 |
|
GMOsco
|
|
Australia
Oct 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
CTP2 is a much better game for one thing you can make army's that use flanking and range at the same time as melee... while CIV3 is painfully boring for combat and the leaders crap is just a bad idea ? you spend most os your time moving hundreds of men what a waste of time, also you can queue your builds in CTP2 but in civ3 its painfull and thewhole automated system just does not work its pathetic.
After you delete CIV3 and go back to CTP2 you get a feeling of complete relief its a much better game in everyway and it has Multiplayer !
CIV3 is a rubbish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BLackraven42
|
|
Whats the matter with you. CTP2 had such a boring gameplay that i returned it after only 4 days. Just because civ 3 has no multiplayer doesn't mean its bad, the civ games were meant for single player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
after my bad experience with ctp (paid usd40 for that pos), i was glad that i downloaded a warez version of ctp2.
truth to be told, i figure, that's the one i actually should have paid for.
it's decent... it's what ctp should have been. but ctp wasn't. and ctp2 suffered from many of the same flaws.
now, i'm not saying that civ3 is problem-free... but firaxis tends to be better at support than activision, and civ3 is on the whole, far more enjoyable than ctp or ctp2 in my case;
after one frustrating game of ctp where i was in the lead, it crashed in the year, what was it, 2500 or so... and i never went back to it.
ctp2 was good for a few games, and had some good ideas.
but see, you liking ctp is your opinion.
my liking civ3 is mine. don't go out and start biotching about how bad civ3 is without giving any reasons more than civ3 is boring, leaders are a bad idea, i don't like the combat.
hell, if you liked combat, aoe2 or starcraft or c&c, they're always there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
GMOsco - You forgot to mention CtP2 AI is as stupid as a bag of rocks and allows you easy wins, unlike Civ3. So I understand you going to CtP2 - it's a sure win for you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
D4everman
|
|
Fort Dix, New Jersey
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
You've got to be a troll.
CTP and CTP2 were the worst games I've ever played.
Play a rousing game of checkers if you don't like Civ3. Its better than CTP in any form.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rockatanski
|
|
Hi,
i think GMOsco is completely right!! CivIII can't stand competition with CTP2&MedievalPack2. Except its good AI it has no improvements since CTP2. Working with leaders is indeed boring.
What will you do if you have strong armies, but less luck to get a leader??? Boring... real boring.
I had preordered this game hoping to get a civ with MORE (Not less) features, techs, units etc. as any civ before (including CTP&CTP2). Maybe it has at least less bugs than CTP2  .
 Now i'm disapointed. Sid and fireaxis couldn't meet the high expectations.
CivIII has a very small tech-tree, only a few units and a bad combat interface.
To say it clear: a player like me hwo has bought all civ-games in history wants a huge game with more options, techs , units, capabilities, REAL huge Maps, REALISTIC Worldmaps and many Civs.
16 Civs are good but not good enough, me and my friends think of about 40. We're al IT-students so we know what we're talking about!
 So, now i will go and play another CTP2 & MedievalPack2 match with 28 civs, on a realistic worldmap with correct starting-positions...
Greetz
Rockatanski
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
 |
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:16
|
|
First, when I say "CTP2" I mean "CTP2 MedMod", as unmodded CTP2 was a dogpile and about as fun as hitting yourself over the head with a stout club.
CTP2 does have a couple of features that are very painfully missing from Civ3.
Stacks.
What more needs to be said? Stacks greatly reduce the amount of work... it would be so convinent to be able to gang a spearman and a couple of workers together... or even just some sort of feature like 'give order to ALL units in tile'. Really, Firaxis should be slapped silly for not having stacked units.
If I was in charge (heheh) I would have stacks for movment and orders and call them 'gangs' or something (as distinct from highly organised armies). Altough the CTP2 combat model is better than Civ3's, stacks dont conflict with the Civ3 combat, the units would just seperate to fight.
National Manager.
My single favourite feature of CTP2 over SMAX/Civ3 is the national manager, this is a wonderfull tool for advanced players, allowing all sorts of complex commands to be given to cities, for example
Insert a factory into the queue for every city with production greater than 100. (Open national manager, click 'sort by production', drag to select all cities producing 100+, click 'build manager', add a factory into the queue, click 'append', close the national manager - thats about 9 clicks, figure out how many clicks that would be to do over your empire of 20 cities in Civ3 - well over 80, anyway)
Change the current project of every city above size 6 to 'Aquaduct', except the cities building wonders.
etc.
Well anyway, it was damn FLEXIBLE, and made managing your cities a breeze. I did almost all my build orders via the National Manager, rarely having to actually manually manipulate a cities queue.
Now, I'm not about to go back to CTP2 on the basis of a couple of EXCELLENT micromanagment reducing tools, but I am atleast slightly annoyed with Firaxis, whom seem to think that Civ games are meant to take AGES to play, and involve heaps of micromanagment and tedium.
Because what totally rules about Civ3 is the diplomacy and the AI, both of which were criminally lacking in CTP2. (MedMod did all it could to help). Even if CTP2 is a joy to play in terms of micromanagment whats the point if it's not fun or challenging....
As a side note, my perfect TBS game would be:
Based on SMAX (economy model, factions, units, storyline...)
With Civ3's Diplomacy model, AI, and comparable border system (if not called culture), and maybe the resource trade model.
With CTP2's Stacks, stacked army combat, micromanagment reducing managers, Slic scripting (for the modders).
Btw, if your curious to know how I came to play CTP2 enough to actually discover the national manager etc it is because I was mindbogglingly bored, and later the Column on MedMod convinced me to dig CTP2 back out and give it a try modded.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zanzin
|
 |
Sydney, Australia
Mar 2001
time: 15:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rockatanski
Hi,
i think GMOsco is completely right!! CivIII can't stand competition with CTP2&MedievalPack2. Except its good AI it has no improvements since CTP2. Working with leaders is indeed boring.
What will you do if you have strong armies, but less luck to get a leader??? Boring... real boring.
I had preordered this game hoping to get a civ with MORE (Not less) features, techs, units etc. as any civ before (including CTP&CTP2). Maybe it has at least less bugs than CTP2 .
Now i'm disapointed. Sid and fireaxis couldn't meet the high expectations.
CivIII has a very small tech-tree, only a few units and a bad combat interface.
To say it clear: a player like me hwo has bought all civ-games in history wants a huge game with more options, techs , units, capabilities, REAL huge Maps, REALISTIC Worldmaps and many Civs.
16 Civs are good but not good enough, me and my friends think of about 40. We're al IT-students so we know what we're talking about!
So, now i will go and play another CTP2 & MedievalPack2 match with 28 civs, on a realistic worldmap with correct starting-positions...
Greetz
Rockatanski |
Back to the kiddie pen, if you will
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rockatanski
|
|
@QCubed:
If you knew anything about programming, you would know that the hardware requirements of games like civ increase dramaticaly with ne number of units, civs, different field types etc.. I guess calculating with as many units, techs... like in ctp2 with medmod it would be realistic to talk about at leat 256mb ram & a pIII/500 or higher. That was what i meant with IT-students, we can figure out what resources a programm like this needs...
Palapatines 28Civ Worldmap is the best Worldmap in my opinion. OK, Europe has much to big proportions but without this, the french, english, spanish, italian and german civs are not able to win the game, because of to less space...
@CyberShy:
What do you know about Civ-feeling??? 
For me and the most others civ-feeling is:
-sitting in front of my computer for 16hours without having eaten or drunken anything...
-total playing time about 1/4 year for one match. I don't want my hard work to be gone so fast...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I think Blake and Locutus are the only mentally stable people in this thread. Too much Civ damages the mind
CtP was different, and a different game to Civ2, but after playing CtP1/2 for a year or so, going back to Civ2 is almost painful. Armies of settlers, no stacked combat, ridiculous aspects of gameplays almost designed to exploit in OCC and ICS etc.
having said that, going from Civ2 to CtP was probably similar for people who had played Civ2 to death. PW?? What rubbish you say. Unconventional warfare? What rubbish. Stacked combat? My tanks can't blow up a whole tile-full of machine-gunners anymore? 
Anyway, in balance, the two games are worlds apart, and because CtP came later, Civ-style over Ctp-style won-out in the end. If they had both been released simultaneously, who knows, most of the issues are preferencial, except two.
1) CtP's AI. Sucked ass. Having been modded, the CtP2 AI (at least in Hexagonia's Cradle of Civilization mod) is capable of keeping up with the human until the late modern age, which the AI couldn't do in Civ2 unless you leave your settler wandering the map until 0AD
2) Modding. Undenyable the CtP system is infinitly more moddable than either Civ2 or Civ3, and it annoys me immensely that Firaxis didn't take some tips on how to get a extremely moddable game, having said they support the scenario community so fully.
Incidentally, the immense modding capabilities of CtP2 means that a decent AI could be scripted in if anyone cared and had 1000+ hours to spare. All eggs in one basket in Civ3. You get what your given, like it or not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
rockatanski:
quote:
16 Civs are good but not good enough, me and my friends think of about 40. We're al IT-students so we know what we're talking about! |
i wasn't insulting you. i just couldn't figure out what that line meant~ i didn't see it as a programming issue, of which i'm quite aware...
(firaxis could have added more to play with at one time in civ3, they could have added hundreds of more techs, they could have added hundreds of more units... but they didn't, partly because they wanted low system requirements... after all, civ2, ostensibly for a pentium worked just fine on a 486sx2/25 with 4mb ram, instead of the required 8... firaxis wanted the low requirements precisely so people with older computers would not be left out.)
...i'm quite aware of the programming considerations. it's just by reading that line, i was confused as to whether being IT students would allow you to suddenly come up with 40 different civilizations, an in-depth history and political knowledge not exactly being native to your field of study...
======
quote:
Palapatines 28Civ Worldmap is the best Worldmap in my opinion. OK, Europe has much to big proportions but without this, the french, english, spanish, italian and german civs are not able to win the game, because of to less space... |
this is precisely what i'm talking about... how is that map realistic? i usually play as the asian civs: china, japan, korea... and i tell you, there's nowhere near enough space if two or three of those are actually in the same game.
thus, the map is eurocentric.
thus, the map is not realistic.
======
and i did enjoy ctp2 somewhat. don't get me wrong. but i'm just saying, that's what ctp should have been if they wanted ctp2 to have any major sales.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blake
|
|
Brainfallocatione
Oct 2000
time: 17:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
A game isn't better because it has one or two bette features.
It's all about overall gameplay.
|
Yeah, thats true. Unfortunately the only really good features of CTP2 are for the advanced/veteran players, and when most of the game sucks it's unlikely many players will become advanced enoungh to appreciate the features...
quote:
civ3 has the true civilization feeling, majority of the people agrees with that eventhough much of them hates the (big) bugs.
CTP and CtP2 lacked this great feeling.
I can't explain it, (...) |
Actually, I can. The single main thing which seperates Civ2/Civ3/SMAC from CTP/CTP2 is the diplomacy model. There is just something FUN about face to face diplomacy, especially when the leaders say funny stuff. Sure it's shallow, but it grabs the attention of new players, and keeps them interested long enough to appreciate the deeper features of the game.
CTP2 very much has the feeling of 'playing alone', atleast for me. The AI's might as well just be barbarians, I can hardly tell the AI civilizations apart. I basically treat the AI as one big barbarian faction, after all they all act and react the same way, and there is no quick easy way to tell them apart... (the cities are very undistinctive between civs).
I've said on occasion that CTP2 makes a great empire simulator... there is very little fun game in it.
All that said, just because most of CTP2 sucked, that is no excuse for Firaxis to not take atleast some hints on how to improve the TBS genre.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-11-2001 04:41
So far I have been impressed with Civ III I am Glad their are leaders and I love how artillery units now have a range attack sure thier are things I dont like but you can always edit things in the game thats what make it great
|