18-01-2001 08:27									#1
	The Essentials Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I have played Civ games since the first title on the Super Nintendo - yes, that far back.

I bought Civilization I when I got my first PC, then Civilization II, Call to Power, Alpha Centauri, and finally, Call to Power II.

I must say I have liked Call to Power the best so far while Call to Power II has been disappointing. Now getting to suggestions for Civilization III:

1) Call to Power allowed players to maintain a mass army by allocating military costs to the total empire's production, not for each city. This is what I thought was a great improvement. PLEASE implement this in Civilization III - it was the one feature that made Call to Power so much better. Of course, create an interface and concept so that it does not violate any copyright laws.

Not only could you maintain a mass army much easier in CTP I, but each time you built an additional unit in a city, it did not take longer with each successive unit. This I feel is important.

2) One flaw with CTP II was that they took away the ability for the player to manually allocate workers as he/she saw fit in the city radius. Firaxis, you would do well to retain this feature from Civilization II.

3) Do not allow cities to grow beyond three square radius like Activision did. Four square radius I feel might be too much. If you want to increase it, increase from the present two square radius in Civilization II to three square radius.

4) The AI has worked better in Civilization II than it does in Call to Power II (AI is also a little better in CTP I). When trying to make improvements, please be careful of as many possible flaws as you can think of.

5) And the last thing I can think of at the time but certainly still important, is to eliminate the need for Settlers and Engineers to place Farms, Mines and other tile improvements. Call to Power and CTP II use the Public Works concept. Firaxis, what can you implement without violating any copyright laws? I think many of us do not wish to have an army of Settlers just for tile improvement.

These I believe are essentials, and I am willing to admit that some of these are from my experiences of playing CTP I and CTP II. However, those two games introduced these great features. I hope Firaxis can find their own ways to implement similar concepts and features.

	19-01-2001 06:26									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Don't be in such a rush to express your opinion, everyone.

	20-01-2001 05:02									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I had something to say, but I changed my mind.

:P

	20-01-2001 05:34									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You can't control the workers in the city radius in CTP2?

I'm glad I never bought it, then.

That's an Essential I bet nobody ever thought of, until it was gone.
[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited January 19, 2001).]

	23-01-2001 18:45									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The essential element I believe that Activision left out of CTP2 was the ability to actually have AND finish a multiplayer game!

	23-01-2001 19:21									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Markos - big deal! The point is that many of us want to manage W-O-R-K-E-R-S as well as the Specialists.

	23-01-2001 19:56									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I side with Mr Fun on this one, somehow allocating workers to tiles was more satisfying. You upgraded a tile and then put someone to work on it. Having aggregate production from all the tiles within the city radius just does not make sense to me. A city surrounded with ocean and acres of desert will concentrate all its population on farming the small fertile strips, fishing the best waters and (perhaps) extracting oil or minerals from a good source in the desert. Only manipulating specialists that have no connection to the land just doesn't feel "right" to me.

On the other hand, I also quite like the engineer units because I remember to use them efficiently, unlike PW. Having the engineers around the map draws the cursor to locations needing attention more easily than having to search round your cities manually looking for the best spots to improve. If the mayors were able to use PW efficiently that wouldn't be so much of a problem.

	24-01-2001 01:00									#11
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

MrFUN quote:
2) One flaw with CTP II was that they took away the ability for the player to manually allocate workers as he/she saw fit in the city radius. Firaxis, you would do well to retain this feature from Civilization II.

GRUMBOLD quote:
Having the engineers around the map draws the cursor to locations needing attention more easily than having to search round your cities manually looking for the best spots to improve.

I certainly agree with above quotes!
I had a discussion with MarkG over the exact same issue, in thread called What about changing the landscape??.

He was just as wrong then, as he is now! Anyway, if your interested; click on above link in order to read my viewpoints on why your quoted observations is so spot-on and important.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 23, 2001).]

	24-01-2001 02:07									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

i have to say it again: you are totally crazy! moving a unit on the map is faster and easier than moving your eyes around the screen, huh? yeah!

btw Ralf, a quote of yours from the other thread

quote: Of course, one can argue that, with the Public-works solution, the player can wait until enough build-points have been gathered, so he can build tile-improvements on several squares in one go. But, this means losses in use-efficiency. To loan arguments from real-life business: It would be like replacing "just-in-time" (= settler-model), with inefficient "stock & store" (= public-works model).

come on now. first of all, after a couple of hours you know what each tile improvement costs and you figure out very easily what you can build. beyond that, such small delays(if you wait to have more pw in order to be correct about being able to build something) have small effect in your total efficiency, unless you are trying to win the game by 1AD or something!
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 23, 2001).]

	24-01-2001 08:01									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

btw, how much support do these settlers need in order for you to have less micromanagment? are you sure this loss is not the same with the possible gains of giving time improvement orders faster??

	24-01-2001 15:12									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Yes - units should be supported nationwide. Public Works is definitely the way to go - its close to a buy/not buy issue for me. I can't stand hearding settlers to the point that only a kick-ass AI would get me to buy it if settler hearding is mandatory. (of course, a selection feature for game set up will make everyone happy - but that might overtax the AI which is the single most important feature). Can't stand building irrigation, followed by farms. Yes, Civ3 needs to steal all of the improvements made by activision (activision stole the whole concept - and fair's fair). On the other hand, SMACs SE system (one of of the few things I liked about SMAC) needs to be incorporated. Maybe I want a police state with a free market! CtP2's "classical civ" govenment switching just seems so hackneyed. Oh yeah, the SMAC diplomacy system is the best - more features than CtP2 - and those features actually worked.

	24-01-2001 16:42									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

I can see we will have to agree to disagree, MarkG. I never have a problem supporting one settler/engineer per city specifically for the purpose of improving tiles. If they ever run out of jobs to do building roads, forts irrigation and mines then they can always go and aid the colonisation effort. Usually though engineers pop just in time and railways, farms and terraforming becomes the order of the day. Finally there is the frantic rush to keep pollution down below critical mass before the eco friendly techs kick in. At that point I either disband them or wait for endgame to build cities in places that I would not ordinarily use. It's just a matter of which playing style appeals, I guess.

	24-01-2001 17:01									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

btw, speaking of playing styles, in ctp2, when you're geting close to discover railroad, it's extremely fun to keep your pw and then upgrade your roads in one turn with a few clicks....

	24-01-2001 18:33									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I entirely agree. For making sweeping changes or concentrating a lot of effort into a small area PW is the best. Settler units are better at dispersed effort, although you can almost feel the growth of the railroad when you have four engineer units leapfrogging each other building your transimperial main line.

	24-01-2001 19:16									#20
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I do not prefer an army of Settlers for tile improvement purposes. I would hope (don't think it's likely though) that Firaxis will avoid Settler-mania.

By the way Markos, now that a few people have agreed with some of my viewpoints, will you bow to me and and beg for forgiveness? (sorry - had an ego-spasm)

	24-01-2001 19:55									#21
	Increase Your PM Length

In most of my Civ sessions, the game soon turns into
"Sid Meier's Engineers" However, I don't like the CTP system either. Let's hope for clues in the next "ask the civ team" installation.

	24-01-2001 21:47									#22
	Support Apolyton

Mr Fun wrote:

"3) Do not allow cities to grow beyond three square radius like Activision did. Four square radius I feel might be too much. If you want to increase it, increase from the present two square radius in Civilization II to three square radius."

I agree and would actually enjoy the city radius shrinking to what it was in Colonization (8 I believe). I always felt it strange that a standard Earth map could not easily support New York, Boston, Montreal, and Toronto. Or that in CTPII London overlapped with most of Western Europe.

Given most peoples' processor speed and the maps that can be realistically expected, a smaller city radius would make the game more historical and allow for small powerful nations (Netherlands, UK) and densely populated regions. I fail to see how this accuracy would come at the expense of fun.

Any Thoughts?

	25-01-2001 10:54									#23
	Tired of ads?

the increased city radius was one of the things i liked in ctp2. it's not only a visual thing, but also a measure against ics
with the recent mod which adds the feature where cities actually grow to more than one square, the map justs becomes wonderfull!

as for london having a city area that reaches large parts of france, this is just a matter of the size of the map. there are bigger worlds maps for ctp2 than the official one, as well as other big maps that cover smaller areas(a 210x210 map of the north atlantic for example)

and since today's computers can handle these kinds of maps, the 2002 computer will certainly handle bigger ones

	25-01-2001 00:26									#25
	Increase Your PM Length

i said "a measure". not "a solution"
i didnt say it was enough, and that is what chris pine seems to wrote to you too

further more, that thread you linked("Column # 139; By St. Switchin") is not about ics and the expanded city area, but about ics and the new model of how the tiles in the city area are worked


so take off these glasses and read again what i wrote
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited January 24, 2001).]

	25-01-2001 05:23									#26
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'd like to build a resource network that did allow your Capital and other key cities expand their size/sphere of influence but unlike CtP2 I do not believe it makes sense for them to be able to do it on their own (which allows all cities to grow this way.) Something like nominating 3 cities with factories to allow a 4th that is connected by rail to build a manufacturing plant. Ditto 3 with schools allowing a 4th to build a university. Really get the feel of all the centres co-operating with each other to make the nation stronger, not just working to make themselves individually better.