CivIII vs. CTP?

connor

Highlander
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
193
Location
Bannockburn, fighting the English
First, this is not a flame against Firaxis or anyone and second, I do not desire this thread to be a wish list for Civ. That said, I have played all the Civ games, played Civ2 for three years straight and then off and on. I have also played the first Call to Power (CTP).

As an observation, it seems as though CTP, the original, is still ahead of Civ3 game play wise. Now, it has been a while since I have played CTP as I love the feel and graphics of Civ3 over CTP, but the functionality of CTP seems to be at least equal to or maybe even above Civ3. It seems as if Civ3 is now where CTP was and not further ahead. Opinions? Overall, I prefer Civ and will definitely buy the next installment and upgrades, etc. I am just curious as to opinions.

Please no bashing or flaming.
 

Edmo

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
Messages
3
Location
Rio de Janeiro
Hummm...
I beg to differ. I found CTP to be confusing and a tad overwhelming. Civ 3 is far more elegant and interesting.

CTP is also too "fast" in the beginning. You start your kingdom, and a bit later it's already 1200A.D. I didn't like the feel of that. I really enjoy building my empire along the ages.

I really couldn't be bothered to go past the early game. I've never seen the 'modern' units. Maybe I should try a little harder.:groucho:
 

BillChin

Prince
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Messages
494
Call to Power has a combat system that makes early conquest a very easy strategy. Two warriors and one archer will always defeat a single defender. In Civ III, the same three units will sometimes lose to a single defender. The early conquest strategy is far superior to all others in CTP. Some say the same about Civ III on Deity difficulty, but on the lower levels, many strategies are viable.

The Civ III games seem to take longer. One big reason is the combat/movement system and the lack of a way to move a large stack of troops.

Both games have irritating things about them. I hated the slavers in CTP. There only real way to thwart them was to take out the enemy civ or block all possible land routes. Pirates were also very irritating in CTP. In Civ III the most irritating thing is the lack of mass movement.

Right now I give Civ III the edge. I shelved CTP after a few weeks because I always reached for that easy early conquest.
 

Padma

the Absent Admin
Administrator
Supporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
14,463
Location
Omaha, Nebraska USA
I too played Civ2 for years, then picked up CTP (and CTP2).

There are some things I do miss from the CTP series - especially unit stacking!:( But I find I really like CIV3 best.

I agree it's not as big a step forward as I would have liked, but I still give it the edge. I DO like strategic resources, and the improved diplomacy, and the cultual borders (and even culture flipping:lol: ).

I reloaded Civ2 last night, just to check it out again, and found I couldn't bring myself to play it! It is just too far behind. If I couldn't play Civ3, I would be able to fall back to CTP, but I don't think I could go back to Civ2.
 

Greadius

:yeah:
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
5,721
Location
Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A.
I hated CTP, I got bored before I finished my first 'big' game.

I suppose my mindset while playing it was very different, but I never liked the feel of the game.

Just out of curiosity, what was the deal with CTP? Why wasn't it just a Civ sequel? What is the big difference?

I like the feel of Civ3 much better basically because I feel like I'm playing through history instead of playing a turn based strategy game with little figures and land units.
 

connor

Highlander
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Messages
193
Location
Bannockburn, fighting the English
Greadius, that is basically how I felt. I liked it, but it just didn't grip me like Civ2, even though the diplomacy and government options were superior. I could not stand the futuristic things either. I like my armoured warfare. Sometimes while playing civ, if I get way far ahead in techs, I will give techs out to the other civs to bring everything on par.

What I would really like to have in a game is some serious armoured warfare. Tank battles raging across the plains. Actually, I would love to see different types of combat weapons to reflect the variations, such as Mig-29s, F22s, M1 tanks, and T-80s, etc.
 

Selous

King
Joined
Feb 19, 2001
Messages
766
Location
aussi
i agree with everyone here that civ3 is better than CTP (though i cant vouch for CTP2 but i heard that was actually CTP1.5 .... if u know what i mean) ..... but i cant quite put my finger on it but i dont think it was very well ballanced ... as to why CTP was so crappy .... i really LOVED some of there ideas and tecknicly was a great civ game .... exept it wasnt

BUT ... now ... if u wanna compair civ games .....
AC
-better government system
-better diplomacy system <-- and diplomacy is sooo much more important!
-custom units
-living world <-- why they got rid of this is pure idiosy!
-3D terrain
-ability to stack allied units
-multiplay
-natural features in the terrain (think mt everist or great barrier reef)


CIV3
-better air combat <-- MUCH better i think everyone will agree? now that it works ;)
-much nicer graphics <-- it all looks much like CTP really


CTP
-capital works <-- i really liked this feature, it cut down on micromanagement for your silly workers
-Excellent multiplay ... very good indeed ... something all games should aspire to
-the first nice graphic civ

i think AC is so much better at the moment than civ3 and if future civ games are not going to have any genere breaking stuff and firaxis are going to continue to goto town on AC series then i wont get civ4 and will just go for AC2 ... is so weird ... i always thought that AC was actually civ3 but sid at the time couldnt touch civ name for legal reasons but then when the real civ3 comes out it is in many respects a backwards step in civ games ... and that is one thing the industry never does!! ... it might make small incremental improvements that are barely noticeable BUT one thing they never do is go backwards!! ... very weird!
 

Minuteman

Minister of salty snacks
Joined
Dec 30, 2001
Messages
168
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Oh boy, let's not get too carried away now. Does anyone else here seem to recall how unplayable CTP, and especially CTP2, was out of the box? It was only after applying several user-created mods that playing CTP2 became an even remotely enjoyable experience for me, and the AI still sucked the big one!

Civ III, hands down!
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2001
Messages
2,453
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
I played both CtP and CtP2. I really enjoyed them while I had them before Civ3. Overall, I feel Civ3 is a much more polished, elegant game. I enjoy Civ3 better overall (even after I modified CtP), but I really wish I could bring the best elements from CtP2 and put them into Civ3 (combined arms combat, stacked movement, public works, better build queue, to name a few).

If (and it's a BIG if) Firaxis decides to put the kind of customizeability into Civ3 as is possible with Civ2 and the CtP series, then I will absolutely LOVE Civ3! If this happens, you will see an INCREDIBLE amount of mods to the game that will make it immensely appealing and extend the re-playability into infinity.

This, I think, is probably the single biggest mistake Firaxis could have made. To see a game as "old" as Civ2 still being played as avidly today as it was when it first came out, is simply an asounding testament to the dedication of extremely talented fans who continuously make the game better and more enjoyable. This MUST happen with Civ3 in order for it to survive.

I will be extremely disappointed if this does not happen. If it doesn't, I guarantee that even I, someone who really enjoys playing Civ3 right now, will find a time several months down the road that I will shelve the game for something newer and more interesting. Only if there are continuously new mods to the game from players, will Civ3 ever becoming a strategy gaming legend.

I really do believe Civ3 is a a diamond in the rough. I just hope Firaxis has the where-with-all (and money) to make the game shine.
 

ajohn505

Mr. Fahrenheit
Joined
Nov 28, 2001
Messages
64
Location
Midwest, USA
Originally posted by Selous

BUT ... now ... if u wanna compair civ games .....
AC
-better government system
-better diplomacy system <-- and diplomacy is sooo much more important!
-custom units
-living world <-- why they got rid of this is pure idiosy!
-3D terrain
-ability to stack allied units
-multiplay
-natural features in the terrain (think mt everist or great barrier reef)

i think AC is so much better at the moment than civ3 and if future civ games are not going to have any genere breaking stuff and firaxis are going to continue to goto town on AC series then i wont get civ4 and will just go for AC2 ...

I agree there... SMAC had soooo many more features that Civ3 should have had, and could have had without adding any complexity. The custom units wouldn't really lend themselves too well to the CIV universe, though it would be fun to see an attempt :) The ability to stack allied units and living world though should have been a given. I wonder when Brian Reynolds is going to start working on SMAC2... unless he went off to work on a golf game too.
 

smallstepforman

Megalomaniac
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
130
Location
Melbourne, Australia
CTP - the bad:
- trade system (establishing routes and piracy)
- diplomacy (what diplomacy?).
- special units (slavers etc). Ask an AI civ to stop, and they only oblige for one single turn.
- leader animations (who are those people?)
- confusing city build menu
- confusing city management menu.

CTP - the good
- stackable units fighting as one - better than Army
- wonder animations. Civilopedia animations.
- ocean and space cities!!!!!!
- build a road link between 2 continents
- better terrain impovements - radars, observation posts etc
- public works vs workers.
- game continues to 3000AD. Yoohoo.

Diplomacy and Trade killed this game, which BTW are the strong points of Civ3. The AI in Civ3 is also heaps better.
 

gpsmith

BOFH
Joined
Dec 19, 2001
Messages
41
Location
Oxford UK
From my very very very short CTP career, I did find that there were some great concepts with the game.

The ones I loved were the covert operations against other civs, such as piracy, and injunctions, slavery, etc. And most of the other things that other posters have mentioned, even some that ppl consider to be bad points.

However, as I probably lack patience, the game play was very complicated. Having said that, I'm sure that if I sat down and concentrated hard, I would find the game enjoyable.

But, at the end of the day, I still love Civ3
 

pompeynunn

Play Up Pompey!!
Joined
Dec 10, 2001
Messages
169
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
For some reason, I never got on with CTP at all. After waiting ages for it to come out, then rushing out to buy it, I only played it for a couple of days before going back to Civ 2. The whole user interface and playability at the start was better in Civ 2 in my opinion.
 

Rushton

Mr 700 minutes
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
95
Location
Cologne, Germany
I think for me the clinching arguement is that I am totally addicted to CivIII but CTP1 and 2 never did that!

There are things that CTP has over CivIII

1) Much better graphics (especially the oceans)

2) Units stacking (less tedium)

3) The poster (God I miss that)

4) More types of goverment

5) Less tedium at late game as there is still lots to do and research.

Otherwise Sid wins again - hey CTP aint got no culture!:sheep:
 
Top Bottom