ya know.... this game is lookign more and more like Call to Power 2 rather then Civ3

[Xen]

anyone whom has played Call to Power 2, which is in itself liltle more the the second in a 2-part series of Civ series rip-offs, will know what I mean; the army method of being able to create them without a great leader, the caravan thing, the large amount of tile based improvmentes, the whole kit, looks liek an imporved version of CTP2.
.

 

[Commander Bello]

anyone whom has played Call to Power 2, which is in itself liltle more the the second in a 2-part series of Civ series rip-offs, will know what I mean; the army method of being able to create them without a great leader, the caravan thing, the large amount of tile based improvmentes, the whole kit, looks liek an imporved version of CTP2.
.

If it only will be that way...
CTP2 was not so bad, btw. A lot of good thoughts in it (yet, not to be forgotten, some flaws as well).
Things like public work, trade routes, the army concepts, the way you could manage your production and others come to mind. Ahh - and the slavery thing was really cool, although flawed in regards to the distribution of slaves across your country.
I would like if they would copy the better parts from CTP2 to Civ4.

 

[dh_epic]

What caravan thing?

 

[Xen]

its been a while since I last played CTP2 (read: years) but iirc, you had to build a caravan, and then estbalish a trade route to another country; the trade route was then represetned by a caravan travelling across a dotted line; a good concept, but a silly looking representation

 

[dh_epic]

I know what caravans are... but where did you see that it will be in Civ 4?

 

[Commander Bello]

I know what caravans are... but where did you see that it will be in Civ 4?

On one of the screenshots you could see a guy pulling a cart... looked pretty much like some kind of merchant = caravan?

 

[uubry]

Maybe that was a settler unit?

 

[CurtSibling]

Most PC strategy games share overlying visual traits, and CIV has a legitimate claim to most of them...

I am not overtly worried how the game looks - It is the gameplay that is paramount.

Mr Bello is correct also:
The CTP games did have some nice ideas included, but sadly
they were overshadowed by various flaws in the main game.

.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The funny thing about this though is that, at every opportunity, I have BEGGED the Firaxis guys to 'Poach' some of CTP I and II's better concepts to include in their own franchise.
As Commander Bello points out-it wouldn't be truly stealing-both because CtP was originally a rip-off of the civ franchise, and because Activision had pretty much abandoned the game after the complaints it recieved after CtP II. Had they given the game its full support, and improved the game in line with peoples suggestions-as Firaxis have done so often-then I think that CtP II could have been the BEST TBS strategy game on the market!! Alas, it did not happen, and many truly ground breaking concepts (not to mention beautiful graphics) were lost to us! If Firaxis has finally 'done the right thing', and incorporate these concepts into what is already a great game franchise, then I heartily applaud them for it ! Yes, in CtP some of these concepts were poorly executed or represented (the Lawyer and the Corporate Exec come to mind !) However, I am sure that Firaxis could take the kernel of the idea, and present it in a much better way than in the original game.
Anyway, I wait with baited breath to see if any of this proves to be more than mere speculation!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Commander Bello]

To be honest, any adoption of the slavery / abolotionist and the army concept would boost Civ4, no doubt. Not only the way you got your slaves was cool, but the use of them in your towns was almost perfectly balanced as well. No stockpiling, and with some preperation you could even distribute them over your empire... and then lived in fear of Harriet Beecher Stowe
Granted, some of the late-game hidden units really were weak and there is no need to see them ever again...
The concept of the monopoles was interesting as well. In combination with the Civ ressource model, this could be fun...

And that you couldn't have "suicide" boats - neither intentionally nor be false clicking - was a good feature as well, although just a minor element.

Ahhh.. and do you remember the cool way of implementing the submarines? The "layer" idea was just great.

 

[microbe]

And it's a bad thing?

I mean, I constantly see people whining about no wonder movies in CIV3 as in CIV2, and some other missing goodies. Now when they are back people are still complaining because they think it's not original.

 

[Masquerouge]

I have always said, and you could dig up posts by me on these forums supporting that, that CTP2 was a great game, especially its combat system. Flanking units ? Protecting your archer by a swordsman ? That's the way to go !

 

[Tantor]

Oh my I`m getting nostalgic. I think I have to dig up CTP II from somewhere...

 

[Dida]

Civ4 borrowing ideas from CTP1 and CTP2 isn't a bad thing. In fact, I think it's great.

 

[Commander Bello]

And they should borrow a lot of the CTP ideas!

In fact, Activision (??) had put a lot of good thoughts into that game, and taking the best from Civ3 and CTP2, merging those elements and adding what they have planned for Civ4... Now, THAT could be a game worth buying!

 

[Sub]

I really liked the way that tile improvment didn't have units, but rather had a public works system. It reduced micromanagment a bit.

 

[Aks K]

Couldn't agree more with this thread. If there had been more work on ctp 1 and 2 after the release to balance it, fix bugs and the exploits, then I would still be playing it today.

So by all means - poach the good ideas from ctp 1+2! and make them even better.

Aks K

 

[RevenantOne]

Call to Power II was so grossly uneven at times I got to frustrated. There were times I remember when I lost a battle that there is no way I should have lost research seemed to work squirrelly if I remember right. One part I actually like was the caravans because you could really mess with your enemys trade routes.

I have to agree that gameplay is paramount because lets face it, there hasn't been a civ game yet that would make it to the top 100 best graphic games of all time. I play the game because I'm addicted to it (which is the same reason why I still play the original Pirates! from time to time). It is nice to see graphics improve but when a game like Civ starts to get so graphically intensive that you have to get a new video card I think that is bit ridiculous. I don't really think that will be much of a problem here but I'm really interested in seeing how a 3D civ game will function with all that goes on in the background. My computer now bogs down a bit in the later game with civ 3 and its a 2 Ghz machine.

 

[CurtSibling]

And it's a bad thing?

I mean, I constantly see people whining about no wonder movies in CIV3 as in CIV2, and some other missing goodies. Now when they are back people are still complaining because they think it's not original.

Most people would moan even if they were in a perfect utopia!

I also think implemeting old concepts are good, as they will be in a new game medium.

 

[DoTheMath]

CTP2 is pretty good. It fixed many flaws in ctp1 (like getting rid of the philosopher's stone, a killer wonder playing against 30 civs). Slavery is still too powerful. There are plaent of aspects worth poaching, the resource system in civ3 is better. Governments are going to be SMAC-like. Civ has generated so many idesa,we should learn from all.