Its time for Civ3 fans and SMAC fane to unite.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by UnityScoutChopper
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 <...>
[/size]

Civ II/SMAC/EU/HMM III = chess
Civ III = tic-tac-toe

That's basically the bottom line.

It's more like whole bunch of things than a single grand design flow.

No ZOCs => AI human wave attack tactics actually works
Simplified combat => obsolete units are still effective
Tech Speed is capped from both sides => nobody falls too much behind or runs too much ahead of the tech curve
Insane corruption => you are limited to a certain # of cities
No using roads in enemy territory => no fast conquests
No caravans /trade/social engineering => AI cannot fall behind as there are no options to increase science output
Strategic resources only magnify dependence on initial conditions which is generally bad enough in Civ genre

And I just coudn't stand their unit looping algorithm where you tend to jump 40 squares away from units in the currently selected stack.

And this ridiculous culture flipping thingy. Just think of designing a WWII scenario like the one that came with Civ II. In Civ III, Barbarossa could never happen as an entire Wehrmacht would culturally flip to Soviets somewhere around Minsk. And taking Paris or Alexandria would be just utterly impossible.

And because I, as a player, cannot do a bloody thing rather than negotiate these ridiculous contracts for strategic resources with the AI, the whole thing feels more like a simulation than a strategy game.

But you are right, if someone likes Sims, there may be a certain enjoyment in Civ III as well.

[Mr. President]

You guys would probably be surprised at some of the things being said about SMAC in the corresponding thread in the CivIII forum . . .

[Urban Legend]

Some of the reasons why people hate Civ III are the reasons why I like it and dislike SMAC.

I prefer Civ III over SMAC, Civ and Civ II.

As for your idea, I prefer a setting where the spaceship was sent of and earth gets nuked to bits. Post-apocalyptic, new civilistations will arise and start from the stone age and times up when the people from Alpha Centauri arrive back to earth.

[UnityScoutChopper]

Originally posted by ErikM

...snip generalized statements...

No ZOCs => AI human wave attack tactics actually works

Care to clarify that? Since I'm not sure what you're saying, I'm not sure what to say.

Simplified combat => obsolete units are still effective

Slightly effective, but not very.

Tech Speed is capped from both sides => nobody falls too much behind or runs too much ahead of the tech curve

Which is fantastic! Maybe not in a SMAC milieu, but certainly in a Civ milieu. Think about it -- if you took the 31 strongest civilizations on Earth (31 is the highest single-game civ count IIRC), could you find even one that hasn't yet entered the industrial age? Could you find more than half that have not yet entered the modern age?

Insane corruption => you are limited to a certain # of cities

Um, whatever. You can build plenty of cities, some less corrupt, some more, and many quite salvageable using the arsenal of tools against corruption that has been constantly been growing since the game's original release. Many not, but this is really only unrealistic in the age of democracy, where any non-flat corruption is IMHO a bit silly.

No using roads in enemy territory => no fast conquests

And this is bad?

No caravans /trade/social engineering => AI cannot fall behind as there are no options to increase science output

Except for governments, gold-per-turn income from, uh, trade allowing you to increase your science by reducing taxes, luxuries allowing you to increase your science by reducing entertainment, careful science trading, properly developing your territory, building science facilities and wonders, and in Conquests a beefed-up scientist specialist. Nope, no options at all.

Strategic resources only magnify dependence on initial conditions which is generally bad enough in Civ genre

It's quite easy to get the early resources, and while the later ones are rarer, you have more time to prepare for controlling them.

And I just coudn't stand their unit looping algorithm where you tend to jump 40 squares away from units in the currently selected stack.

'fraid I missed you on this one. Perhaps a problem removed in an early patch?

And this ridiculous culture flipping thingy. Just think of designing a WWII scenario like the one that came with Civ II. In Civ III, Barbarossa could never happen as an entire Wehrmacht would culturally flip to Soviets somewhere around Minsk. And taking Paris or Alexandria would be just utterly impossible.

Culture flipping is quite rare if the aggressor is careful to build up their culture. Designing a WWII scenario would just require balancing out the culture levels of the civs created...and balancing has always been a part of scenario design.

And because I, as a player, cannot do a bloody thing rather than negotiate these ridiculous contracts for strategic resources with the AI, the whole thing feels more like a simulation than a strategy game.

Are you sure we're playing the same Civ? I sure don't feel like I "can't do a bloody thing except negotiate "contracts" (sic)." And I don't "negotiate" for resources either unless I have to...

But you are right, if someone likes Sims, there may be a certain enjoyment in Civ III as well.

Um, yeah. Whatever.

USC

[Urban Legend]

Originally posted by UnityScoutChopper
No roads in enemy territory ==> No fast conquest
And this is bad?
USC

This eliminates the no roads strategy yes?

[ErikM]

USC, I did not want to flame you or anything. Just wanted to express my (admittedly very negative) opinion about Civ III. So if my remarks have offended you, I aplogize. But let me try to elaborate on some areas where I feel Civ III falls short of its predecessors.

Originally posted by UnityScoutChopper
No ZOCs => AI human wave attack tactics actually works

Care to clarify that? Since I'm not sure what you're saying, I'm not sure what to say.

The problem with AI attacks in CIV/SMAC is that few defenders stationed at some strategic places could block a near endless stream of troops AI was sending the way of a human player. And designing good attack routes was always somewhat challenging.

Without ZOCs the whole issue becomes rather moot as AI does not have to worry about designing good attack routes. A simple shortest path algorithm will work just as well. And since a player is rarely in a position to stop this endlesss stream of troops (unless you have a one-square isthmus or something like that) the only way to counter AI invasions is to build a bunch of troops on his own. Thus, the game effectively forces you towards a particular play style.

Just compare SMAC options of dealing with AI invasions vs Civ III options.

SMAC:
(a) build a bunch of troops and smack them
(b) station few sturdy defenders and some fast attack troops in few strategic places and eliminate invaders piecemeal
(c) build a bunch of probe teams and bribe invading troops
(d) upgrade formers/crawlers to armored designs
(e) just ignore them and allow technological superiority of your defenders to save the day
... and I am probably missing a good deal more.

In Civ III, the only effectively available option is (a).

Same applies to "no use of roads in enemy territory" rule. In Civ II/SMAC you can opt for either medieval style slow siege warfare or for a modern era blitz. You can also use covert operations, chop'n'drop and a ton of other options. Civ III effectively forces toward a very particular mode of warfare - slow capturing of enemy territory one by one.

In both cases, Civ II/SMAC is basically a richer game - it allows you more options to choose from, thus making finding a good solution interesting. In Civ III you are forced towards a very particular play style. That's what I mean by chess vs. tic-tac-toe comparison.

Which is fantastic! Maybe not in a SMAC milieu, but certainly in a Civ milieu. Think about it -- if you took the 31 strongest civilizations on Earth (31 is the highest single-game civ count IIRC), could you find even one that hasn't yet entered the industrial age? Could you find more than half that have not yet entered the modern age?

Unfortunately (or fortunately) at about the same time I've bought Civ III I have also discovered Europa Universalis. In my opinion, if you are looking for a historical accuracy, EU is simply infinitely superior to Civ III. You have fewer strategic options (like you don't have to terraform anything or technology roughly follows the same region-adjusted tech curve) but this is more than offset by the richness of diplomatic interactions with 100+ active countries.

I'll strongly recommend to give EU a try if you didn't already. Oh, and Bohemia rocks in EU, btw

In other words, I feel that Civ II/SMAC are superior to Civ III as a strategy game and EU is superior to Civ III as a history simulator.

'fraid I missed you on this one. Perhaps a problem removed in an early patch?

True, I've only tried an unpatched Civ III (actually I've bought it on the first day Civ III came out) so maybe unit looping was improved in a later patch. In an unpatched game you would (ie) select an artillery unit from a stack to bombard a city, intending to follow up with a couple of tank attacks. However, after making the first attack the game would jump you to a worker 40 squares away from the currrent stack. So you'd order him to remove jungle and then it would jump you to another worker 30 squares away and so on. This whole insane map jumping literally gave me so much headache I simply could not play a game when you had 30+ units.

Maybe the situation improved later on but, alas, I was so disappointed with Civ III I am not sure I even have a CD anymore.

For comparison, unpatched EU also had a whole bunch of silly bugs. But the game concept was solid enough to make do with annoying bugs while waiting for patches. For Civ III, I simply do not have enough goodwill - the whole gameplay for me was about as exciting as filing out a tax return.

[CEO Aaron]

My problem with the lack of ZoC's is that it forces you to build a WALL of units simply to patrol a border. Otherwise the rather annoying AI will simply waltz past my troops and start enslaving my workers.

Couple that with the inability to make your troops substantively better than the enemy's troops (Thanks to an UNFATHOMABLE reversal in the unit-design trend), and now not only do I have to churn out tons of troops just to keep from being overrun, but if I'm actually in a shooting war, I have to build even more, because all combats have been reduced to a slightly weighted coin toss, so the only way to win a war is attrition.

In case you haven't noticed, I play a Builder style. This means I like to tend my empire like a garden, build a strong economy, and use the ensuing technological advantages against my opponent. Well, if I'm forced to crank out hordes of units (which, I might add, now cost CASH to support, grrr), and I can't build a significant tech advantage, and even if I do, it doesn't _mean_ anything because my Panzers keep losing to their spearmen, then my play-style is useless, and I'm back to playing a Momentum game.

This sums up my biggest criticism of CivIII, and the one I've said all along: The gameplay has been hamstrung to make any strategy that the AI can't cope with unworkable. That in and of itself wouldn't be bad, but the problem therein is that in essence, you've reduced a game which offers a surfeit of options to a one-strategy chore. The great thing about SMAC is that every faction plays differently, and those differences allow new and different tactics to be used. In CivIII, the various factions have different bonuses, but they can't really use them to alter the framework of successful play.

[gwillybj]

Originally posted by Adalbertus:
... play SMAC with some self-made techs and super-tech-stagnation on a gigantic map...

Hey! I resemble that remark