View Full Version : Good features in CTP


Thunderfall
Nov 05, 2000, 11:24 AM
Anyone play call to power and liked it? What are some good features in CTP?

VanillaCube
Nov 06, 2000, 12:24 AM
I have it but dont really like it but one thing i think is good about it is that you dont have to waste settlers to build improvements on the land like roads irragation ex... but some things i dont like about it is that the other civs take it too personally when you tell them to get out off your land and i dont like the unit stacking its a good idea but i just dont like it i will get back to you later on call to power and what i do and dont like about it.

------------------
VANILLA CUBE
the great

Austin the Great
Nov 17, 2000, 07:43 AM
I hate Call to power! I poo'd on my CD and threw it in the dumpster!

------------------
I HATE YOU! I HATE YOU TO HELL!

stellar converter
Nov 17, 2000, 11:17 PM
austin. did you formerly know a jeff at another civ 2 forum? if so, thats me. you know, where everyone hated somebody, forget name. i remember he always used to say poo. http://forums.civfanatics.com/eek.gif

------------------
A hard-core conservative.
stellariumconvertium@yahoo.com

SunTzu
Nov 18, 2000, 05:46 PM
I liked the Military Option and the Option of what Religion your empire will be. And i think Civ3 should have alot of Governments like CTP. The graphics are awesome on CTP
But i can do without those stupid animated units. Lagfest!
And the bombard ability for Battleships and artillery

------------------
A.K.A Gregorius_Luxius
http://civfanatics.com Staff and forum moderator

"Do you worry that you're not liked
How long till you break
You're happy cause you smile
But how much can you fake"

"My mother's always tried to change herself
She never learned to let things be
She doesn't know how bad she messed me up
Cause now she seems so fake to me
But I love her"

"When shadows paint the scenes
Where spotlights used to fall
And I'm left wondering
Is it really worth it all?"

phoenixcager
Dec 08, 2000, 03:15 AM
I play CtP. I love the game! The special units were irritating at first, but I got used to them eventually. Also, other differences like the way trade works and public works took some getting used to.

What attracted me to the game were the underwater and space cities (of course the latter aren't in the new version) http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif



------------------
Civilization Gaming Network (http://www.civgaming.net) & Forums (http://www.civgaming.net/cgi-bin/forums/Ultimate.cgi)

Thunderfall
Dec 08, 2000, 04:32 AM
Weclome to the forums, phoenixcager. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/king.gif

phoenixcager
Dec 11, 2000, 09:33 PM
Thanks Thunderfall http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

dawgboy
Dec 16, 2000, 05:43 PM
CTP 1 was actually pretty crappy out of the box. As I said in a post elsewhere, what made it a lot more fun were the patches and the mods developed by players. Took about a year before I could play it and really, really have fun with it. CTP 2, which I haven't played yet, is apparently what the original should have been. At least the designers got input from the fans and implemented it in the game, from what I have read.

The slaver units are pretty cool, a great way to grow your empire early on. Also, the Theocracy government is a good simulation of the way European politics worked during the dark ages. I also like the way new civs get formed when spies incite revolts (they don't join your civ), so you can potentially end up with lots and lots of competing civs

Lots of fun stuff if you upgrade with the patches and mods but you do have to dig for it http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/hammer.gif

------------------
What the hell is Seat Management?

phoenixcager
Dec 18, 2000, 10:46 PM
I never really got the hang of those slavers.

It's only now, when I'm playing CtP2 that I've actually been able to see a small bit of what benefits they could bring.

------------------
Visit the Civilization Gaming Network (http://www.civgaming.net) & Forums (http://www.civgaming.net/cgi-bin/forums/Ultimate.cgi)

dawgboy
Dec 18, 2000, 10:58 PM
Phoenixcager, add a slaver to a stack of knights, legion, whatever. If you win the battle, you get a (slave) population point added to your closest city. Make sure you have one military unit garrisoned for each three slaves. You can also use slavers to steal population from unwalled enemy civs. If they also do not have slavers (or other "terror" units like abolitionists or spies, they can't see you stealing their population

Keep a slaver on guard in your capital and other important cities for the same reason, they can see the other terror units.

Just make sure you get the Emancipation Proclamation before the other civs or your civ will be thrown into chaos whent he lsaves arefreed. Useful for inciting revolts in enemy civs when you acquire this wonder.

I always like to use a few slavers to grow the population early on. Combined with clerics (in a Theology), you can simultaneously steal population and extract tithes (steal gold) from competing civs. I think it's a real accurate depiction of the Dark Ages in Europe.

Hope these tips help. Haven't got CTP 2 yet to see how I can modify the strategy (decided to let someone buy it for me for Xmas)http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/santa.gif

------------------
What the hell is Seat Management?

Tripa
Jan 17, 2001, 10:50 AM
i love both CTP1 and 2 ive got both and they are awsome it took me a while to get used to CTP2s changes however once i did i started playing as good as i do in ctp1 they r very hard compaired to CIV coz u and ur enmy can stack units i love that i got CTP@ day after release coz i heard good reveiws as soon as i got it bad reveiws everywhere i think they r just trying to stop ppl from bying it coz they all upset that they cant make such a good game i think if u stick to it u become as good as me lol

any probs with that ill give u a game and kick all ur ar*es

damunzy
Jan 21, 2001, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Tripa:
i love both CTP1 and 2 ive got both and they are awsome it took me a while to get used to CTP2s changes however once i did i started playing as good as i do in ctp1 they r very hard compaired to CIV coz u and ur enmy can stack units i love that i got CTP@ day after release coz i heard good reveiws as soon as i got it bad reveiws everywhere i think they r just trying to stop ppl from bying it coz they all upset that they cant make such a good game i think if u stick to it u become as good as me lol

any probs with that ill give u a game and kick all ur ar*es

So, are you going to kick our asses in CTP@ or CTP2?


------------------
<FONT face="tahoma"><IMG SRC="http://24.88.239.81/theworld/icon18.gif" border=0>-PaleHorse76-<IMG SRC="http://24.88.239.81/theworld/icon18.gif" border=0>
All rights reserved, all wrongs avenged.
ICQ: 744424 TimeZone: ET(-5GMT)</FONT f>

[This message has been edited by PaleHorse76 (edited January 21, 2001).]

shadowdale
Jan 24, 2001, 03:53 AM
There is on unite in CTP & CTP2 that makes the game suck and that is ECO ranger, they are broken. When you can build ECO rangers then there is no reason to go to war anymore!!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/snipersmilie.gif

------------------
S.P.Q.R.

ibollica
Dec 07, 2001, 06:58 PM
i thing ctp has lots of good features.. i only have ctp1 and i like good graphics ,sea and space cities, easy trade, see current ranking , and the best one is public works(is that the true name?). the level of mining ang irrag. is good (they have 3 levels). it has lots of good features and i thing it is a good game..

Dell19
Dec 08, 2001, 06:09 AM
It does have some good features but I didn't like the way you upgraded the land surrounding cities. I do like having armies though, because it gets rid of having to send one unit at a time to attack a city.

Massada Feff
Dec 08, 2001, 10:00 PM
I have to admit Im a big fan of ctp2, ctp1 is hurting in some of the aspects like the "space" cities and underwater cities, (by the time you get to them, there pretty worthless).

As per comparing ctp2 to civ3 I like them both... civ3 eaking out a slight victory in overall single player balance. ctp2 introduces several very cool units, and takes air power in the same direction as smac did, that is, air units are just that... "units" not just tactical artillery. They move out and have to fly back to an airport/town/carrier; later they can carry nukes and cruise missles which is very cool. The trade implemention in ctp2 is neat in that it creates a "trade line" between the town with the resource and the town getting it; and can be pillaged by barbarian or enemy forces. Whereas in civ3 it is very difficult to shut down AI trade (if youve been caught horseless in an early age war you know what I mean on a continent with no horses). Ships moored in harbor are also affected by bombardment and units fortified in towns can be wiped out due to bombardment (in ctp2); which means a "pearl harbor" can easily happen whereas in civ3 ships in towns take nothing from bombardment. Submarines in ctp2 can also carry cruise missles which make for a very cool opening to an invasion (much like todays modern war) Where as the cruise missile in civ is nearly worthless and almost totally ineffective.

Time seems to move abit more accurately in ctp2 as well; there are ALOT of techs between epocs; although it does seem to be missing the "dark age" of early musketeers... perhaps im spoiled on age of empires :)

CTP2 also introduces the formation of armies; stacked units can be formed into an army at will; this also gives certain units like "tank" a flanking ability; where it shoots the troops on the opposite side of a line first then takes out the rear defenders (artillery act as rear defenders). Aircraft can also be grouped with land vehicles and can do tremendous damage if the opponent has no aircraft defenders or sam units... again very slick.

Where ctp2 fails and civ3 shines is in the AI. Ctp2 has an extremely weak ai that uses very poor judgement in organizing its units; or dealing with polution or teching up for that matter... and its extremely poor grasp of naval power.. it is quite easy to win a large/gigantic map on diety mode because of this. Civ3 with the strategic resources is also very slick; and adds a whole new dimension to logistics and planning. The last point is that Civ3 feels like a "solid" game for what it is, thought out improvements where improvements could be made, but not so different as to not be a totally new game... this is both to the credit of civ and abit of a dissapointment... ala Quake 3... its quake.. in a new wrapper... being from Firaxis games... I had expected to see alot of the inovations that where in alpha centauri... your ai allies "donating" units was very very cool (alliances allowed you to use there towns to garison your troops was also very cool)... unit design, techs that where simply techs that you incorporated into your own vehicle designs... (much like masters of orion), would have been very cool indeed in the civ realm.

Does Civ3 live up to the hype?

In short... no.

Is Civ3 a well balanced slightly improved upon game from the original?

Yes... even better if it had multiplayer... :(

Is Civ3 better then CTP series?

Yes, Civ3 is better then the Ctp series because I feel like it accomplished what it set out to do for the most part, whereas ctp fails misserably in the AI department and really didnt deliver the goods as per what the box said...

Does Civ3 have the most advanced AI dipomacy to date in a turn based strategy game?

No... Smac did it better hands downs, you could pick from a list of towns and ask your ally to help you attack it, your allies would help you embargo your enemy, they would "donate" units to you, and there was a feel of a global economy late game... (smac has a economic victory) At best it feels like civ borrowed from smac for its current model.

In conclusion civ3 and ctp2 are both a love hate relationship... in my opinion since playing civ way back in the day when it was new on my spanky 386sx 16mhz, things have both come a long way... and things have hardly budged an inch... its still civ... it still lacks alot of good features, in exchange for apparent refinements on the interface and odd tables to show your empire to you. AI's still rely on the cheat factor to be competative. No I havnt lost a stealth fighter to a spearman (yet), but ive lost a veteran destroyer to a regular trieme... :(

I have to admit though, civ3 has been the first incarnation of the turn based conquer strategy games that have made me get angry... and say "wtf?!" which was something ctp or smac, never did (your combat chances where not hidden). I think its because of the combat system... with several reloads and attempts of the same battle its almost "always" the same... that destroyer? heh.. died 4 out of 5 times on 5 reloads to that trieme... civ3 has a hidden science and combat system which is still being probed... (I also think it has a unit advantage in the higher difficulties, which was the same story in the harder difficulties of its predescors) I liked the science shields better, you could really see the advantage of micro managing scientist in your cities... in civ 3; nope... its all science rate.

Why is civ3 better then ctp?

Civ is endearing... its like a game of chess with an old friend, civ3 just happens to be on a new chessboard... but, its still classic chess.

akadyer
Dec 09, 2001, 02:46 AM
The best aspects in ctp1 would have to be the govts pannel you can select how much food your people will eat this effects their happness and growth rate their working hours which affects production and happness and you could select their pay this would affect happness and money, this allowed greater contol of your people and allowed the govts to be used to the best of their advantages

Massada Feff
Dec 09, 2001, 04:03 PM
Absolutely Akadyer... I totally forgot about that; yep... that was better to ;)

Tripa
Dec 09, 2001, 08:35 PM
I totaly agree that Civ3 is better offline but doesnt even have a MP choice a bit bodgy i think,
CTP2 i love coz i only play it online, i havnt played CTP2 offline for at least 4 months now AI is easy as piss,
they are both great games for diffrent resons but what im waiting for now is my sorces to comfirm a CTP3 and hope that it will be an improvment on CTP2 and Civ3, i think both could have much betta ideas espesually with the resent events in the US, no disrespect or anything but im looking forward to a CTP3 where u can crash planes into enemy buildings and where you can hide wepons within caves and things, i think the turn based stratergy can still go a long way and that CTP2 and Civ3 put together still only scrap the bottom of what i would call an altimat stratergy game.

Massada Feff
Dec 10, 2001, 05:02 AM
Absolutely Tripa... this genre is stagnant... the ideas just havnt developed significantly to really justify calling these games "sequals" more like... minor expansions of a theme... the best part of civ3 is the 3d modeler that created the new images; most everything else is mediocre at best. My complaints with the civ turned based strategy games as a whole are almost all "game mechanics" based. With some minor complaints about how other games within the same genre like master of orion have consistently remained on my drive for years and years, while civ comes and goes with the "next new installment". I could even say that games like Imperium Galactica 2 captured me more then the latest civs and ctp's... atleast they tried something different. (good game btw if you like moo). The biggest problem right now with civ is linear progression of the game, there is no "breakout". Nothing that really tells me that "im really in a new age" or "weve done something unique", attacking a spearman with a tank dosnt convince me that this is a "simulation of real history". Or even having an army of spearmen while you send people to the moon... im just not captured by that...with 3d technology where it is now I would also think it possible to generate a turn based game played out on a fractally generated world, zooming around from town to town in 3d, semi to complex troop movements, supply of the troops; lots of things... but still and yet we purchase and suffer through more array grid based sophmoric AI thats only hope of providing a challenge to players is to base its progression from the player and produce at reduced cost. The best chess player was beat down by deap blue; and it didnt have any "padded" rules it played by. Granted in chess theres a set number of permutations and possible moves per turn, but lets be honest... when you play against a "real player" theres always that chance that they will risk everything in one big push, or counter attack you in a flank... a human conceptualizes what is going on and makes its plans to win. The current AI models dont seem to have any grasp of the world it lives in; it only makes stastical decisions based on maximum returns... like city placement, it dosnt "get" tactical importance... or; skip a tech to get a unit thats going to help it now, not 100 turns from now. Ever notice how in ctp your computer slows down significantly right before the computer "robs" you. Its changing the rules to deal with some hidden parameter youve tripped... pure chease. Civ3 is just as bad... ive isolated empires from there naval trade, and strategic resources... and still n' yet they produce units which require the resources to produce... therefor, the player is the only element which seemingly requires anything to advance (more then likely they start the build with the resource you take it out they get the unit and quick build the harbor back, switch back, you smack the harbor again, but the unit is allready being built). Time and time again in many games you can see this... RTS games are notorious for computer opponents that dont resource or quick build fodder units... while its entertaining at first... its just weak scripting and gets old quick. The sence of "fair play" or "wow" factor is lost on me... as I watch a computer poop out unit after unit while in the "rules" you suffer with inferior units, and fiercely fought over resources. Unfortuneatly I have no desire to play civ3 through on diety... I know it cheats rediculously... and theres no real point (to me) to suffer against that... monarch is where my last 4 games went and they where all almost identical in my play style... even avoiding using semi exploits... i knew if it was win or loose by 1000ad even on gigantic maps. Perhaps I expect too much for the limited time constraints developers are under, or perhaps when one town was nuked by 4 civs over and over again even when its pop was 1 and no units where in it I just sighed... then proceeded to get the only full motion movie (asside from the intro) and landed my little druegies on alpha centauri... again... in 1850...

Tripa
Dec 12, 2001, 07:48 AM
Massada Feff want to get together and make ctp3 i think we could do a much betta job of making the sequal then anyone else has lol.
People went on about how apolyton tryed to make CTP the civ3 and then they tryed again with ctp2 but to tell you the truth, i dont think even civ3 has the makings to be the sequal of civ2. I have played civ2 to death and still pull it out once a monthfor a quick game, but i think civ3 will get old fast, and now i understand y they didnt release MP. They need some way to get all of us to keep playing it. But i tell ya what in my veiw Civ3 will not replace CTP2 online ever just as CTP2 and Civ3 will never replace civ2 offline.