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

[Helmling]

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.

I could see offering the choice to take it further, though. If a tactical window popped up, you could let the computer play it out for you or you micromanage the battle a little bit...sorry, just dreaming.

 

[Larsenex]

I must say, I love, JUST LOVE Call to Power 2. I play with the Apolyton patches and such and I have not loaded it up on a very long time.
I am with you on the future tech thing VERY cool.