 |
|
|
new poll(finally  )....
final results on the bottom of the thread!
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited February 11, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
Daniel Frappier
|
|
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
3, 4 and 1 in that order.
1 would be very nice
3 is already very good besides the fact that it doesn't know how to fight. 2 simple little fix that would make a huge difference.
- Stack those ships.
- Put a stack of units in those ships for an invasion.
4- The Scenarios of CTP could be fantastic. But the tools are unfinish.
- Flat Map support
- Do you still have my list of SLIC fixes.
- A Graphic Editor for units, goods, etc.
Above that new flags and other stuff would be goodies.
Other: Fix the Carry Over Time Option in Multiplayer so it actually carry over all unuse time even if the total amount to many minutes or hours. As it is the option is useless and multiplayer games drags on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
madcow23
|
|
London, England, UK
May 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Personally I'd be happy if they just fixed the bits they didn't implement properly in patch 1.2 - the scenario support was so frustratingly close to being perfect, while at the same time being almost unusable. All that loading/saving/re-loading drove me round the bend eventually, and I stopped playing.
I haven't been around on these forums for a while, but it seems to me that patch 1.2 has actually killed the enthusiastic support this game had for scenarios, maps and mods. The creation forum is almost dead. It's such a shame.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
utopia
|
|
Well, the 1.2 patch added the "Autosave", but it also gave me the problem of it suddenly quitting to the desktop so now I MUST use the Autosave function. I would definately like that to be fixed in the next patch. Also, it would be cool for the addition of new units/improvements/wonders to give the game a "new" feeling.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark H
|
|
My vote : 3, 5, 1 + 2, in that order.
Is it really too much to ask that the AI defend all it's cities with at least 1 unit each?
Mark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Emporer
|
|
West Vancouver, B.C. , Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:12
|
|
where are the catapolts??? The seige weapons...early warfair is almost impossible. I send armies of 9 (knights and archers) against 4 phalanxs (with city walls) and I loose...what am I supposed to do, where are my ballistas, catapults, seige towers?
Other then that, I vote for ai (navy, where is it?) and diplomacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
middle aged civver
|
|
How about scenario support that actally works?
Borders definately. The biggest failing though which is driving me back to civ2 is the unusable diplomacy model. Unfortunately, this needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten, no-one is going to justify this for a patch.
Anyone desperate to use catapaults should use CD`s mod.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gregurabi
|
|
Lorain, OH, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Emperor: yes, it's extremely difficult to take walled cities in the early game. If you really want to do it, you'll need more than one stack of units. Try using three or four stacks of 9 (I prefer Samurai and Archers, instead of Knights and Archers). If your first stack kills off a Phalanx, that's one less for the remaining units to fight. Also, if your first stack inflicts damage on any of the Phalanxes, they remain damaged until the next turn, so your second stack will be facing wounded units.
Also, when your units attack, there's a chance that city improvements (including the walls) will be destroyed. So the second stack might be fighting an un-walled city, if you get lucky.
Generally, though, it's not worth the effort to try to take walled cities before you have Cannons. Your efforts will be better spent enslaving wandering AI units out in the open.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:12
|
|
AI!! AI!! AI!!
Why is it that when you play harder levels, instead of the AI being smarter, you just play on a more uneven playing field? Activision have taken the easy way out, just as MicroProse did with CivII.
CTP should have a variable AI, where the harder the level, the smarter the AI. I thought this would go without saying, and that Activision would correct that particular flaw of CivII, which should also go without saying, but alas, no.
Diplomacy also needs a thorough overhaul, which is why i now only play CTP multiplayer by e-mail (pbem).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
 |
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
Na sorry, Morgoth, more units would have been the last choice I would have taken! Before I would have chosen: improved combat model, cause more and more and more doesnt make a game better. And if you have a hundred thousands of units, but the AI and the rest is simple a pain in the ass, is the game good then? No, so more units is the least important thing!
In CtP, often I found myself confused: buahh so many units, what do I build! When building a unit I dont want to choose between 1 Movementpoint more or 1 Attackpoint more, cause thats lame! Thats confusing, boring micromanagment. I want units that clearly differ from each other and that all have their own special ability. But on a whole, when going to war, I know I have to build that and that and not have to choose between 10 different attack units. Sure diversity (on a small scale) is fun and I am no opposed to having around 3 different attack units to choose from, but not more. Everything more is micro!
I find it idiotic that people always shout for more more more but dont realize that its the gameplay that counts! What would you prefer: A Music disc with 25 average songs, or one with 10 really good ones?
I would choose 10 good songs!
Ata
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geez, I'm sorry you got so confused!
Actually, I'm with Morgoth. I like more historical accuracy in my units. (If I want to play pure strategy, I play chess.) The more units, advances, and wonders I can mess around with, the happier I am. Besides, more wonders gives the AI an advantage; I can't possibly get them all! The more units possible, the better I am able to simulate the civ the way I want it, and the more unique each civ becomes.
In fact, I'll go one better! You know what I miss from Civ II? The advisors! I mean, they really don't serve a function once you've played a few times, but I like them anyway. (The military advisor always cracks me up!) The wonder AVIs were superior in Civ II as well. More theatrical, and not trying to show off computer animation. (By the same token, I hated Civ II's heralds.)
I've always seen CTP as a sort of perfect cross between a strategic battle game and a historical SimCity. No better game out there!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Morgoth
|
|
England
Jul 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Relative to Civ II I think the CTP combat model IS a damm good improvement. The biggest problem I had with Civ II was the idea that (unfortified) the best unit won and everything else counted for nothing. I admit the original set up in CTP where machine gunners have no range fire but an archer does is pure dumb - but the ability to show a gradual progression of units prevents the I'm first and I can charge over anything syndrome.
I only really play LAN based so the main objective is the opposition (human) rather than AI. So maybe the AI gets more confused with more units but looking at what WesW has been doing that at least has been improving the AI side. To be able to simply build something you know is going to walk through everything - takes the fun out of everything and is more unreal - unless you are really that advanced!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Atahualpa
|
|
Hawthrone
Mar 1999
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
I like more historical accuracy in my units
|
ahh history, the game should make fun, thats the most important goal, and not that its historical a 100% accurate. Many complained in CtP that you already had knigts way before they were discovered in real life. Well, I shrugged my shoulders and said: And why should you want to replay human history, isnt it more fun to write your own history?
quote:
If I want to play pure strategy, I play chess
|
*buzzer* do you want to compare chess to a civ game????
quote:
The more units, advances, and wonders I can mess around with, the happier I am
|
Your choice if you want to end up with all that micro stuff. I dont want to!
quote:
Besides, more wonders gives the AI an advantage; I can't possibly get them all!
|
ohh yes and you will be sitting there and thinking: shall I develop this to get Wonder A or that to get Wonder B. And you sit there and think all day and all of the night. And then you think again if you should build Wonder C over Wonder D or even Wonder A, that has been discovered. Unfortunately Civ Z has already Wonder E in Production and you have to rush to get Wonder F before, so do you skip C and D to maximize for science and head for Wonder F or do you give up F and concentrate on C or D.......
I cant imagine this to make fun.
quote:
The more units possible, the better I am able to simulate the civ the way I want it, and the more unique each civ becomes.
|
simulate? wait, do we speak of civ as simulation or strategy?
more units only overcomplex the game. I dont like to choose between thousands of units what to build, instead I like to have some units and go out and fight battles with them. Surround cities, siege,... .
Come on, just imagine you play ctp and you scroll through the list of available units and you scroll and scroll and the list wont end and finally you have to decide what unit you want to build from a pool of 10. Where at least always 2 belong to the same class but differ in some stats. uaahhh
quote:
In fact, I'll go one better! You know what I miss from Civ II? The advisors
|
You know what? Me too! Not the civ2 advisors, cause they were dumb, but I like advisors in general. Because then I dont have to care which from the hundred units I shall build, the advisor does that for me. But I dont understand you, when you like to search through the units for yourself and decide what to build why do you like them?
quote:
Relative to Civ II I think the CTP combat model IS a damm good improvement. The biggest problem I had with Civ II was the idea that (unfortified) the best unit won and everything else counted for nothing. I admit the original set up in CTP where machine gunners have no range fire but an archer does is pure dumb - but the ability to show a gradual progression of units prevents the I'm first and I can charge over anything syndrome.
|
Agree! The combat model is an improvement, but it is poorely done. There are a number of flaws and smaller errors that should be corrected. I am not going into that now, but I think you know what I mean.
quote:
So maybe the AI gets more confused with more units
|
maybe? certainly I would say!
Havent looked ad WesW's mod, sorry.
What annoys me is that the question is: What would you most want to see in[..]? And that you said, ahh diplomacy: not that important, ai: no, that is not so important. Most important thing is: more units/... .
But that not you 2 said that but 15%! Well, the hundred best units help you little when diplomacy is so ****ed up or the ai is dumb as hell.
ATa
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Morgoth
|
|
England
Jul 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Jon
I'm making a little medieval Bombard Sprite as another intermediate Bombard Sprite. I've already made most of only the attack/death scene to do.
Ata
The Cog you asked about - I could send an early version if you want it now. I've a couple of things I need to do before I create the final Sprite. I haven't started on the ironclad yet but intend to fairly soon - it shouldn't take very long to do. I just haven't sussed out a quick way of making waves for the movement animation and have been starting to do my own mod changes (based on WesW's Medieval mod).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-11-1999 13:49
537 / 32%
|