Help me decide! SMAC or EU??

[Ilkuul]

Help, I need advice, folks! With a birthday coming up, I can afford ONE new computer game. I'm a long-standing Civ fan (Civ1 and Civ2, not CtP); but have never played SMAC or SMAC/X (whatever that is!).

At the same time I'm reading very positive reports of Europa Universalis elsewhere in these forums.

What would you advise? Which game would be (a) easier to get into? (b) better preparation for Civ3 (can guess your answer to that one!)? and (c) more exciting/fulfilling to play?

(Of course I'm also posting this topic on the EU forum !)

[Rift]

It depends on your preferences on games...SMAC is the most complexed and detailed strategy game I've ever encountered. But be warned...it's very easy to get addicted to it . Also, it's been said that Civ 3 will have the features of Civ 2 and more, many of which will be similar to the peerless features in SMAC/X, so one can assume that mastering SMAC will aid one in mastering Civ 3. So, to put it simply, run to the nearest gaming store near you and grab SMAC/X before it gets sold out

[Misotu]

I haven't played Europa Universalis, so I probably shouldn't be posting. But SMAC is a fantastic game. Just fantastic. So buy it. And play it. It has kept me hooked ever since it came out - well over a year, maybe two by now? Unheard of.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I bought SMAC in Christmas 1998 and I've never stopped playing. I've never played Europa Universalis, but I have heard both good and bad reports about it, so I'm guessing it's a game for certain tastes.

I know I liked SMAC a lot.

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

And you ask this in a SMAC forum, with all the lo--, er, I mean devotees who are still playing SMAC the only ones seing it? Get EU. SMAC is outdated, gets wearisome quickly, and lacks the most vital ingredient of Civ2, the great customisability. I stopped playing it within 3 months of release.

[Sprayber]

quote: Originally posted by Ceci n'est pas Snapcase on 04-22-2001 07:12 AM And you ask this in a SMAC forum, with all the lo--, er, I mean devotees who are still playing SMAC the only ones seing it? Get EU. SMAC is outdated, gets wearisome quickly, and lacks the most vital ingredient of Civ2, the great customisability. I stopped playing it within 3 months of release.

Are we talking about the same SMAC/SMAX? Anyway back to the question. If you want to get ready for Civ3, you might be disappointed if you get EU. The only thing the two have in common is the historical aspect IMHO. Everything else is different. If you get EU, you won't need Civ3. If you can find it, you can probably get SMAC and SMAX for under $20. Why does if have to be an either or situation?

[WhiteElephants]

You should probably be able to order the planetary pack (both SMAC and SMACX) for about $20 as Sprayber suggests. I really don't think you can go wrong with that buy, especially since it seems you've enjoyed the Civ series. I wouldn't be put off by the fact that it's an "old" game. Most of the people who enjoy SMAC have moved to exclusively playing play by email games (PBEM). If you have the interest and the patience, I suggest you pick up the game, play it a while, and then go sign up for a PBEM game in the Multiplayer section of this forum.

The only advice about EU I can offer is that I've read an article on it in Computer Strategy Magazine that was less than flattering. I too thought about picking it up, but after checking out that article I haven't thought too much about it. If you decide to pick it up give us the low down on what you think of it. I'll try to keep an open mind.

[Ilkuul]

Many thanks for the feedback!

To answer your question, Sprayber, why it has to be an either-or situation is that, sadly for my computer game-playing, I live in England, where all computer software just has the £ (pound) sign substituted for the $ - though a pound is worth around $1.45. So even if the planetary pack is available cheaply over here, $20 --> £20 --> ±$30, plus EU at about twice that, goes beyond my humble birthday budget!

I'll try shopping around, though. What I've read here makes AC sound like the better bet on the whole, but if I can get both I will, and will give you my reactions to EU, WhiteElephants!

(You were the only negative voice, Snapcase: do you play EU??)

[Sindai]

I dunno, but here's some stuff I've gleaned about EU from scanning their own boards and the gongold.com forums:

-The game is meant to be extremely historically accurate. Certain events happen at certain times, and you simply aren't going to do as well with say, Bohemia as you would with France or Spain. Gameplay is, of course, lmited to a single map. SMAC is significantly more flexible in the possibilities area.

-The manual is crap. Even hardcore fans agree with this. It is more historical fluff than actual rules, and the "tutorial" mission is almost as bad. If you want to become a proficient player, expect to spend a lot of time on the official EU forums asking questions. For what it's worth, the Alpha Centauri manuals (both SMAC and X) don't have this problem.

-Conquest is apparently way more discouraged than it is in SMAC. Armies in the field suffer attrition (ie: troops desert and die just from sitting or marching); it takes a long time to break down fortresses and castles, even with large numbers of cannon, and all the time you are trying those armies will be suffering attrition; and finally, every war you provoke adds to your "badboy rating", which is a huge factor in the Ai's willingness to war on you. Even after only a few wars your badboy will be high enough to cause half the world to gang up on you at the drop of a hat.

-You also do not "conquer" a province simply by moving an army onto it. You have to offer the enemy country a peace in exchange for that province, and they have to be sufficiently frightened of you to accept. You can have armies in every single province of an enemy country and still not actually "conquer" that country until it diplomatically submits and allows you to annex it.

-Because of the above, "peaceful conquest" is actually a decent option. If you're larger than a given country and have extremely good relations with them, you can turn them into a "vassal" which is quite similar to submissive factions from SMAC. Years later, you are allowed to "peacefully annex" a vassal country.

-Technology research is somewhat simplified compared to SMAC, wherein SMAC you have specific techs which do specific things and allow other specific techs to be research, in EU you simply have several "areas" of research (like "Land", "Trade", and "Sea") into which you throw cash and gain advances, which are simply labeled things like "Land 3" and "Trade 10".

-The game starts in 1492 and ends sometimes in the early 1700's (I think) no questions asked. A world conquest is practically impossible because of the warfare limits, so the "winning" country is the one with the most victory points (which are based on a whole ton of things, like the SMAC "overall" catagory under "Who's Who.") at the end. of course, you could also try something interesting like doing your best to merely get into the top 5 in victory points with a minor country....

[mark13]

I have played both - here are my thoughts on comparing them:

First of all, SMAC is a *totally* different type of game to EU. As you may or may not know, EU is an RTS, whereas SMAC is very much in the 'Civ' mould.

As such, you can expect that to master Civ3, SMAC will be a million times more useful than EU. Forget the history thing, Civ3 is basically going to be Civ2 with all the features of SMAC. The borders, a more advanced SE etc. are all in Civ3 as well. So from that point of view, SMAC all the way.

However, a lot of people like EU for its sheer complexity and historical accuracy. Basically, if you are a history nut, you will enjoy EU, as it effectively allows you to rewrite Medieval history in a much more detailed and realistic fashion. However, there are several flaws in the gameplay of EU, which really turned me off it. EU went straight back to the shop for me, I'm afraid.

The crux of the problem was to do with tedium. I found that unless I ran the game at a reasonably quick pace, an awful lot of the time, nothing ever happens - all of a sudden you can be rushed off your feet - this problem is offset some by the pause button, and different speeds, but otherwise gets tiresome.

Yeah, I know, I know - typical RTS complaints from a TBS player. I guess that's because I am a TBS player. Which is why I have been playing SMAC now for the best part of 2 years....

If you enjoy Civ2, you will enjoy SMAC, I think. Although a lot of the romance is taken away by it being on a different planet and all, it uses basically the same engine. You will see a lot of the same facilities and projects as you did in Civ2 (with different names, of course) but there is a lot more besides to give it its own personality.

The best addition to the Civ series, IMO, is the social engineering screen. Rather than running a single government, as you do in Civ, this allows you to run a combination of different socio-economic models, each with their own pros and cons. This allows you even more flexibility whilst paying, and allows more contrived and varied strategies.

In addition to this, each faction (or civ) has their own personality and agenda. This allows for a lot more varied gameplay than Civ2, and games can get personal (read the 10,000 "Damn you Yang!!" threads on this forum)

However, there is a lot to be said on the flipside. First of all, it is a very buggy game. Nothing show-stopping, but very annoying. You will find the various bugs listed here on this forum somewhere, and most of them generally are avoidable.

In summary:

Having stated what you want from a computer game, I would go for SMAC. In terms of Civ3, SMAC is certainly a lot closer to it than EU. However, if you are a history nut, and want a game that accurately represents the history, politics and trade of the time (which doesn't strike me as being high on your priority list) go for EU. I have a feeling you will get a lot more out of SMAC than EU - you may find yourslef bored very quickly with the latter.

P.S. In response to Snapcase, I know several people have that point of view, and most of it is simply being stubborn. "I've played Civ2 for three years now - why should I bother to change" is the crux of it, and I just don't buy it. SMAC is superior to Civ2 in virtually every capacity, and I really don't see a lot wrong with the customizability features. After all, SMAC is a lot more complex game, so of course it is going to be more difficult to do - it goes with the territory.
[This message has been edited by mark13 (edited April 23, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

Sindai and Mark13, thank you so much for your detailed replies, which really help me to getter a better feel for the difference between the two games. I've quoted from your posts on the EU forum, and given the folks over there one last chance to convince me otherwise - failing which it'll definitely be SMAC/X for my birthday!

[mark13]

BTW - if you are wondering about pricing, SMAC should be readily available here pretty cheaply - I wouldn't pay any more than £10 for it. If you are after Alien Crossfire (the add-on - that is what is meant by SMAX) you can get it from www.softwarefirst.com for a tenner.

Feel free to come here with any questions about the game (and there will be some) - we will be happy to help.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by mark13 on 04-23-2001 03:32 PM ...you can get it from www.softwarefirst.com for a tenner.

Many thanks for the tips, Mark, I'll try them out. I see you mention SMAC and SMAX separately, whereas others have referred to a "planetary pack" that includes both. Is this only available across the water?

I'll certainly come back with questions as & when I get going on SMAC!

[Sarxis]

If this topic is still alive:

Get SMAX- EU is a great Europe Sim, but it's not as fun and varied as SMAX.

I have both.

[Ilkuul]

Thanks, Anunikoba, that's the general message I seem to be getting!