I loved Civ II and how it was so militarily challenging on King mode and above. I really enjoyed fighting huge wars with other powerful empires towards the end of the game (when the comps and I all had huge militaries to throw at each other) and trying to come out on top. It was also cool fighting modern naval battles because of all the ships you could build (destroyers, cruisers, battleships, subs, carriers).
Anyway, I never bought SMAC due to the science fiction aspect but I bought Call to Power II last week because I thought it would be like CivII (earth history) only bigger and better because of all the new units and the graphics improvements. It is just depressingly easy. The AI almost never attacks you (regardless of the difficulity you play) and builds very few units to begin with. It will almost never attempt to take back a city you have captured from it much less go on the offensive against your empire, even if you leave your cities undefended. It's just ridiculous that I spent $50 on the game and there is no military challenge to it. In hard mode, I was easily taking over the world in 1300AD with Knights and Infantrymen. I never played past the Renesaince (even though I wanted to see and use all the modern units) because there was no point - it was so easy that it was just completely boring. It makes no sense how the game could come out so many years after Civ II and have an AI that is not only not equal to CivII (which would have been good) but is in fact much, MUCH worse. There is no challenge to conquest in the game.
So anyway, now I'm thinking of getting SMAC after all. Is the AI in that game as challenging as in CivII, where the computer sends tons of units against you and its a huge war that is fun to play? That is what I am looking for. Also, is the naval aspect in SMAC good? Are there lots of different ships and do you actually have big naval battles against the comps? Are there the equivalent of Aircraft Carriers in SMAC? How many units and tech advances are there is SMAC; as many or more than in CivII, or is the game too short? Is it different enough from CivII to make it worth buying, while still keeping what was great?
Please let me know what SMAC is like; thanks for your responses.
Anyway, I never bought SMAC due to the science fiction aspect but I bought Call to Power II last week because I thought it would be like CivII (earth history) only bigger and better because of all the new units and the graphics improvements. It is just depressingly easy. The AI almost never attacks you (regardless of the difficulity you play) and builds very few units to begin with. It will almost never attempt to take back a city you have captured from it much less go on the offensive against your empire, even if you leave your cities undefended. It's just ridiculous that I spent $50 on the game and there is no military challenge to it. In hard mode, I was easily taking over the world in 1300AD with Knights and Infantrymen. I never played past the Renesaince (even though I wanted to see and use all the modern units) because there was no point - it was so easy that it was just completely boring. It makes no sense how the game could come out so many years after Civ II and have an AI that is not only not equal to CivII (which would have been good) but is in fact much, MUCH worse. There is no challenge to conquest in the game.
So anyway, now I'm thinking of getting SMAC after all. Is the AI in that game as challenging as in CivII, where the computer sends tons of units against you and its a huge war that is fun to play? That is what I am looking for. Also, is the naval aspect in SMAC good? Are there lots of different ships and do you actually have big naval battles against the comps? Are there the equivalent of Aircraft Carriers in SMAC? How many units and tech advances are there is SMAC; as many or more than in CivII, or is the game too short? Is it different enough from CivII to make it worth buying, while still keeping what was great?
Please let me know what SMAC is like; thanks for your responses.
Comment