note: This is The Column, a part of Apolyton where primarily Markos and Dan write whatever we want :). Well, not just the two of us. The Column is open to everyone. If you feel like writing submit your article to civ2@gamestats.com

PREVIOUS ARTICLES

#35 CTP: CUT OUT TO BE A CLASSIC? Dracon drools over Activision's addition to the Civilization series. #36 WHY I HATE RATINGS Andrew Livings doesn't have a taste for ratings: find out why. COLUMN ARCHIVE

Civ fans, we have seen the beginning of a timeless debate come to life over the past several weeks about whether or not C:CTP has lived up to its name. Some have taken up arms (that is, the ones attached to their shoulders) and returned the game to where they bought it for a full refund in protest, while others valiantly defend what they see as good change to the Civilization series.
Leaving your differences and shoes at the door, enjoy what follows which are answers to an interview I agreed to February of this year. Markos was busy with exams, so I took it head-on myself. It was to appear in a Russian gaming magazine, which shall for the time being remain nameless, as part of their March 1999 Feature on 'Civilization Games Through The Ages' (not the actual title, but is a fine substitute). Neither Markos or I have seen a copy of this issue, but we strongly believe that it was not used. Reasoning: after I submitted these responses, the aforementioned magazine immediately severed communications between us. Our numerous attempts to re-establish contact since then have been ignored, and believe that enough time has passed that we can fairly post these responses, in their entirety, here on Apolyton. The responses are, admittedly, a little dated; they were produced when CTP was still in beta, SMAC was still enhancementless, and ToT was regarded as having died before it even saw the light of day.

1. CIVILIZATION TIMELINE
"In 1991, MicroProse released Sid Meier's Civilization. It enticed the user to 'built an empire to span the test of time'. For me, I got my hands on a copy in the Christmas of '94. It didn't take me long after I installed it that I became addicted. The graphics weren't necessarily up to par, even then, but the game emersed the user into a world where you controlled every little thing. Even as the game progressed and heavy micromanagement was required, I still loved it. Although I like to play as an expansionist, perfectionist and accomplished diplomat in the beginning, I soon started to roll out the armour and crush my opponents in most games I played towards the end. I even built an empire encompassing the entire earth map! Despite the limited AI (I HATEed it when opposing Civs built a city right beside one of mine), diplomacy and funky trade system, it was well-rounded enough to make it a regular resident on my PC.

CivNet was released in '9?, but I never had the opportunity to play it. By the time I learned of its existence, CivII was out and found myself absorbed in it, trying out different tactics and strategies until the wee hours of the morning.

Sid Meier's Civilization II was released in the first quarter of 1996. MPS had some very tough shoes to fill, even though they were their own. They did it splendidly... it even got rave reviews, and if you remember this was the start of the 'Quake-rave'. I was glad to see CivII got the recognition it deserved; for example, it receieved a 97% review rating by PC Gamer, their highest ever even to this day. My only complaints was the lack of multiplayer [since remedied], and how trade maintained itself as a venue on the outside looking in, if you follow. That is, it seemed independent of every other aspect of the game. I really liked the expanded diplomacy available to me. The improved combat system (e.g. damage) clicked with me, an obvious factor to consider given the ol' 'phalanx fending off a battleship attack' reality of its predecessor.

The Conflicts in Civilization add-on for CivII came out just in time for the 1996 Holiday Season. I receieved this as, you guessed it, also as a Christmas present. I was extremely disappointed with this product, to say the least. The game had just about as many scenarios pulled of the Net as original, and the ones that were 'original' were often matched or surpassed in quality by what you could find on the Net. Thank goodness CivII: Fantastic Worlds (1997) came along, which included more challenging scenarios, an improved "Best of The Net" selection and some handy-dandy editors for the aspriring scenario/MOD creator, be they a beginner or advanced in skill. The patch included in this add-on solved some further miscellaneous related problems as well.

Just when we couldn't get enough, MPS released CivII: Multiplayer Gold Edition in the final quarter of '98 after numerous delays. It finally filled the void for the longing multiplayer junkie, helping CivII elevate that much closer to perfection. There were some big bugs, least of which was how the GO-TO function stopped working, although it never was quite right in the first place (MPS released a patch shortly after its release that fixed this bo-bo). What did I think of MGE? Great, but it should be CivII's hoorah. MicroProse is now talking about Test Of Time, which is supposedly to rival Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri from rival Firaxis. We have not heard a peep about it since last year's E3, and it is reasonable to assume at this point that it may be dead in the water."

2. 'OTHER' CIVILIZATION-TYPE GAMES
"Yeah, there were other Civilization-type games. They were narrower in focus like, for example, Colonization, which dealt with the colonization of the Americas. This game had its ups, but they did not outway its down. Its Arcade-style graphics and limited gameplay were only the beginning of its problems. Also from MicroProse came Master of Magic and so on -- I never did play it, or Master of Orion, but from what I could tell it was and still is no match for a true Civilization product."

3. CHANGES NEEDED IN CIVILIZATION
"Instead of asking what we don't like, we need to remind ourselves what is good about "Civilization". There is nothing I personally would change that already exists, and would instead focusing on building what we already have. The concept of the game is flawless ("build an empire to span the test of time"), I mean, who could resist the chance to play God? Combat is balanced, thanks to the improvements made in CivII. Diplomacy, a personal favourite of mine, recently blew wide open in multiplayer CivII and I believe we need to see more of it. Trade definately needs to be more integrated into the game, that's no question. Those who work on Civilization, like Activision is currently on "Call To Power", are using existing knowledge and ideas to develop technologies, units and improvements of the future. That's the spirit! Allow the user to explore and colonize not only the vast reaches of space, but the Earth's oceans as well. Who knows what else we can come up with?

Maintaining gameplay balance is most certainly going to be (and has been, for the developers) time consuming, but would pay for itself in the end. Naturally the AI and graphics should improve overtime as gaming engines are overhauled or just plain scrapped for new and improved systems. Last but not least, keep your eyes and ears open to new concepts -- innovation is key. With all of this in mind, you've got the perfect formula for a successful product."

4. NEEDING ANOTHER CIVILIZATION SEQUEL
"The bottom line for most of us is that we need sequels to keep the game alive. But this doesn't mean it's OK to just hook it up to life support and let it veg for all its worth. I prefer to look at this from a different angle: why we WANT a sequel. The reason: we can't get enough. Sure blowing your friends in a frag match is fun but you soon run out of new ways to blow each other's brains out. Civilization plays on our most intracite emotions and values, and puts our leadership ability to the test. If we suceed, basking in all the glory is our reward. If we lose, we try, try again. Anybody who disses Civ obviously has no comprehension of what they are missing. 'Every player' wants a game that they find entertaining, rewarding, and will keep them interested: with seemingly endless situations of cunning, strategy, might and dumb luck, it's simply irresistable."

5. ALTERNATIVE CIVILIZATION GAMES
"Apolyton feels it is important to shine a spotlight on those 'little projects'... those games, in the spirit of Civilization, which are being developed and produced by companies that don't have a big label or profile. When resources are scare, taking for example a low budget, those involved get their creative juices going on how to manage with what they have. This, in my opinion, brings the group closer together where everyone has an equal say in what should be kept and what should be scrapped. In our Alternate Civs section, the efforts of such groups are what we focus on.

We [Apolyton] currently cover four different Alternate Civ projects: Ancient Prophecy, by Synthetix; Galactic Civilizations, by Stardock; Manifest Destiny by R & J Cyberware, and last but not least Stellar Civilizations by Eclipse Software.

Ancient Prophecy is set on Earth with a fantasy-twist. Its creators say that it will include over 100 new and exciting Technologies to discover (presumably over CivII), a real-time tactical combat engine (this I must see) in a true 3D environment (whoop!). It's set for release sometime in early 1999.

Galactic Civilizations is an old favourite of OS/2 Warp fans. GalCiv2 Gold hit the shelves just last year however (1998), and was as well or perhaps better received then previous releases. Your goal, according to its creators is to, quote, "create an inter-stellar empire, fight wars, trade, and expand". GC was recently outsourced by Stardock to produce a Linux port, but it is still under production.

Manifest Destiny is based on the premis that the user wants to make their civilization as customizable as possible. From what I have seen, the way the technological tree progresses is quite unique and deserves mentioning here. You will discover a particular template (i.e. an infantry template) which will have certain slots. These slots are designated for specific types of items (the infantry template has a weapon slot and a miscellanious slot, for instance). Into these slots you can drag components, which are also discovered through research. So, for example, drag a sword and a shield component into this template, and you've created a swordsman. Or you could drag a rifle and some powder, and you have a rifleman. Imagine the possibilities under this system!
Finally, combat is promised to be more involved than in Civ, with the players assigning battle orders to groups of units. Experience, morale, and damage will all play a role in the fights. Look for this title sometime in mid-year (1999).

Now we come to Stellar Civilizations which is, quite simply, "CivII in space"! Gameplay will be centered around managing one of many distinct races shortly after it breaks the space barrier. As a growing race you will manage small fleets, slowly expanding your empire and reaching towards new plateaus in research and economics. This summer (1999) is its anticipated launch."

6. CLASH OF THE TITANS: CivII, SMAC & CTP -- WHICH IS BEST?
"Like all of Sid Meier's products, "Alpha Centauri" has been far from disappointing (and this is only after exhausting the demo!) I like the engenious ways in which Firaxis have scientifically solved some harsh factors one could experience on another planet. The best example I can think of off the top of my head is how to develop nearby terrain around your bases. After all, this is a function you should be performing often! You can plant forests, build farms, and of course roads to help your units scurry along the screen to their destination. The parallel to CivII's goodie hut are pods. These little objects can contain anything from bonus credits to harbouring mindworms! I love them! Now you're probably wondering, what faction am I partial to? In all honesty, it's the Peacekeepers. Once a faction has acquired all foreign faction comlinks (six in all), we all convene to elect Planetary Governor. I am often chosen as I get double the votes automatically! :)
What don't I like, per se? Its dark atmosphere (colouring, lighting etc.) can give you the creeps, but Firaxis has worked to improve that to the point of releasing an updated demo! Besides that, there really is nothing further that I can comment on negatively speaking.

IMO, SMAC does have a steeper learning curve than CivII, and will most likely be the case when compared with CTP. I do not believe it is unfriendly if one is experienced with say previous products of this nature, such as CivII, but it is not what I would call a 'starter' turn-based strategy product. Although some children mature before their time, I believe the earliest one might want to introduce a child to SMAC is somewhere between the ages of 11 and 13. By this point they will likely be familar with SimCity 3000, or something similar if that the type of game that they are interested in, and should enjoy and comprehend a majority of the concepts in CivII before 'moving up' to SMAC. Hardcore Civ-players will definately have a field day with SMAC, perhaps an entire trip even. SMAC will be an acquired taste for those a little rusty on the keys, but once you play around with it long enough, like almost any game, it becomes old hat. When you ask yourself do Civilization-games have to be complicated, you have to determine what kind of computer gamer you are. For example, if you're the type who wants to become an immediate expert in all that you touch than Civ is not for you. If you are willing to take the time is needed to at least become comfortable in the 'routines' required and to a certain extent those which are recommended, don't pass off SMAC so quickly.

Call To Power promises to be, as you say, easier to play in contrast to SMAC. As no demo has yet been released CTP, and according to Activision will not be until after the product is released, we cannot even say for certain that it is fair to compare the two titles in this manner at all. They will undoubtedly both have their highs and lows, but these may balance out in the end. I have a bone to pick with those who try to tell me that the graphics suck, for what I see in the screenshots and video animations look promising.
Despite all the hype one way or another, neither CTP or SMAC can be fairly labelled as "Civ3". I doubt we will ever see such a thing. CTP and SMAC are rather rushing in a new generation of Civilization-products. CTP has greater expectations from us all because it has been liscensed by MicroProse to BE the "Civ3", in effect. At the same time, SMAC is being produced by the award-winning team that brought us the previous Civilization titles. Dead heat. Call To Power is spanning 4000 years of human evolution, which will understandably result in fewer specialized elements as we will find in Alpha Centauri, which builds on our imagination and aspirations of today for the future. Enter a clash of the titans.

Both CTP and SMAC are shaping up to be hot items for the TBS enthusiast. It has been three long, often frustrating years to get us to the point we are now. No more bashing either one of them: they are cousins, FAMILY, and will both likely prove to us all themselves equal of the title "Next Generation Civ Product". While the titles may be fueding internally and externally, future generations are apt to look back on these two as equals in further advancing the Civilization genre by keeping the true spirit of their themes alive: build an empire to span the test of time."

The opinions expressed on this page do not necessarily reflect those of Apolyton CS or GameStats. They are just the personal opinions of the writer.