Civ 3 vs Alpha Centauri (my take)

[Curiosity]

Originally posted by marc420
BTW, what I've gone back to is CTP2. It apparently was quite modable, and some of the mods are very well done. And that bunch just got the source code to the game itself releasesd to them as open source. So you might set a reminder to yourself to go look what they've done with it in a few months.

They got the source!?!? Damn, why didn't someone mention this... *runs for CtP2 forums*.

[VoidEvils]

Well, we can tell CEO Aaron is a bit bitter about losing with his 1337 Egyptian Chariot Rush.

I've played Civ III for a long time(over 30 games so far), but I just picked up a copy of Alpha Centauri and blasted through 2 games in one day, a Conquest win as Spartans on Specialist and a Transcend as Gaians on Talent.

The AI in both games is pretty dumb. That's where the human advantage comes in. But basically, each has advantages that the other lacks, and some disadvantags too:

Alpha Centauri:
+Highly customizable government forms
+Very customizable units
+Whole "fight against the planet" thing
+Very fast
+No need to build even half the buildings for each city, just tons and tons of supply crawlers
+Caravaning
+Random tech option
+Atrocities
+Voting for things other than Diplomatic Victory
+the entire structure of Diplomatic Victory
+Psi Combat
+Prototyping staggers unit development
+Forces you to divide forces by collateral damage
-Reactor types too important in combat
-Interface just kind of blows (the worst part, in my mind, is the difficulty in moving stacks and the counter-intuitive unit moving)
-Orbital Drops
-Crappy 3-D graphics
-No bargaining table, just have to accept what the AI gives you
-Fungus can be frustrating, especially to players who don't understand game mechanics
-I have no idea how the combat is calculated

Civ III
+Air Superiority can prevent bombing
+Lack of "essentials" makes game quite winnable without certain things
+Cool looking sprites reminiscent of 16 bit days of Chrono Trigger and Mario (a personal one, but still)
+Very, very intuitive interface that a three-year old could pick up in seconds (I've done the experiments)
+Streamlined, well, everything
+Unit upgrade trees less confusing
+Lumberjacking
+Lack of supply crawlers forces good city management
+Unit longevity increased, due to infrequency of upgrades
+Bargaining table rules
+Drafting
+Inability to win by comical and stupid "momentum"
+More Pre-Game customization
-Lack of customization of governments
-Lack of customization of units
-Games take much, much longer. Like in days rather than hours.
-SoD is over-effective
-Game can get very, very stressful
-Railroads are a bit too powerful


Well, that's my surface analysis. Hope it helps. Simply put, Civ III is a bit more of an economics game, where you need to terraform perfectly, rail at the right times, make sure you expand fast enough but not too fast at the beggining. More of a builder's game. Alpha Centauri is a bit less challenging, more of a relaxing game, where it's alot more forgiving.

That's just my opinion though.

[gwillybj]

Originally posted by Artifex
I was burnt out on civ 3 too..so I went looking or my SMAC disk..I misplaced it I have a bunch of stuff in storage and can't find it after 2 days of frantic searching. I found my Alien Crossfire disk but it said I need SMAC installed to play.
So I went to my local PC stores and they all said its out of print.
Oh well..I was wanting to play smac again but looks like I can't...

If you have Alien Crossfire, don't give up yet!
In the U.S., you should be able to find SMAC at almost every EB for $9.99 (jewel-cased, and the original manual is now a pdf on the CD). It is also included in several multi-game packages with names like "best strategy games", "classics", etc.

[marc420]

Out of boredom at work today, I went over to the Firaxis website.

The big news there is that they've made a deal with Atari where they now have the rights to go back and redo the old Sid games.

So it doesn't look like anything "new" from Firaxis is something to worry about. Just rehashing old stuff and getting people to pay for it again. Seems to be Sid's business model these days. (Although if they ever get Colonization without a screwed up end-game I might be interested!)

Can't believe they are going to try another expansion pak for Civ3. Of course, I never bought the first because in my mind I should have gotten MP for the first $50 I gave them. No way I was giving them another $30, and now they are going to try to get yet another $30. Yeah Right.

BTW, what I've gone back to is CTP2. It apparently was quite modable, and some of the mods are very well done. And that bunch just got the source code to the game itself releasesd to them as open source. So you might set a reminder to yourself to go look what they've done with it in a few months.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron


But you're right, it's not all bad. There's those jaw-droppingly mediocre graphics to distract me from what a sorry, half-baked chore they made my favorite game into.

LOL...

Me I prefer the amazing wonder movies. Make my heart go pit-a-pat.

Seriously I can not echo strongly enough my disappointment in the CIV3 implementation. All that made SMAC great was inevitably discarded in favor of a more simplistic CIV1 model. Gives me a stong distaste for any future Firaxis offerings.

[Qbert]

I too was playing CivIII for several months but decided to come back to SMAX (it's like the mafia - it keeps pulling me back in). It really makes it fun again for a dozen games or so.

The thing with CivIII is that it does get boring after a while. But I downloaded the Double Your Pleasure (DYP) mod and that really made the game more complex and fun again. I suggest you guys try it if you haven't yet.

Also - In the editor (I refer to the Play the World version - non DYP) you can tweek several options. What I did was similar to what Ned mentioned about making the AI in SMAX more pacifist in the faction.txt files so it builds up better. I changed the build settings away from offensive types in the editor to more build and economic type settings and the computer seems to build up better and is more "robust" in the later game and harder to take out (at Monarch & Emperor level).

My 2cents.

[CEO Aaron]

Not challenging, just dumbed down to the point where the AI's meager algorithm is interchangable with a human being. It's like going from a game of chess to tic-tac-toe. And I played the game enough to know that not only was it a huge step backward from SMAC, it was a huge step backward from CivII.

[Gufnork]

Again, you're wrong. ZoC's _do_ matter, they make it possible for me to hold a border without squatting units in every damend square, no matter how indefensible. Yes, they require intelligence to be circumvented, something most players will hopefully have, however, they also require additional resources to circumvent, either in the form of spies or boats or just plain time.

Like you don't bring probe teams anyway.

So you're content that an elite archer has a fair to middling chance of destroying a green tank? And besides, don't tell me the Civ3 tech-tree doesn't have any inordinately useful techs. The one that gives you legions springs to mind, since they utterly outclass any and all previous troops.

I rarely rush for Iron Working. Only reason to do so is for an early aggressive war which I'm not too fond of. If not all out aggressive (which is impossible according to you) horsemen+spearmen is a better combo anyway. Swordsmen does not in any way outclass the other units. Fusion reactored units do however.

But you _can't_ go both ways, since if you go purely military, your offensive stalls in the first heavily cultured city, and meanwhile your other tea-swilling neighbors are hemming in your borders and subverting your outlying provinces.

Fine, I can go both ways. You might not be able to pull it off.

Stuck having to wade uphill against an legion-armed foe with piddly archers, especially when I can't hold a border, protect my villagers, secure any conquests I might be fortunate enough to obtain, or prevent my other neighbors from rendering my citizens French is just not my idea of fun. But you're right, it's not all bad. There's those jaw-droppingly mediocre graphics to distract me from what a sorry, half-baked chore they made my favorite game into.

Trade iron from a neighbour. Blitzkrieg your way to the iron. Or swarm him. Try playing the game a bit more before judging it, your critique tends to stem from your inability to counter the difficulties it throws at you. The reason I enjoy the game is because it's challenging, you seem to resent that.

one thing I hate about civ 3 is the horrible efficency ratings you get when you go to different landmasses, it would have been much better if they kept it like SMAC, where only energy/gold is affected by efficincy/coruption ad minerals/shuleds are, makes remot bases worthless ecasue they cant even build anything

I used to hate that too and before the patch that reduced the waste it was truly annoying. But now I kinda like it and if it bothers you too much you can always go commie. The good thing about it is that the game isn't over halfway through the game as in SMAC, partly thanks to waste.

[dmm1285]

one thing I hate about civ 3 is the horrible efficency ratings you get when you go to different landmasses, it would have been much better if they kept it like SMAC, where only energy/gold is affected by efficincy/coruption ad minerals/shuleds are, makes remot bases worthless ecasue they cant even build anything

[CEO Aaron]

Originally posted by Gufnork
ZOC is something I don't miss. It's just a nuisance in the early expansion and totally irrelevant to anyone with a brain (ie everyone but the AI). And if you take the shortest route in Civ3 you won't get anywhere, strategic terrain is incredibly important (no fungus sneaking, but other terrain actually matter).

Again, you're wrong. ZoC's _do_ matter, they make it possible for me to hold a border without squatting units in every damend square, no matter how indefensible. Yes, they require intelligence to be circumvented, something most players will hopefully have, however, they also require additional resources to circumvent, either in the form of spies or boats or just plain time.

Originally posted by Gufnork
Well, different powersources is a nice touch, but it's too much. Doubling your power with one tech? I hate musthaves. SMAC unfortunatly has too many.

So you're content that an elite archer has a fair to middling chance of destroying a green tank? And besides, don't tell me the Civ3 tech-tree doesn't have any inordinately useful techs. The one that gives you legions springs to mind, since they utterly outclass any and all previous troops.

Originally posted by Gufnork
Actually you can go both ways. And if someone culture up your cities, capture them from them, since they obviously don't have the military power that you do. If someone starts attacking you when going culture, they won't keep their towns. No matter which path you choose the one who does it best will win. And if you don't have a military in SMAC, I know I would squish you like a bug, just like in Civ.

But you _can't_ go both ways, since if you go purely military, your offensive stalls in the first heavily cultured city, and meanwhile your other tea-swilling neighbors are hemming in your borders and subverting your outlying provinces.

Originally posted by Gufnork
Yes, starting positions matter more thanks to resources. It an even force you into wars. It's expensive to get them through trade and they are necessary. Even without them you can manage though. Iron is common and atleast one of your neighbours will have it. Take it from him. It will force you to war, though, which means you can't go pacifist all early age if you want to. Some people hate that, others likes that you're forced to adapt, to have a different game every time you play. To say it's all bad is rather harsh however. Say that you don't like it instead.

Stuck having to wade uphill against an legion-armed foe with piddly archers, especially when I can't hold a border, protect my villagers, secure any conquests I might be fortunate enough to obtain, or prevent my other neighbors from rendering my citizens French is just not my idea of fun. But you're right, it's not all bad. There's those jaw-droppingly mediocre graphics to distract me from what a sorry, half-baked chore they made my favorite game into.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sheik
I have been playing Civ3 now and the other day when I started SMAC I found the graphics very unappealing. However I love the map editor with SMAC and the UN. SMAC has many features I would add to Civ3 if I could.

You like Civ 3's graphics better than SMAC's? I really hate SMAC's Caviars (those 3d unit images), but at least they are depicting something cool and complex. Civ 3's unit graphics on the other hand look like console game graphics. It has a vaguely similar look to a lot of RTS clickfests, but frankly not as good as most of them. I was frankly somewhat embarrassed to be playing Civ 3 with that f***ing caveman grunting about the map when anyone else was around, lest they see me playing what might appear to be some sort of kiddie game.

In every other category save the opening movie I prefer SMAC gaphics. They are much more immersive imo than Civ 3, and the interfaces are not only more useful and efficient, but look much better in SMAC. But Civ 3's opening movie rocks, while SMAC's and SMAX's are pretty lame in comparison.

As for gameplay, I agree with most here who cannot abide the almost binary style of Civ 3 play. SMAC resides at the other extreme, with so many viable means of reaching victory in the end that it is little wonder the cpu has a hard time holding its own against the human. I like the variety that SMAC offers the human player, and it is the reason that SMAC has remained on my computers since I got it.

[Sarxis]

CivIII was a step back from the dynamic and complex gamplay of SMAC.

And we all know why...

[Sheik]

I have been playing Civ3 now and the other day when I started SMAC I found the graphics very unappealing. However I love the map editor with SMAC and the UN. SMAC has many features I would add to Civ3 if I could.

[Gufnork]

I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with you there, Guf. CivIII's primary aim appears to have been to make a game bone-stupid enough to make the AI challenging. That's why they removed Zones of Control, a Civ staple since the original, because nobody at Firaxis wanted to tackle the problem of programing intelligent pathing into the AI. Now pathing goes from a complex problem (What's the smartest way to get there) to a very simple one (What's the shortest way to get there).

ZOC is something I don't miss. It's just a nuisance in the early expansion and totally irrelevant to anyone with a brain (ie everyone but the AI). And if you take the shortest route in Civ3 you won't get anywhere, strategic terrain is incredibly important (no fungus sneaking, but other terrain actually matter).

The change to the hitpoint dynamic also favors a Zulu style of play that's very easy to program. Before, units with a higher technology were tougher, back-loading the tech tree to favor late era units in combat. Now, units gain hit points simply by fighting more, again, a concession to the unit-spammy AI.

Well, different powersources is a nice touch, but it's too much. Doubling your power with one tech? I hate musthaves. SMAC unfortunatly has too many.

Finally, Culture forces you to halt offensives to consolidate your gains, lest your recent conquests and their garrisons revert to enemy control. This clearly is designed to allow the AI to recover from any swing in momentum an intelligent player might be able to achieve, and forces all players into playing the exact same way. No longer can you afford to forego infrastructure in favor of your military, your uncultured backwater will merely be absorbed by your nearest neighbor. And you can't forego a military, since a single scout unit can run around in your backfield capturing your workers and carrying them off into bondage.

Actually you can go both ways. And if someone culture up your cities, capture them from them, since they obviously don't have the military power that you do. If someone starts attacking you when going culture, they won't keep their towns. No matter which path you choose the one who does it best will win. And if you don't have a military in SMAC, I know I would squish you like a bug, just like in Civ.

The final damning stroke against Civ3 is its pathetic implementation of strategic resources. Woebetide the aspiring empire who can't find Iron deposits within a reasonable distance from their home. Civ-type games already suffer from the drawback that your opening position has vast repercussions upon your success and survival. There was no need to exascerbate that quality, and plenty of reasons not to.

Yes, starting positions matter more thanks to resources. It an even force you into wars. It's expensive to get them through trade and they are necessary. Even without them you can manage though. Iron is common and atleast one of your neighbours will have it. Take it from him. It will force you to war, though, which means you can't go pacifist all early age if you want to. Some people hate that, others likes that you're forced to adapt, to have a different game every time you play. To say it's all bad is rather harsh however. Say that you don't like it instead.

[CEO Aaron]

Originally posted by Gufnork
Civ3 is a bit weaker in the gameplay department than SMAC, but I think it's a great improvement from Civ2.

I'm afraid I have to completely disagree with you there, Guf. CivIII's primary aim appears to have been to make a game bone-stupid enough to make the AI challenging. That's why they removed Zones of Control, a Civ staple since the original, because nobody at Firaxis wanted to tackle the problem of programing intelligent pathing into the AI. Now pathing goes from a complex problem (What's the smartest way to get there) to a very simple one (What's the shortest way to get there).

The change to the hitpoint dynamic also favors a Zulu style of play that's very easy to program. Before, units with a higher technology were tougher, back-loading the tech tree to favor late era units in combat. Now, units gain hit points simply by fighting more, again, a concession to the unit-spammy AI.

Finally, Culture forces you to halt offensives to consolidate your gains, lest your recent conquests and their garrisons revert to enemy control. This clearly is designed to allow the AI to recover from any swing in momentum an intelligent player might be able to achieve, and forces all players into playing the exact same way. No longer can you afford to forego infrastructure in favor of your military, your uncultured backwater will merely be absorbed by your nearest neighbor. And you can't forego a military, since a single scout unit can run around in your backfield capturing your workers and carrying them off into bondage.

The final damning stroke against Civ3 is its pathetic implementation of strategic resources. Woebetide the aspiring empire who can't find Iron deposits within a reasonable distance from their home. Civ-type games already suffer from the drawback that your opening position has vast repercussions upon your success and survival. There was no need to exascerbate that quality, and plenty of reasons not to.