quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-10-2001 07:40 PM Russian King, As far as I am concerned, CTP was the worst branch of the Civ Series. Give me a solid reason why CTP was better and I will bow to your feet. There were some good concepts, but none were implemented correctly. I think you are definitly in the minority on this one!

Reasons for CTP being better:
1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square
This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one.
Bombard/ranged-This made some realism
2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well.
3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible.
4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc)
5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!!
6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me.
7. Not the best reason, but:better grahpics(xept nuke)
8. better tech tree up till genetic age.
9. More terrain
10.Less AI cheating(better AI)
11.Hotseat/PBEM w/ patch.
12.More reallistic line of sight feature.
13.More editing options.
14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market.
Maybe not reallistic, but the idea is good.
15.No # limits like 32000 gold.

Reasons for ctp being worse:

The only 2 MAJOR reasons are: The interface, i would do anything to get a better one. and the NUKE Blow animation!
and some mino things like-its faster elapsing(but that goes partly into the interface).

quote: Originally posted by monolith94 on 05-10-2001 08:07 PM There were even some graphics in Civ 1 that were better then Civ 2 in that regard! Who could forget those dirty scummy rebels marching from the side into your city? And then 2000 year later, the same scummy guys, in hippy clothing, doing the exact same thing??? And come ON, you gotta give props to Stalin's facial expressions, and the royal palace??? COME ON!!!

Underlined! I couldnīt agree more. And donīt forget some of the advisours, especially communism and modern despotism; they were hilarious!

quote: Originally posted by Russian King on 05-13-2001 03:36 AM Now I would like you to BOW me please!

Thanks for answering me. Now here what I think:

quote: 1. Stacked combat and unit limitations per square This fixed the civ2 thing with having to move your units one by one. Bombard/ranged-This made some realism

quote: 2. I dont fancy space terrain and future techs but I used space for High air(for planes) and some future units as well.

quote: 3. Sea colonies. More colonization is possible.

quote: 4. More tile improvements( mines-adv. mines, etc)

quote: 5. This is a matter of opinion but i think: PW better than settler/worker!!

quote: 6. More special attacks: slavers were used frequently by me.

quote: 7. Not the best reason, but:better grahpics(xept nuke)

quote: 8. better tech tree up till genetic age.

quote: 9. More terrain

quote: 10.Less AI cheating(better AI)

quote: 11.Hotseat/PBEM w/ patch.

quote: 12.More realistic line of sight feature.

quote: 13.More editing options.

quote: 14.Dont know about you, but: trade system can be operated like real market.

quote: 15.No # limits like 32000 gold.

If anything, one thing to me stood out about CTP, which was:

Good idea, bad implementation.

Indeed, stacked combat, monopolies, and special units are features I would truly like to see in Civ3. But I felt that Activision did a not so good... dare I say it, HORRIBLE job at balancing the features. The combat system could make a grown man cry (see above abolitionist incident) and there was really no improvement to the AI that I could see.

So was CTP good for the genre? Yes, because it gave good ideas and mistakes to learn from. I hope some of CTP's ideas are re-evaluated, re-done, and then re-used.

Was CTP, as a game, better than Civ2? No. See above for why.

I am also a Sid Meiers Gettysburg fan, and when all the Getty community hoped the sequel to the game to expand it at a campaing level or even to cover the entire American Civil War, Firaxis let us down with Antietam, a wash-up of the old game with aditional graphics and less more. Iīve never seen such a deception that that of the Gettysburg players community when Antietam were shipped, we were wishing for a game that would make us play as civil war commanders for years, and in fact many veterans simply stopped to play Getty on Mplayer. It was clear: the publishers wanted EASY MONEY. Donīt know if this was a cause of Brian Reynoldīs resign.

Hope this wonīt happen with CIV 3, I canīt not judge without having played the game, but I agree fiera about the bad "premonition" of 7 civs (nothing told about the idea of a neutral race, with every city operating with independence and assimilable by culture and trade influence).

Its clear that WE DONT NEED ANIMATIONS, we need a deeper CIV 2. Maybe Hasbro thinks they needed, as their (legitimal) goal could be sell millions of games. But they should consider that Civ 1 and Civ 2 sold that being innovative and very complicated to play at that moment, when most computer games were something like "shot the alien", and Micropose asumed a risk (as they did in other hits likes XCOM) that probably no other company would have asumed and that makes them earn lots of money. Now, an "aged of empires" wash-up of Civilization would probably sell millions, but civ fans wonīt buy a Civ 4 from the same developer and publisher, as it happens with Antietam (the first game with the name of Sid Meier in the title that doesnīt deserve that name). It could be said that Antietam was the end of Gettysburg and what could has been a whole serial of good and serious civil war games.