Civilization: Call To Power

[Tuzenbach]

Call to Power was one of the worst purchases I've ever made. I wouldn't touch another game in that series.

In the other series, Civilization II was the best in the Civ I-II-III line.

So, the Atari line of games is better than the Activision line? Why are Civ I, II, and III superior to C:CTP I & II? Also, are the underlying principles the same for either line?

 

[DaveMage]

So, the Atari line of games is better than the Activision line? Why are Civ I, II, and III superior to C:CTP I & II? Also, are the underlying principles the same for either line?

Well, I never played CTP II because I was so turned off by CTP I, so maybe they made it better in CTP II.

The problem I had with CTP was gameplay. Civilization II's gameplay was very smooth. Menus were clear and movement of units was very straight-forward. CTP (IIRC) was clunky and the visual presentation/graphics were awful in comparison (IMO).

Civ III really changed the way the game worked, some of which was good, and some of which was not so go (again, IMO). Even though Diplomacy is greatly improved in Civ III, the bottom line of all of the games is that more land = good; less land = bad. So no matter how "honorable" you are in Civ III, if you don't have a lot of land, you don't win in any way.

Civ II was much more straight-forward, and is basically a win-the-space-race or conquer-the-world game.

 

[Henry]

OKay: the Civ: Call to Power line was made when Microprose broke up (If I recall correctly) and activision bought them, including some IP. However, Sid Meier's stance was the the Civ name and property belonged to him. As a result, Civ Call to Power was made without Meier, Meir went on with Firaxis to make Alpha Centauri. Civ Call to Power as I understand it BOMBED in the retail market, and Alpha Centauri went on to be a big hit.

Civ 3 is the Firaxis / Atari (Actually Firaxis / Infogrammes, as Atari's name is owned by them) project that sold wuite well and even made game of the year. Sid Meier has won his "Civilization" rights battle (I believe he has the official rights to make games based on the board game) and if I'm right he should be the one spearheading Civ 4.

Call to Power did have a part 2, but I'm fuzzy on the details. Call to Power's interface was so UNLIKE the Civ 2 or Civ 3 Interface that I resold it immediately after playing it for about 2 days.

 

[RyanL]

I had Call To Power for BeOS, amazingly enough. Even though it was one of the few real games available for BeOS, I hated it and I didn't play it much.

-Ryan

Edited because the other posters around here probably don't speak the same Martian Language that sometimes comes out inadvertently when I try to speak English.

 

[Andre]

Well, the thing is this. If we're talking about the "excitement factor" of a game in the short-term (say, 20 minutes), then, yes, CCTP is very boring compared to games like Star Craft, etc. BUT, if we're talking about ONE game over the course of, say 20 DAYS, then CCTP's excitement factor builds and builds and builds, while "real-time" strategy games get "worn out" pretty quickly.

YMMV, but I tried the first CCTP game for a month before giving up. No matter how many different strategies I tried, no matter what options I changed, the game just didn't click with me. With so many good games, and so little time, I finally relegated it to "shelfware" and went on to other, IMO better, games.

As for Civ I-II-III, I most enjoyed the second one. Civ 3, as others have said, has some very good features. But, for whatever reason, I don't find it as addictive as the first two in the series.

Alpha Centauri is good, but it has a couple warts. I found diplomacy rather frustrating - no matter what I tried, the computer opponents would quickly turn on me - or make outrageous demands not to. I also found the map to be incredibly ugly. That said, it has good, challenging gameplay. I never reached a point where I stopped fearing the computer opponents, which is a good thing, IMO.

BTW, I agree with you about RTS games - turn-based is the only way to game!

 

[Staffan]

How does this compare to C:CTP I & II?

Gameplay-wise, the big differences between Alpha Centauri and the Civ games (both Sid Meier's games and Call to Power) is that Alpha Centauri is much more modular. This modularity primarily shows itself in three different areas of the game: terrain, units, and government.

In Civ, you have a dozen or two different terrain types. In AC, terrain has three major features: elevation, rainfall, and rockiness. High elevation means you get more energy (which takes the place of money) from solar cells, lots of rainfall means you get more food, and lots of rocks give you more minerals (production). It's not quite that simple, but that's the basic idea.

Also in Civ, you have about a hundred different units, each with an offensive value, a defensive value, a movement value, and possible special abilities. In AC, you instead design your own units, combining a weapon (attack), armor (defense), chassis (move), power plant (hit points), and one or two special abilities. Each thing you want to include requires a certain tech, of course. There are also some units that don't have attack values, just like in Civ - mainly terraformers (workers from Civ 3), colony pods (settlers, but can't change terrain, that's what workers are for) and probe teams (spies).

Finally, there is government. In Civ, you choose a government type from a list of about a dozen. In Alpha Centauri, you instead choose aspects of your government in different areas: economy, values, and (can't recall what it was called, but it concerned the level of control the leaders have over the people and vice versa), plus in the late game, futuristic options. Each of these choices have an effect on a few of the ten or so values that modify how your civilization works, including military support, population growth, efficiency, science, ease of espionage, ecology, and so on.

Another big thing that separates Alpha Centauri from the Civ games is that the faction you choose has a major influence on how the game turns out. Each of the factions have a modifier to some of the values mentioned under government, each prefers certain social engineering choices and has others forbidden, and most also have some other special abilities. For example (working from memory), the Gaians get a big bonus to ecology, a smaller bonus to efficiency, but a penalty to population growth (I can't recall what special stuff they had at the moment). Meanwhile, the militaristic Spartans get a bonus to morale (troop strength) and support (require less production to support units in play), but a penalty to industry (need more production to build things), and got a break on the additional cost for the first unit of a new type. I know that Civ 3 took some steps toward making your civilization matter, but not to anywhere near the degree Alpha Centauri does.

Yet another thing, that's not a biggie, is that instead of barbarian invasions, you occasionally get attacked by the planet's native life forms, called Mind Worms. These attack psionically, which means that weapons and armor are irrelevant - just morale/growth levels (growth serves the same purpose as morale for natives). The more ruthless you are toward Planet (that is, the more ecological damage you do), the bigger the chance is that you'll get attacked by mind worms of various sorts. If you have a society with a high Green value, you have a chance of taking over mind worms you attack (but not that attack you), and eventually you'll be able to build them yourself (which is an attractive option if you're behind in the arms tech race - doesn't matter if your best weapon is the laser and your opponent has grav guns, when you attack him with mind worms).

 

[Nifft]

I really wish that, instead of Civ IV, Sid was working on Alpha Centauri II.

-- N

 

[Staffan]

I really wish that, instead of Civ IV, Sid was working on Alpha Centauri II.

AOL

 

[Andre]

I really wish that, instead of Civ IV, Sid was working on Alpha Centauri II.

-- N

Great idea. Let's kidnap Sid and lock him in a room until he does so. No jury of our peers would ever convict us. (Assuming "peers" means gamers)

 

[Tuzenbach]

OK. I picked up Sid's Civ III about ten days ago and haven't been able to say that it's either significantly better or worse than C:CTP. The only real difference, IMHO, is that on the very hightest levels of C:CTP, I've no problem beating the AI. However, in Sid's Civ III, the highest level (so far!) that I've found possible to beat is Emperor level. Demigod, Deity, and "Sid" are just nuts! I'll have swords and crap and all of a sudden the AI is coming after me with muskets.........in 310 BC!!!