Its time for Civ3 fans and SMAC fane to unite.

[grdgrdgrd]

I am a Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri player but I also play and have Civilization 3 and the two expansions. What if Firaxis would release a new expansion for Civ3 which would be the add-on of Alpha Centauri?

Could you imagine starting out a small civilization located on the earth than building it into an empire than building the rocket that takes you to Alpha Centauri ware you enter into all new situation. You would pick up the story of Alpha Centauri and it factions being formed. What an epic game this would be. The possibilities are limitless. There would no turn base game like it. And at long last there would be a uniting of Civilization and Alpha Centauri. And along with that we would become one large game community.

I wonder how we could make such a suggestion to Firaxis?

If your interested you might try this:

http://www.firaxis.com/contact_gamefeedback.cfm

[Jamski]

Never happen, and it would ruin SMAC if it had anything to do with the Civ3 game engine.

SMAC = good

CIV3 = average

SMAC as an add-onn to Civ3 = I need to vomit.

Sorry to rain on your parade.

-Jam

[CEO Aaron]

NEVER. Civ3 is a huge misstep in the development of this kind of strategy game, and effectively discards almost all the improvements that SMAC offered, and trades them out for a mediocre counter-pushing game to hamstring players down to the AI's level.

For your plan to work, you'd need to start with Civ2, not Civ3, or at least have Civ3 surrender unconditionally to Brian Reynolds.

[Marid Audran]

"Agreed, this disparity has gone on long enough. Pledge Blood Truce with the CivIIIers."

"Never! Your buggy culture-chewing, civ-daft followers will fall yet, grdgrdgrd!"

On this diplo screen, I think most of us (myself included) will choose the later.

[lord of the mark]

i take it youve never played the extended version on Civ:TOT. Not exactly what youre talking about (no factions, you play against aliens and any earth civs that also launch) but people were thinking on those lines. Didnt make that good a game.

[Brundlefly]

Before I can comment, I need to know about the difference between being in a group of fans from being in a group of fane. Thanks..

[grdgrdgrd]

Wait a minute, I'm on your side I love SMAC and only play Civ3 when I'm half dazed. I would much rather have a newer version of SMAC than an add-on for Civ. But Firaxis only seems to be showing interest in Civ.

Saturday night than Sunday night I was up till late in the morning playing smac. I never played that long ever with Civ.

I was hooked on SMAC the first time I played it.When I bought my newest computer with WinX it didn't work so I sold it. I should of came to this site first. Now I'm so happy to have back in my possession not only SMAC but X also. I love this game.

Frankly now that Sid is finishing up on Pirates I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a new version of Alpha Centauri by this time next year. We can only hope.

[Alinestra Covelia]

A fane is obviously a Liverpool thane.

[Jamski]

ALLIE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I was going to say a cockney thane.

If the same team makes SMAC2 that made Civ3, then we can expect dissapointment

BHG should try and buy up the licence

-Jam

[Brundlefly]

Re: Its time for Civ3 fans and SMAC fane to unite.

Originally posted by grdgrdgrd
I am a Sid Meier’s Alpha Centauri player but I also play and have Civilization 3 and the two expansions. What if Firaxis would release a new expansion for Civ3 which would be the add-on of Alpha Centauri?

First of all, who would have the time to play such a lengthy game? From the beginning of civilization on earth to Trancendence you would finish a game one every two years!

Second of all, there is something like this already. Civ II ToT Extended game allows you to settle on Alpha Centauri....

[Adalbertus]

Hm. I wasn't too excited about Civ3 - culture was the only new idea and it played more than Civ1 than Civ 2. And the only thing I really appreciated was the use of a typical 15th century cadenza in one of the pieces of background musicke. Its far too rare to have historically correct music or art in a historical game (Imperialim II being the only other one I know - at least for the music).

Otherwise I think a historical game as a SMACX mod would be a nice thing. Albeit much of work: New tiles, new tech tree (with large-scale terraforming one of the latest things), new storyline and a civ-specific "book of earth".

I don't see a real point in joining the games in a sequence. Just finish Civ and fire up SMAC. Because from a technical point of view, there is no difference between a 1-1-1 warrier and a 1-1-1 scout patrol. Or play SMAC with some self-made techs and super-tech-stagnation on a gigantic map. Or you are masochist enough to play CivCTP, where they do futuristic stuff on earth before the program crashes futuristically.

[wgabrie]

I have to admit, when switching between Civ 3 and SMACX I miss the culture effects.

I have to stop myself from building excess Rec Commons and Holo Theaters because it's not going to expand my borders like in Civ 3.

[UnityScoutChopper]

I am part of the minority who LOVES both games, appreciating what each did right and living with what each did wrong.

Very few of the civ3-hating posters above stated precise reasons -- not that there's anything bad with that, as games are largely a matter of taste; for example, I couldn't say exactly why I will *never* play a first-person shooter (again -- the last time was years ago). Still, as far as my gut reaction to "it just stinks" type posts -- I tend to write off such opinions even when the topic is one I know little about, simply because it's frequently a sign of having nothing substantial to say. Regarding the few concrete points:

- "only thing new was culture" -- and "army" units, and great leaders, and... well, there's not much point in this, suffice to say there were many things new.
- "a mediocre counter-pushing game to hamstring players down to the AI's level." -- Because there are no true ZOCs? A shame, but not game-breaking. I think people stress this too much. It changes the game's flavor, but you just learn how to do what you did with ZOCs differently. The few things you can't do tend to be exploitative. Considering the "now the path's open, easy does it, now it's closed" havoc that ZOCs must wreak on pathfinding, I think that from a cost-benefit ratio, I too would choose ZOCs as the one thing to sacrifice in terms of making it easier to program the rest WELL.
- counter-pushing: HUH? I spend just as much time managing bases and developing/implementing grand strategy in Civ III as I do in SMAC, and sometimes more. If Conquests makes a brief appearance on Czech shelves (praying...), then it will be no contest, as the amount of effort put into increasing game balance and making "guns vs. butter" an even more agonizing decision in Conquests was quite large.

USC

[Nubclear]

Tanks dying to spearmen.

And don't say it didn't happen. I gave Civ3 many chances, but they all resulted in the termination of Civ3.exe because I would have a huge number of tanks and most of them would die trying to take on that speaman.

Bah!

[Minute Mirage]

I loved Civ 3 when it came out, but I hadn't played SMAC very intensively at the time. Now that I've been enslaved by SMAC for almost half a year, I wonder if I'll feel differently about Civ3. I'm going to buy Conquests anyway, and give it a shot sometime.