SMAC 2

[Diva]

<em>SMAC/X</em> is the only game I play. It has been out for a few years and I think it should be time to design a sequel for it.

What do you think should be in the new game?

[Alinestra Covelia]

I have a very short list of what should definitely be taken OUT of the sequel.

The letters SM in the title.

Attributing Sid Meier to this game would only hurt sales.

How ironic. Back in '98, they put his name on it so it would increase sales... How the passage of time (and an amazingly poor Civ sequel) can hurt one's reputation...

[Alex]

A rare occurrence... two girls posting in the same thread, one after the other!

Well, I agree with Allie... but in a deeper sense. Firaxis could not and should not be allowed to touch a potential SMAC sequel. If at least Brian could be interested in doing it... but he is far too busy playing with his new toy.

[lethe]

The ability to set up world creation the way you can in Freeciv.

Ie, "I want 4 players and 3 ai. So do a map with 7 major islands, place each player on an island of his own, and the same for the ai. Then add a few smaller islands for expansion."

Or, I want 2 human players, each sharing a continent with 2 AI factions. Add in a few small to medium sized islands.

I just LOVE the world building precision in Freeciv.

For smac it would be nice to de-select landmarks from a list, say excluding jungle.

But that's more Smac 1.5 than Smac 2. I'd very much like to see some serious evolution before the next game.

Oh, another 1.5 upgrade. Make units NOT move when you give them orders, instead everyone gives all their units orders, then moves are executed simultaneously. (Like in Stars!) This would speed up a big multiplayer pbem by a factor of 7 or so. Add in a central place, or include servers the players can run, where turns can be submitted, and a clock set to generate even if not all turns are in. This is all ripped from the truly EXCELLENT multiplayer of Stars!

Not moving units, but instead ordering em would also allow those of us who are human enough to sometimes move a unit to the wrong tile more time to consider if we really want an unarmoured former stepping into the path of a demon boil or not. (I did it twice in my second to last game.)

I am divided on it, but it might be a good idea to allow build ques for formers. So you can number squares in importance, and tell formers what to do there. That would allow some fire and forget forming. (Or just switch to public works, right about the only thing good to come out of ctp.)

Being able to make real groups of units that move together would be preferable. Perhaps armies in the civ 3 vein, more so you can just move a stack instead of moving 200 individual units.

All of these are mere tweaks to the civ genre, not reinventing it majorly.

[Hydro]

After seeing what has happened to some of my favorite titles in the recent past (Civ, Moo) I am wary of asking for a SMAC2. Allie is right, however – certain people should not be allowed within light years of BR’s brain child. I do not want SMAC lobotomized like Civ3, or suffer from painful and likely fatal scope creep like Moo3. In short, the vision of the original game needs to be intact and the modified with great care. No sledge hammers or ‘cool ideas’ allowed unless they fit the genre.

That said, I offer a few things I’d like to see unchanged (or essentially the same):
* Story line – keep this fresh, and at least as well integrated into the story line as BR made it. This is so key I for me can’t emphasize it enough since it has allowed the game to be fresh for so long for me. If this had been poorly done SMAC would have been a drink coaster long ago.
* Balance – keep the clear ideologies and agendas of the factions, with the well defined pros and cons; tie this into the story line (above) as BR did. In my opinion SMAX undid some of this brilliance even if it allowed more options – the SMAX world makes less ‘sense’ in my opinion, and some of the factions are just plain silly (pirates, angels).
* Thoughtful tech tree – SMAC did not devolve like Moo3 has done. Each tech is meaningful, and even poignant with the excellent faction quotes associated with each one (I especially love Yang’s quotes – brilliant, if frightening)

What to modify (I hesitate to say change):
* Combat system – some techs are too abrupt (airpower) or overpowered (copters). The difference between reactors seems steep, too. But maybe this is OK – look at the US vs Iraq, and then let’s discuss technical disparity…
* Visuals – the SMAC world is a bit stark. This artwork could be improved. But, keep the pseudo 3-D, please. And, no fuffy eye candy please – make any changes make sense: update and improve.
* Movement – this is a problem with all CIV games. Why does it take a year for an infantry to move one ‘sector’? And foils only go 4 sectors? I’m at a loss on how to make this more ‘realistic’, but I’m sure someone can figure something out that isn’t too arcane

[CEO Aaron]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Alpha Centauri 2, as long as the scope of the changes was limited to refining/improving the core game, like the change from Civ to Civ II. What's needed is a smarter AI, better graphics supporting higher resolutions (still waiting for a turn-based game I can play at my desktop resoultion of 1600 x 1200), and a refined tech tree, fixing some of the more nonsensical aspects of it. I'd like to see deep pressure hull available with Doctrine: Initiative instead of Nanometallurgy (yes, we can send up orbital probes and build planetbuster missiles, but can't master technology pioneered in the 1800s), and some re-tooling of the reactor-types wouldn't be too bad either. By the time you get to quantum reactors, the game is all but over.

But more important is the things that shouldn't be changed, as has been touched on by other posters to this thread: Customizable SE combinations, custom unit design, etc.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, however.

[Lazerus]

I always end up getting singularity reactors before quantum chambers for some reason

Things I'd like to see:
Improved AI (of course) get some people to actually play the game and find strategies, then teach these to the AI before releasing!
Improve the council, since it was meant to be like a UN give a few more actions, sanctions, outlaw a faction from voting etc
Allow some sort of way to improve your integrity, not using nerve gas when an opponent is or something. Mayve a probe op on this, propoganda, telling the world a leader is nerve stapling or hoarding nerve gas
A more advanced automated former, ie telling it to build mines on rocky squares,condensors on nutrients etc. ... stupid formers i want boreholes not solar collectors 50m above sea level !!!!

[Hydro]

Oh, one more thing that has always bugged me: SMAC ignores the conservation of matter. Think of it – when you terraform, where does all that dirt come from or go? Hmmm? Now, if you could do these things and take them from somewhere else I wouldn’t have a problem. That would likely make a supreme mess of any surficial terraforming (farms, forest, etc), as well it should!!

Another gripe – melting the ice caps would hardly cover every square meter with water in a worst-case scenario. It would raise sea levels and cause massive climatic changes, however.

There also is a small problem of ‘drilling to an aquifer’ and making a river. Is there a solution for this one? I don’t think so. But who am I to be judgmental?

[Hendrik]

Honestly I think SMAC intersects perfectly between realism and playability. There are so many logical problems with trying to look at the gameplay of SMAC in relation to real life... what happens when someone with 20 size 1 bases gets the PTS? How do you triple the working population of a city in a year? The list goes on... my point is that making games overly realistic isn't a worthwhile goal when it sacrifices gameplay.

All I would want in SMAC 2 is the same depth of philosophical thought, Reynolds did an excellent portrayal of different ways of looking at the universe and the human experience. This is SMAC's saving grace that isn't really comparable to any other game I have heard of, it makes the game worthwhile despite the bugs and micromanagement.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I loved the storyline of SMAC.

I believe that the success of SMAC's storyline is one of the largest obstacles to a successful SMAC 2. After all, what storyline could you come up with to better that?

[Frankychan]

I think, given my reservations, a sequel to SMAC would work. Like everyone has said, certain things would have to go from the game as well as the development.

Two things that I like the most about SMAC is the dynamics of the factions. Each has a certain ideology that sustains them and gives each faction leader a certain personality. Example: every AC player knows Miriam is an irritating beyond belief. I think the ideology of each faction is what draws many players to keep playing it....you find which ideology you agree with, and stick with it.

The other thing that I believe makes SMAC such a strong game is the complex diplomacy. There are so many angles in intra-faction relations that it keeps players on their toes. Even human-human diplomacy is unique because you can have many different options to choose from.

Just my opinions. I also agree with Alinestra in that AC's storyline is very strong and trying to make a sequel to it may be it's largest roadblock.

[Diva]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
How ironic. Back in '98, they put his name on it so it would increase sales... How the passage of time (and an amazingly poor Civ sequel) can hurt one's reputation...

Really? It doesn't look that bad to me. I haven't play Civilization 3 or any of the previous titles in the series. It sold quite well though.

Isn't Big Huge Games doing only RTS? That would be a pity if no sequel is coming out. Alpha Centauri deserves at least an upgrade.

[Paul02]

I'd like to see more factions to be allowed i, like 10 or so

[Kaptain Ken]

All of the above

But the bottom line as CEO Aaron says is :
Don't hold your breath

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I loved the storyline of SMAC.

I believe that the success of SMAC's storyline is one of the largest obstacles to a successful SMAC 2. After all, what storyline could you come up with to better that?

"The return to Earth" is a logical storyline for a sequel. There are many variations on this theme that could provide for an excellent sequel. For example, the story could go that prior to transcendance, a group of humans formed a new faction that believed that mankind should return to Earth. They build a spaceship and return to Earth and discover that there was a small band of survivors. While humans were building a new society on Planet (SMAC storyline), these survivors built their own new and strange society on Earth.

The game would be about rebuilding civilization on Earth and finding about exactly what happened to Earth after the Alpha Centauri mission. Finding out what happened to mankind after armageddon could be a very rich part of the storyline. The player could explore the map for "artifacts" that would provide clues presented like the SMAC interludes.