Why is Civ V good and Call to Power 2 bad?

[Davor]

I do like Civ V. Yes I complain about, but I do enjoy the game. I think it's a very good game, not a great or perfect game as some people say. Well we all have different opnions. What I can not understand is this. Call to Power 2 got scathing reviews. Many people say that game sucks big time when it was released. Funny thing is, I see Civ V just like Call to Power 2 on release. Very poor AI, very bad diplomacy. So all the scathing that CtP2 got, I see in Civ V. So how come it is acceptable for Civ V and not for CtP2?

Could it be because CtP2 has more options? CtP2 has way more units, technology and things to build?

CtP2 did things differently just like Civ V did. CtP2 has a poor AI which was the main reason people say they didn't get it. Civ V has poor or even worse AI than CtP2 but it's ok now all of a sudden.

So the only reason why I see people Civ V like this game more than CtP2 is because there is way less options. Tech tree is about half the size than CtP2. There is less units and less options. Less things to do. So is this why Civ V is so much better?

So why is Civ V better than CtP2 when all the bad things in CtP2 are in Civ V.

I swear if the name Sid Miers Civilization wasn't in the title, Civ V wouldn't be getting such rave reviews and defence it is getting.

 

[daunt]

ctp2 was unbalanced in all its components, was clearly hurried and had so many options to wipe or block your cities that you couldn't effectively counter everything that could have been done to you, resource-wise.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

And it hasn't got the good things from CTP2. The 12-unit stack limit was an attempt to solve the SoD problem long long time before Civ5's absolutist 1upt approach, and it favoured combined arms. Plus almost everyone liked the idea of Public Works, as opposed to workers. I certainly did, managing workers is a pesky nuisance.

More controversial, but I liked it a lot, was the future technology tree. Never mind GDRs, there was a whole future-tech narrative with undersea cities and all...

Oh - I haven't checked for ages, but I see that Martin Gühmann's still plugging away at fixing CTP2 over at Apolyton:

http://apolyton.net/forumdisplay.php/213-CtP2-Source-Code-Project

Must download the latest, maybe do some playtesting...

 

[Davor]

And it hasn't got the good things from CTP2. The 12-unit stack limit was an attempt to solve the SoD problem long long time before Civ5's absolutist 1upt approach, and it favoured combined arms. Plus almost everyone liked the idea of Public Works, as opposed to workers. I certainly did, managing workers is a pesky nuisance.

More controversial, but I liked it a lot, was the future technology tree. Never mind GDRs, there was a whole future-tech narrative with undersea cities and all...

Oh - I haven't checked for ages, but I see that Martin Gühmann's still plugging away at fixing CTP2 over at Apolyton:

http://apolyton.net/forumdisplay.php/213-CtP2-Source-Code-Project

Must download the latest, maybe do some playtesting...

Not to get side tracked from my post, I played the latest Apolyton patch, and I got my arse handed to me quite quickly. The Barbarians owned me quickly. This improves the game very good. The only reason I didn't play it much, is I didn't want to get tired of playing a World builder type TBS Civ game so when Civ V came out I wouldn't be tired of Civ V.

I recomend it to anyone who dosn't like Civ V. I just love building underwater cities. I also love how "combined arms" words as well. Agan, CtP2 did so much unique things for it's time, is why it failed. Nobody wanted change back then. All they wanted was Sid Miers name on it. Maybe that is why Civ V has lots of complaints. Too much change.

I guess lots of old Civ fans or should I say Sid Mier fans just do not like change.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Well, I like to think they were two, equally valid, approaches. It's just a pity that one fell by the wayside, with two threads going there would have been more of a 'marketplace of ideas'.

 

[man-erg]

Agan, CtP2 did so much unique things for it's time, is why it failed. Nobody wanted change back then. All they wanted was Sid Miers name on it. Maybe that is why Civ V has lots of complaints. Too much change.

I guess lots of old Civ fans or should I say Sid Mier fans just do not like change.

If it *didn't* have Sif Meiers name on it, I think it would be getting much more criticism. If it had been released as a competitors product, say "Nation Builder 1" by some small unknown software house, I bet the same reviewers who gave it 95% would have given it 65% and said it was a poor imitation of a real Civ game.

The emperor and his new clothes is not just a story.

 

[DavidPBacon]

Call to Power sure had lot's good new ideas, but it lacked soul. I sure played that game to oblivion, damn, I still played it, but lacks the soul of the main Civ series.

Things I like in Call to Power:
Public works
trade networks
combat system
Slavery
work hours
future techs.

The diference is that while CTP2 brought that thing into game, Civ V mostly took things out, instead of giving players option between playing with a feature or without it.

If fact, I like CTP2 better than Civ V, now I think about it and I reckon that you rigth. If Civ V was made without Sid Official suport, it would fail baddl, review and sales wise

 

[Brawndo]

Good things from Call to Power II that I would like to see implemented in Civ games:

- Battles between ARMIES, not units doing 1v1 duels
- Tactical combat screen
- Public works concept


However, there was a lot of broken, unbalanced gameplay in CtP II, not to mention a lot of bloat in terms of features and units. I always got the impression the game was like a mod that the creator thought had a bunch of great ideas, but forgot to play test. You could take down an entire empire with Slavers, Lawyers, Eco-terrorists, and Televangelists

 

[Doctor Phibes]

However, there was a lot of broken, unbalanced gameplay in CtP II, not to mention a lot of bloat in terms of features and units. I always got the impression the game was like a mod that the creator thought had a bunch of great ideas, but forgot to play test. You could take down an entire empire with Slavers, Lawyers, Eco-terrorists, and Televangelists

Well, I think you're right in general, it certainly lacked balance for a start. But with regard to the special units, some loved some of them, some hated all of them. I had little time myself for the slavers and lawyers (legal warfare doesn't sound like a bad idea, but it was absurd in practice), but I quite liked the corporate branch and clerics. There's the first introduction of the corporations and religion (together with the televangelist) we saw later in Civ4 - admittedly in a very rudimentary form.

 

[Aristos]

I have pointed this out since the first days of Civ4... I never could understand why Firaxis didn't even consider CtP's combat system, which clearly is the best solution for the SoD mechanism. The "tactical" window wasn't even that (we don't want another Total war do we?), it was only a clever representation of the battle in which the only decision you could make (and a big one that is) was to retreat the remains of your army if you felt you were loosing... the mini-simulation of the battle incorporated the concept of combined arms very nicely, with a limit of 12 units, which could be anything including generals, with siege/arty units in the second line, infantry units in the front line, and cavalry in the flanks, all acting together in the battle. Arty units would fire on the enemy's first line while it was engaged with your first line (representing a bonus for having arty), and cavalry units would attack the enemy's front units while engaged with yours (so, another bonus for having cavalry). Archers positioned the same as arty. A good combination of these units was very powerful, but then again, you had to maneuver the whole army through terrain (terrain also gave bonus to combat).

Very well thought and implemented. Big mistery for me: why not to consider such a good idea.

Oh! now I know! PANZER GENERAL did not have it.

 

[jfuesting]

Not sure if you've played CTP2, but you can get it cheap on GOG. I didn't think CTP2 was quite as bad as a lot of people made out, but it certainly had plenty of the problems people have already said. The one thing CTP had that I've always wished Civ would have is the public works mechanic. It's so much less tedious than the worker unit mechanic.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Not sure if you've played CTP2, but you can get it cheap on GOG. I didn't think CTP2 was quite as bad as a lot of people made out, but it certainly had plenty of the problems people have already said. The one thing CTP had that I've always wished Civ would have is the public works mechanic. It's so much less tedious than the worker unit mechanic.

And if you do pick up a copy, it's then a good idea to update it with the Apolyton version (link is in my earlier post). Martin and others are working directly with the source code which Activision released, so it's starting to become much more playable.

 

[WeneedmoreCivs]

And it hasn't got the good things from CTP2. The 12-unit stack limit was an attempt to solve the SoD problem long long time before Civ5's absolutist 1upt approach, and it favoured combined arms. Plus almost everyone liked the idea of Public Works, as opposed to workers. I certainly did, managing workers is a pesky nuisance.

More controversial, but I liked it a lot, was the future technology tree. Never mind GDRs, there was a whole future-tech narrative with undersea cities and all...

Oh - I haven't checked for ages, but I see that Martin Gühmann's still plugging away at fixing CTP2 over at Apolyton:

http://apolyton.net/forumdisplay.php/213-CtP2-Source-Code-Project

Must download the latest, maybe do some playtesting...

CTP2 is still the gold standard in my mind for what a Civ tech tree should look like. The military system was also the best of any Civ game until Civ V.

Prolycon has a great CTP mod out that has really bridged the gap between the games.

I don't get why people hated CTP2 when it was so vastly superior in the number of units, the public works system, the tech tree, the governments, the use of slavery and many other awesome options.

 

[Pazyryk]

There were a lot of things I liked about CTP2, but one thing I remember is that the AI never ever (really never) mounted an attack. It just sat there in its cities. Once I figured that out, I pretty much lost interest. Now you can complain about civ5 tactical AI, and naval invasion has been lacking in all Civ versions, but at least the AI has a little life to it. Cities actually change ownership in Civ5 (yes, part of that is stupid AI give-aways; but there is also conquest).

 

[Reginleif]

I have never heard of this "Call to Power 2" game, but if its a shooter, its bad because of that. They should really just call shooter games by numbers, since they are all identical and their names are pointless.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Why is Civ V good and Call to Power 2 bad?

Because CtP2 was stillborn. It was dropped after single minor patch.

Also, AI was atrocious. It was so bad that it was incapable of actually winning the game (you know, mustering army and doing some conquering). It was unbelievably passive. Which on its own wouldn't be that bad, if AI economy was any better (and it was as bad too).

If compared to Civ2 AI, Civ2 had genius level AI. Playing on Deity (or very hard, I don't remember how difficulties were called?) was laughable. It didn't actually lead to any greater challenge.

Also, balance was way off. Some CtP1 balance issues were indeed fixed in CtP2 (still remember those godly coastal tiles), but many new ones where added.

On top of all, pacing was bad. Tech tree was designed for long games, yet game could be easily won at 1/2 of that time, without even seeing any advanced era.


P.S.
I say all this as someone who did indeed got some fun from this game. More from modding it, and trying to at least up a challenge a bit, then actually playing.

Still, the moment Civ3 got out I never looked back. Some CtP1/2 concepts were really original and groundbreaking at the time, but the mere fact that "more traditional" Civ3 actually had much much better AI (fantastic compared to any other 4x game of that time) that could pose a challenge at higher difficulties won a day for me.

P.P.S.
Civ5 AI can't compare in any way to CtP2 AI. Civ5 AI can beat the game if having sufficient advantage, can expand and conquer neighbors, and can run decent economy. And even in case of its weakest part, tactical AI, player actually needs to think decently in order to prevail. None of this is true for CtP2 AI.

 

[Generals3]

I do like Civ V. Yes I complain about, but I do enjoy the game. I think it's a very good game, not a great or perfect game as some people say. Well we all have different opnions. What I can not understand is this. Call to Power 2 got scathing reviews. Many people say that game sucks big time when it was released. Funny thing is, I see Civ V just like Call to Power 2 on release. Very poor AI, very bad diplomacy. So all the scathing that CtP2 got, I see in Civ V. So how come it is acceptable for Civ V and not for CtP2?

Could it be because CtP2 has more options? CtP2 has way more units, technology and things to build?

CtP2 did things differently just like Civ V did. CtP2 has a poor AI which was the main reason people say they didn't get it. Civ V has poor or even worse AI than CtP2 but it's ok now all of a sudden.

So the only reason why I see people Civ V like this game more than CtP2 is because there is way less options. Tech tree is about half the size than CtP2. There is less units and less options. Less things to do. So is this why Civ V is so much better?

So why is Civ V better than CtP2 when all the bad things in CtP2 are in Civ V.

I swear if the name Sid Miers Civilization wasn't in the title, Civ V wouldn't be getting such rave reviews and defence it is getting.

I think its because CTP II wasn't rlly a major improvement over CTP I.
Additionally some criticism about the AI is very valid as well. Having played it again a couple of months ago i must say the AI is even worse than in Civ V .

On the other hand Sid Meiers could have learned a lot from CTP II (like the "army" system , public works , salaries, working hours , etc.)

 

[lschnarch]

On the other hand Sid Meiers could have learned a lot from CTP II (like the "army" system , public works , salaries, working hours , etc.)

This.

Yes, the AI was bad. But that doesn't mean that the ideas in that game were bad.

Actually, I think that Firaxis is still mad about CtP/CtP2 offering so many better ideas that they simply refuse to give them credit by finally adopting them.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Hey, they did add spreading religion through units in Civ4 (CtP cleric units).

 

[Helmling]

I do like Civ V. Yes I complain about, but I do enjoy the game. I think it's a very good game, not a great or perfect game as some people say. Well we all have different opnions. What I can not understand is this. Call to Power 2 got scathing reviews. Many people say that game sucks big time when it was released. Funny thing is, I see Civ V just like Call to Power 2 on release. Very poor AI, very bad diplomacy. So all the scathing that CtP2 got, I see in Civ V. So how come it is acceptable for Civ V and not for CtP2?

Could it be because CtP2 has more options? CtP2 has way more units, technology and things to build?

CtP2 did things differently just like Civ V did. CtP2 has a poor AI which was the main reason people say they didn't get it. Civ V has poor or even worse AI than CtP2 but it's ok now all of a sudden.

So the only reason why I see people Civ V like this game more than CtP2 is because there is way less options. Tech tree is about half the size than CtP2. There is less units and less options. Less things to do. So is this why Civ V is so much better?

So why is Civ V better than CtP2 when all the bad things in CtP2 are in Civ V.

I swear if the name Sid Miers Civilization wasn't in the title, Civ V wouldn't be getting such rave reviews and defence it is getting.

I think CTP was pretty solid. Most of what it got right it stole, er, borrowed from the official Civ games, but some of its novel elements were good. CTP 2 I didn't think as much of it, but still enjoyed the heck out of it to be honest.

I personally have no trouble with more options. I think it enriches the gameplay in general, but some of the elements the CTP off-shoot introduced were just stupid. Their approach to corporations was slightly better than BtS's completely botched implementation, but the "lawyer" unit was just ridiculous. Big mistake there.

It's been so long that I can't remember too much else, but the sci-fi elements were interesting. I always thought the Civ series was missing the ball on this by having the Alpha Centauri victory condition when really building a starship would require a whole extended tech tree that would realistically yield advanced units and buildings like in CTP. I remember having great fun with space. I would build a ring of space cities around the equator and control all the other civ's access to orbit. I could drop my space marines anywhere on the planet where I felt I needed to intervene in the interests of peace keeping. Underwater, though, wasn't nearly as interesting to me.