structures. But a very specialized industry is required to make sophisticated jet engines, requiring both basic research and special base/city structure at least somewhere in the civ/faction.
A faction doesn't need to produce a Mach 2.5 superjet right off the bat, just something rugged and practical like the A-10. So there should be development in aircraft design which would depend on technology and industrial development.
The same holds for shipbuilding. Moderate sized vessels don't take a genius to build, just a simple dry dock. That's a matter of base/city improvement rather than technology. Even subs and carriers aren't so technically advanced: they originated under comparatively primative technology and industry. A faction doesn't need to build a 100kT supercarrier, just a simple "flattop."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
"bump", I guess
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Joker
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Aug 1999
time: 06:14
|
|
SMAC: the unit workshop. I really hate it. Why can't we just have premade units in stead of having to waste time making our own. The fact that it really sucked only made this worse.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LOGO
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Aug 1999
time: 05:14
|
|
Joker, I totally disagree. I think the unit workshop was one of the best parts of SMAC, you get to set your units just the way you like them. Although I would like to see alot more options, (the only real desision making is the two extra items, why only two anyway?, why can't you make three and have it cost alot more)
SMAC, Civ, Civ2, Even in a democratic free-market economy you have to build all your own factories?????? Why can't you have corporation?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CTP - Buy costs WAY too high.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cannes
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Here are some thoughts of mine.
Ctp: I loved the PW system and would hate to see it go.
SMAC : The formers automatic AI didn't work properly. Sometimes they would just run aimlessly about doing no good at all,eventhough there were plenty of nearby cities in need of terraforming.
Ctp: Empire size should not be a factor in the future stages of the game, for instance with virtual democracy you should be able to build unlimited size empire.
Ctp: The fact that the future stages of the game went so fast (increments of 5 years every turn). It should have stayed at 2 year increments and the advances should have been that more difficult to get. The problem that the large increments caused was that it all came down to the wonder race (since bloodlust option didn't work). Beyond that it doesn't really make sence that it takes a future fully developed city of 500mil people 10 years to build a fusion tank.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cannes
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Ctp : Not being able to choose infrastructure and capitilization form the build queue, but having to go into the city list and select it from there.
I really like the city list though, it is very necessary to locate cities in a vast empire. I often find it difficult to find cities on the map when I have 100+ cities.
Ctp: You should be able to mass sell city improvements when they are no longer needed (as in SMAC). As in when you build the sensorium wonder you will no longer need hospitals and arcologies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cannes
|
|
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Ctp : When you have entered in an alliance with another civ, their units still block out food and production when standing in the viscinity of one of your cities, and since you have a treaty with them you can't order them to stop trespassing. In SMAC this problem was solved...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by stodlum on 01-04-2000 11:01 AM</font>
CTP - Buy costs WAY too high.
<img src=/forums/"/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>
I disagree, a major complaint of mine and others with Civ I and II was that buy cost was way low. Where does this extra production come from? Where is the money going to? I had to convince my self that there corporations in my cities that I am giving the money to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
Have to agree with Misotu, Civ II's biggest problem was that I had overplayed the original and Civ II had little replay value.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-10-1999 02:59
|