22-11-2000 02:54									#32
	Remove this text

You can't set them per se. Marks point was the units that you include in a stack determine how they are arranged.

What this means in practice, is if you include appropriately varied units, with some ranged attackers, some assault units and some flankers, you'll decimate an unbalanced defender.

	22-11-2000 02:57									#33
	Support Apolyton

OOPS! I misread, sorry. Now that I read again I see what you are saying.

John-SJ

	22-11-2000 04:39									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

About the combat system: Although I like very much a had a problem. In a stack I had 8 tanks 4 Artillery…and the AI put 2 of my artillery in the front line (!!!) and some tanks behind them. The result was that I lost one Artillery in a battle that I expected not to lose anything. I realized later that the AI put the Artillery in front become its ranged attack was 70 whereas the tank has a ranged attack of 80

Very weird… the game is easy in “easy” level…

BTW: I am playing the game for 5 days now and I think the reviews so far ar far from being objective

	22-11-2000 05:40									#37
	Support Apolyton

From MarkG:
btw, from the review

quote: Visually, Call to Power II is excellent.

the rating for graphics is 7. i wonder what the word for 10 is....

I've seen this before, judging from the text of the Gamespot review it seems the numeric score was a bit harsh. Personally, I'd score the game in the mid 8s but judging from the text of the Gamespot review I'd expect at least an 8.0. Seems like a mismatch.

edit: BTW, I think the word for "10" graphics is "Superstupendous!!!".

John-SJ


[This message has been edited by John-SJ (edited November 21, 2000).]

	22-11-2000 12:19									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, the gamespot preview was better than the ign one, which isn't necessarily saying anything "at all". The ign one was pathetic. Even the gamespot one seemed to have been done by someone with a list of games to review, and who would have rather been playing something else. Do you guys ever notice the games listed in these mags as the ones which their people are playing on their own time? It seems that they are always rts or fps's.
Anyway, about my only complaints with the game so far are play-balancing issues like Tanks having a higher ranged attack than Artillery, and the tech-tree stuff, which is what mod-making is for.

	22-11-2000 20:48									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

...and that is why we pay you the big bucks, Wes, to fix these weaknesses

Seriously, by the time Wes and others get done with their magic on CTP2, no-one will be able to complain.

	23-11-2000 04:11									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

To go back to the topic of this thread,- the guy who wrote the Gamespot review, Bruce Geryk, also does some work for Games Domain, and sometimes writes a column for Game Pen focusing on Usenet.

In his latest column in between "ranting" about things Usenet, Bruce discusses CTP2.
http://gamepen.ugo.com/gamepen/features.asp?itemid=68

Some quotes:

"The diplomatic model. Not as great as people think. I can ask for one thing and offer one thing in return. Super... Yes, the system does do a good job of keeping track of who I've offended. It also doesn't tell you what an empire's attitude is when it gives you that "Proposal Rejected" message. SMAC, which has a less powerful system for making proposals, makes up for this a bit by providing detailed information on the other side's attitude during negotiations.

"Call to Power 2 is "Civ-lite" because it replaces thinking with not as much thinking. It doesn't replace it with a different kind of thinking: it just tosses a good bit of strategy right out the window in the name of "streamlining" the game."

Although you may not agree with his comments I think that it is worth a read,- I wonder if it is true that by simplifying gameplay, CTP2 has reduced strategy in a "civ" game? (As I haven't yet got CTP2, I cant make an assessment)

JimMac