Call to Power II review (PC)

A major alteration to the Civilization-style combat system in Call to Power was the ability to combine up to 12 units into armies. The battle view that governed this combat was rather arbitrary, and it simply distinguished between hand-to-hand combat units and ranged attackers by segregating them into different ranks. Call to Power II introduces the concept of flanking units, which are not as strong as melee units by themselves - but they greatly enhance the power of melee units when the two are combined. The combat system is still hampered by the fact that you have no control over unit placement on the tactical screen, and that you are essentially reduced to being a spectator as the battle unfolds. Watching valuable units die because of seemingly random map placement can be frustrating.

When you sum up all these changes, Call to Power II is definitely a superior game to Civilization: Call to Power, which should be enough to recommend it to those players who did enjoy the previous game. Unfortunately, all the rest will find that the basic design is so similar that the two games can't help but share some shortcomings.

One problem stems from the fact that while the macrolevel of control eliminates some micromanagement, it doesn't give you the ability to truly manage the game at the empire level. The need to build new structures in each city is always there. For this reason, there is an option to have each city run by a computer-controlled "mayor," and this mayor can be set to build structures with an eye on different goals, such as offense, defense, science, gold, and the like. The mayors feature actually works quite well when you use it selectively for cities that aren't in the front line of combat. However, removing the unit support considerations makes it far easier to wage war, and with the 12-unit army system, Call to Power II (like its predecessor) replaces city micromanagement with army micromanagement.

Civilization: Call to Power was unique in that it introduced unconventional units such as the lawyer, the corporate branch, the televangelist, and other such weapons. Besides being a put-off for some players who didn't like the deviation from the military-historical theme, these units ended up unbalancing the endgame because they were so powerful. Having hordes of lawyers fight it out against corporate branches by filing injunctions in A.D. 2500 almost seemed like a caricature of an empire-building game.

These game-balance issues were exacerbated by the fact that the original Call to Power lasted until the game-year A.D. 3000. Call to Power II shortens the game to A.D. 2300, which reduces the length of time that these units are in play. Nevertheless, the final stages of a Call to Power II game are still susceptible to the old problems, since the units themselves still exist. As before, there is such a wide variety of threats inherent in the endgame that it's impossible to defend against every one of them. However, the computer opponent in Call to Power II is weak enough that you'll probably wipe the map with your armies before the enemy has a chance to deploy any of the more unusual weapons - except on the very highest levels. But on the highest level or against a human opponent, the same gameplay problems that hampered the original Call to Power will become evident.

Call to Power II has a lot of replay value. There are individual scenarios, a random map generator, and a stable multiplayer option. There is no provision for play-by-e-mail, but with the reduced micromanagement, online games should move more quickly than a game of Civilization II would.

In the end, playing Call to Power II seems like driving a car with a rebuilt engine: The first one failed, and while you'll get some more life out of the new one, it's still living on borrowed time. The original design flaws from Civilization: Call to Power haven't been removed from the sequel, and while the sequel is more attractive and functional than its predecessor, it's still effectively the same game. Call to Power II is an interesting take on a classic concept, but as with many reinterpretations of canonical standards, it isn't better than its source material.