Now it is quite obvious to me that Activision did not listen to the Civ community. How many times even with the original CTP was more than 8 Civs requested. The CTP patch included hotseat and yet they don't even have something as basic as that in the initial game. If the basic things like hotseat and more than 8 Civs don't work, what does that tell you about the quality of the game. It tells me that Activision knows the game has bugs and is trying to hid them. More than 8 Civs will stress the game, having HOTSEAT stressed the game. The fact that they are not present means that the game does not work when stressed. Why? If I were a betting man, I would say that they were initially incluced, but had bugs. So instead of fixing the bugs, they just dropped the features. That means the bugs are still there, they just don't show up as often so Activision hopes they can sneak it past us poor dumb consumers.

Never played with more than that, nor wanted to.

> No Hotseat

Would be nice, but I never used that, either.

> No PBEM

Same as above

> No Canals

For me, the one-square city-as-canal has always seemed enough.

> Rumors of a lot of bugs with no time left
> before the release date to fix.

Unfortunately, this is pretty standard for game software. It has such a shorter shelf-life than other kinds of software, that there is great pressure to keep it moving.

In all, my impression is that Activision is releasing a game with a lot of features people asked for, but without some features that a few people wanted.

The canals would be nice but are not a big deal to me.

I do not play MP, and I have no interest in playing MP., But I hope they will make an MP patch for the player who want it.

With the much larger cities I believe that more than 8 to 12 civs, everthing is going to be crowded very fast unless we have some very large maps. In CTP the cities were only two tile from city center. In CTP 2 they will be four tiles from city center. Again in CTP city center to city center five tiles. In No. 2 nine tiles. North to south two cities in CTP ten tiles. No.2 eighteen tiles. Now if you don't mind an AI civs building a city three tiles from your city center no problem. I do mine.

I will buy the game as soon as it is release.

------------------

Having read through it all I'll just say, "catchya round".

In all, my impression is that Activision is releasing a game with a lot of features people asked for, but without some features that a few VERY LOUD people wanted.

And to correct my rather uncivil acquaintance,

> So don't ever speak for the majority again unless
> you have your facts straight.

I did not speak for any majority, I clearly said it was merely my impression.

I love playing against friends on the same computer. I hope hotseat is on a patch soon after the games release.

But what is the point in them not including it? They didn't in CTP1 and then released apatch including it- why do this with CTP2? Why not include hotseat in the first place?

quote: Originally posted by red_jon on 11-01-2000 02:16 PM But what is the point in them not including it? They didn't in CTP1 and then released apatch including it- why do this with CTP2? Why not include hotseat in the first place?

I have been avoiding this topic for a while now. But it seems to be something that's extremely important to some of you, so I guess I'll address it, but only a little bit.

The reason it was cut, and yes it was cut recently, was because of insurmountable bugs. There were a lot of really horrendous bugs that quite frankly we didn't know how to fix in the amount of time we have. We would rather ship a really solid good game than add more features that make it not solid, and buggy. So we have chosen to focus our energy on making what we are shipping as good as we possibly can, and anything we couldn't do "right" we didn't do at all. Will we be doing a patch for this game? I don't know. Would we like this feature in the game? Yes, we would. But frankly I don't know if it will happen or not. It was a difficult decision to make (I wasn't the one who made it, but everyone was involved to some degree), but the decision we made was what we thought was best for the game as a whole. Once again I'm sorry that this disappoints so many of you, but this is not a trivial spend an hour to implement it kind of feature. It is actually a very difficult to implement feature. I hope you all understand.

I would rather have a bug-free game than hotseat, it just seems a shame.

quote: Originally posted by Maestro on 11-01-2000 05:50 PM No PBEM patch ???

I didn't say that. I said that I don't know, and it's not currently planned. That doesn't mean no, and it certainly doesn't mean yes. It just means we (including myself) have to wait and see what happens.

quote: Originally posted by Pyaray on 11-01-2000 06:36 PM I didn't say that. I said that I don't know, and it's not currently planned. That doesn't mean no, and it certainly doesn't mean yes. It just means we (including myself) have to wait and see what happens. Pyaray

I guess the final decision about patching the game really depends on whether the game sells well huh? Fair enough, after all the bottom line is that game companies are here to make money.

BTW the decision to cut PBEM/hotseat due to bugs is a good one. It is better to have a few good implemented features rather than many badly implemented ones. I've kept that generally rule in my software engineering efforts myself.

A 100 aussie dollar is a lot of money, I will definitely wait for the review this time around.

Cheers,

You indicated that PBEM had a lot of bugs, and that's why it couldn't be included.... Is the same true for Hotseat?

But I do have to agree that it would be better if the game was released as bug-free as possible. It really does not make any sense to have the game released with PBEM/Hotseat and then have those games crash repeatedly because of bugs related to those issues. Imagine the uproar that would cause...

My assumption was based on the fact that Activision was able to address PBEM/Hotseat in CTP1, so it seemed to me that those features were a foregone conclusion in CTP2 and would of been implemented right from the start. And as much as I want a perfect game, the truth is that no game will give me every feature that I want. It will be funny to see when CIV3 is getting close to release, how many people will gripe because their 'pet' idea is not included - you can be assured this will happen too.

I still am looking forward to CTP2. Even if PBEM/Hotseat was not included, nor planned in the future, I would still get the game because I do enjoy single-play (CTP1 MedMod modified).

You have trouble missing a deadline for a game and made a balancd decision, we've failed to land in MARS (not exactly an easy task!) and we were still crucified for it.....

Pyaray, please don't misunderstand me. I really appreciate the input and the willingness of you, Mr. Ogre, and the rest of the programming team to come in here and put up with all the heat. I'm glad you folks have read our ideas and attempted to impliment them.

Now please send some of the marketing and sales droids in here. Let them see that not everyone in here is as stupid as they think we are!!!!

------------------
Big Dave

quote: Originally posted by Big Dave on 11-03-2000 12:10 AM As I have been saying, Black Friday or Die is Activisions motto for the release of CTP2. Putrid marketing droids!

yeah...
we all have to learn from germans... they are kinda technocratic (in the right sense)... you will never see a stupid marketing droid running a high tech company there... just see their company profiles... allwasy a Dr. in Engineering in the field related to the main business of the company.

That's the way! Kill the droids!

(BTW, isn't there in CTP2 some *******-unit called MBA or something, that you can kill whit great pleasure???)

Kautilys: Thanks for reading the message in full.

Jbs: I agree with most of what you are saying, although I am not a programer nor do I pretend to be one. I truly feel that Activision needs to work hard on many of these features and not just 'give up'.

MadWoodstar: I also agree with your feelings. You enjoy the single player mode. So do I, at times. I prefer the Hotseat mode as I can not only play against the AI but also against friends and family on one computer. We always had great games and hours of entertainment.

3rdTrial: Your right on the nose. I'll have to wait too. I and my family and those who came over to join in our games, are extremely dissappointed. We were counting the days to the 'new and improved game' only to be severely let down by a marketing ploy.

Pyaray: I respect you efforts and spirit to keep coming back on line and getting bashed. I am very curious about what events occurred out of turn in the Hot Seat mode? We never found a problem in CTPI with the mode. Out of all the games we played we only had 2-3 freeze ups where the game was lost. In these games nothing (wonders, buildings, advances, etc) had occuured. I always assumed it was background software that jammed the game. We have played close to a hundred Hot Seat games utilizing 2-5 human (geniuses or dummies) and enough AI's to make up to 8 civilizations on the largest (gigantic) maps we could create with as many or few goods and types of land masses available.
If it worked in CTPI, why not CTPII? I'm beginning to believe that the 'bean counters' are truly controlling the CTPII game. Yes. Christmas is an important marketing time, but not all the best selling games came out at or just before Christmas. Skip the excusses, fix the problems and make a product that your customers (remember us?) want. Remember..If you have no customers, you have nothing!

Others: I cna't figue why greater than 8 Cis should be a problem, except that the maps would get crowded fast and the game would take more memory to play. We played with 8, but usually less, so our maps would not be so crowded and you could work on stratgies (advances, wonders, etc) rather than fighting some one all the time.

I, and my family and friends, thoroughly enjoyed CTPI and looked forward with great expectations to CTPII, I hoped they would correct some unit flaws. Aircraft carriers were a joke in CTPI. In real life, modern aircraft carriers with all their compliment of aircraft types, could easily wipe out a fleet of the best battleship known (almost simultaneously). Only submarines can give aircraft carriers a severe threat. In CTPI submarines were too easy to find and also had very few weapons (other than nukes until they were wondered out, no tomahacks or other missles). The phantoms in CTPI were visible to opposing players (even when cloaked) thanks to the shields being visible. It appears that CTPII is getting rid of space instead of balancing the units. Thats ok, I guess, as it sounds like they are improving the sea colony stuff.
Stealthy units needed to be much harder to detect.

quote: Originally posted by Mike the Nuke on 11-04-2000 05:57 PM Pyaray: I respect you efforts and spirit to keep coming back on line and getting bashed.

quote: I am very curious about what events occurred out of turn in the Hot Seat mode?

quote: If it worked in CTPI, why not CTPII? I'm beginning to believe that the 'bean counters' are truly controlling the CTPII game.

quote: Skip the excusses, fix the problems and make a product that your customers (remember us?) want. Remember..If you have no customers, you have nothing!

quote: Others: I cna't figue why greater than 8 Cis should be a problem, except that the maps would get crowded fast and the game would take more memory to play.

quote: Aircraft carriers were a joke in CTPI. In real life, modern aircraft carriers with all their compliment of aircraft types, could easily wipe out a fleet of the best battleship known (almost simultaneously).

On a related note, all of the units have been rebalanced.

quote: It appears that CTPII is getting rid of space instead of balancing the units.

With today US Navy a battleship would not catch an Aircraft Carrier with it Aircraft on the Deck. Every time one of them sail, they have support ships with them. Destroyer, Cruiser, Frigates and other ships.
These other ships can hear very well. Plus I believe the E-2 EAW aircraft are up and flying. Maybe Mike the Nuke could tell us since he served on the Enterprise. Mike I Worked at MINSY until its closure (Navy + MI 33 years) and back in 1976 (May) I worked on the Enterprise at Alameda N.A. in MMR2 I believe doing the Vent. mods. And is that Oakdale Calif. you live in or is there another Oakdale in the world?

Joseph

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 11-04-2000 11:06 PM With today US Navy a battleship would not catch an Aircraft Carrier with it Aircraft on the Deck.

That's actually my point exactly. Yet how often does it happen in games like Civ & CTP, where you send your Carriers off with nothing airborn, and no protection? That's why they're so weak.

In your game, they are so weak because you gave them NO aircraft. As Joseph said we had aircraft in the air and escort ships. But the offensive and defensive capabilities of modern aircraft carriers is in no way exibitied in your game. You give us only fighters? Read some books. Carrier aircraft have the capability of delivering alot more than bullets. Carrier aircraft, as Joseph could probably tell you, can maintain a strong defense of the ship (with or without other escort ships) and deliver severe mortal blows utilizing up and including nuclear weapons. You need not make it the strongest ship in you game, but at least make it worth building. The you all rated it, they were nothing but fishing boats. The ease of find subs in your game ws also pathetic. Even your own Phantoms were pathetic. Opposing players could find them even when cloaked by visually locating the shields. I'm sure glad our modern subs and carriers were not desine by you guys. Ever heard of F/A-18 Hornets, F-14 Tomcats, tomahawk missles, pheonix missles, or the phalenx (spelling is probably wrong) defense system. Ever wondered why there are no "active battleships' (yes for about 3-5 years we brought them back, but now we can do with smaller ships and carriers everything they could do and more and faster).

What messages our you talking about. Please give examples. In over 100 Hot Seat games, we never had any problem. Never played the PBEM option. I could see some of the problems that might occur there. The two options may be similar, but they are not. Hot Seat is done form one computer, utilizing one key boards, etc. PBEM requires that data be sent via email to another location and that a response be given. We've built nearly every wonder and achieved every advance playing in Hot Seat and peformed nearly (if not all) combat attacks, etc in at least one of our Hot Seat games without a hitch. We've played with civilizations of 2-5 humans and the rest being AI with up to 8 total. We usually play with 4-6 civilizations, so the maps aren't as crowded and you can do more strategic planning (studies, advancements, etc) without having to fight somebody off all the time. We got bored of the staight all out war from the first trun on deal a long time ago (8 civs, smaller maps). I rspect your response, but do not feel the answer is complete. Hot Seat worked great in CTP I. It IS THE ONLY REASON WE STILL PLAY THE GAME! Without it, we'd discard it along with all the other old worn out single player games. Hell, mays as well play chess by myself or against the computer all the time. YIPPEE!

Carriers always fly air cover when under way in hostile waters. They can launch planes very qyickly in time of need. During peace time we did not always have aircraft in the air except during special exercises. We did have aircraft (Tomcats) on the alert catapult and had far reaching radar to track possible approaching enemies. A battle ship could not even get within firing range of a modern aricraft carrier in it's wildest dreams. Subs are another animal all together. Your aircraft carriers have little or no offensive capabilities. Remember, it's not the aircraft carrier, its the aircraft, of which you gave basically none.

Your right about the E2 aircraft being in the air while the ship is deployed. We didn't always have them deployed except during flight exercises or while in "potentially hostile" areas. In friendly seas (off the US coast, etc) they weren't deployed> In the Indian Ocean and open Pacific they were. The ship also was equippped with long range radar. The E2's extended the range further and provided extended targeting for the aircraft. This could be simulated by several methods in the game.

1) Add these units, to be built and deployed on the carrier. The downside would be the addition of another unit to the game adding more complication and building time/cost for the city/empire.

2) Automatically implement this unit as part of every aircraft carrier. this would provide carriers in the game with the long range detection of aircraft and ships (and moderate improvement in sub detection) that real carriers have.

3) Alert fighters were always on the ready on the flight deck. This is simulated quite well in the Sid Meyer Civ II game. Any aircarft carrier attacked that has fighter aircraft deployed on it (even if not flying) are automatically placed airborn to defend the ship.

4) The phalenx (missed spelled, I'm sure) shipboard defense system could be simulated the same as fighter aircraft in item 3 above, except that this item would need to be a unit that could be purchased/built and added to every ship.

5) Helicopters provided anti sub detection on real carriers as well as aircraft recovery assistance. I believe I read that the new game is including helicopters as units.

MR Pyayar (I'm sure I misspelled it, sorry. Didn't have it written in front of me)

I've read many of the messages (almost all) on this site. The Hot Seat, which works well in CTP I (we have never had problems) can be simplified (if the AI is causing the bugs, which I believe is the problem because the AI has so much to consider and respond to, especially with this new 'diplomacy stuff') by allowing it to be utilized with human palyers ONLY, no AI (computer players). Personally, I have become bored with the AI players in all games and prefer real human players (some are smart, some average, some senseless). AI players can only do what they are programed to do and often (even with all the best efforts of the game programers) become predictable. Humans also become predictable, if you know that human's tendancies, but humans can change or try things radically different for no reason at all. I do not understand why Hot Seat seemed to work so well in CTPI with mixtures of human and computer (AI) players, but maybe if it is designed for human player use only on CTP II it could work. If it is placed in the game, I would definately buy tihe new CTP II game, as many of the new unit, graphic, and game play changes sound very good. PBEM could also (possibly) be set up for human players only. Since barbarians do not really build anything, they would not seem to be a problem in Hot Seat or PBEM options.

Mark G:

From reviewing the site, it appears that you have a hand in it. If so, I must compliment you on your efforts. Nice job. It seems to be updated daily (at least). All participants should be compliment on there fairly professional effort. No one (except for the Dangerous guy) has taken 'pot shots' at anyone else, making the site very informative and useful.

I would love to talk about Subs., however since I'm a retired Test Superviser I would get into trouble with some people. If you remember the Gulf war, a col. was asked about Subs. and he gave a short answer. The next day General Green came to brifting and said no more question would be taken about Subs. operation. Good luck on your request for Hot Seat. As someone has said, maybe Activision is going to wait to see how well CTP 2 sells before they take the time to devloped a bug free Hot seat and PBEM patch.

(Who is actually going to let anyone else near their computer for the first month anyway )

------------------
- Biddles