SMAC on Trial

[Sir Hawkeye]

quote: Originally posted by SMACed on 03-24-2001 10:43 PM The superpowers of today are varied.

Actually, the superpowers of today are all basically free market democracies(US + EU), or shifting towards such(China). When one of the super powers had police state (USSR), they very nearly came to hurling nukes, and the democratic powers have fairly strained relations with China.

And Yes, I realize this is mostly irrelevant.

-Sir Rale Hawkeye

Edt: Spelling
[This message has been edited by Sir Hawkeye (edited March 25, 2001).]

[Wiglaf]

WE, I want to preface my reply with a little note. I'm very sorry I offended you, it appears I've angered you. I don't think that your tone is justified, especially since it's only a game and it's only a post, but your opinion is your opinion and mine is mine. The last thing I want is a flame war. Onward...

quote: Now, if you want to argue about which game is easier to beat I would probably agree that it is SMAC (against the AI), but the reason for this is because the game has added more features to manipulate that the AI can handle. Perhaps you haven't played multiplayer games or maybe just not enough to realize the skill involved in manipulating some of the features you've classified as "Makes MUCH easier, takes away skill".

Well, the reason doesn't really matter. If the game's easy, it's easy, I dont care if it's because it's autographed by Ben Franklin. And multiplay is indeed quite good. But it opens up its own flaws (see below).

quote: I'm also baffled on how a feature that isn't even in CIV2 can detract from a "skill" when originally there was no such feature. Certainly there are features that weren't supposed to be available, such as the trading of a small base for a huge AI base, and are ridiculous to even included in the catagories you've mentioned.

I don't understand. Normally, I'd agree that even if a feature's bad, it's better than none at all. But not when that feature harms gameplay.

quote: I'm also confused about how some factions are "a complete waste" and are easy to exploit over time. I disagree, the unique faction attributes are not simply asthetic. If that were the case every faction would be played exactly the same which if you had played it you would recognize is not true. As I'm sure you know some factions can't choose certain SE choices which drastically changes their play style and window of opportunity. For instance, some factions can't pop boom or require golden ages to do so, which hinders their growth drastically.

Yes, but it's my belief that Miriam is so tech-stagged its awful, Lal is so overpowered politically he could blow up the moon, and Zak has a tech bonus that can dominate both militarily and diplomatically, overriding Lal and Miriam. That's just the way my games play out . And in multi, it appears that certain factions are do's and some are don't's.

quote: I tend to disagree with you about SMAC being a straight war game as well. In fact I believe the game to be based far more on efficent economics that straight war. Try not building net nodes or energy banks and see what kind of army you can muster and how fast. Try not building formers or expanding your amount of bases. Try not changing any SE choices or manipulating your economy percentages. Try no crawlers. These are all economic aspects that factor into your ability to wage war.

Good point. But if crawlers are needed to wage war, that seems like a war game to me.

quote: SMAC isn't on trial here, the AI is, and we've all read posts about what the SMAC AI leaves us desiring.

Oh no. The whole design is. From the diplomacy, to the SE. Very little about the AI, really.

And Sir Hawkeye, that's a perfectly good point. But China's communist and they aren't calling up the U.S. or Britain demanding they become communist (nevermind ).
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited March 25, 2001).]

[WhiteElephants]

Offended??? Flame war??? Tone??? Angry???

My point was you began talking about the aesthetic additions of SMAC and how they didn't really change much and then you veered of into space (pardon the pun) about how easy the game is which has precious little to do with whether the features added were merely asthetic or not. And, as of yet, you still haven't provided any of us with evidence that: yes, in fact, this feature added to the game was just asthetic. You seem to be convinced the game hasn't added anything since Civ2, which I believe is biased by your obvious preference to historical gaming, and have only based this on the premise that the AI is easier to conquer.

I think several additions to this game has altered game play beyond what was possible in Civ2 making the game far more complex and rich. Certainly I struggled with the Civ2 AI more that with the SMAC AI, but what that DOES NOT prove is that the features added to SMAC are purely aesthetic.

Even the seperation of colony pod and terraformer add a new dimension to the game that goes beyond aesthetics. The 3 dimensional aspect of the map also allows you to raise or sink land, an option that wasn't available in Civ2 -- your little island doesn't have to stay a little island. The idea of a unit chassis and a design workshop is a leap beyond Civ2. Even the diplomacy gives several more options that weren't available in Civ such as the submissive pact and levels of hostility. And by no means does the use of a crawler for the purpose of war make this a war game. There are several options you have after producing a crawler besides dumping it in a prototype or farming minerals. In fact, you don't even have to go to war if you don't want to, and why isn't Civ2 a war game?

[Wiglaf]

quote: Offended??? Flame war??? Tone??? Angry???

Yeah, your message seemed to provoke a bit.

quote: that DOES NOT prove is that the features added to SMAC are purely aesthetic.

I think you're taking this aesthetic thing a bit too far. I believe the only thing I called aesthetic was the 3D terrain. And I said that the features also harm gameplay, just like the completely ruined SP.

quote: You seem to be convinced the game hasn't added anything since Civ2, which I believe is biased by your obvious preference to historical gaming, and have only based this on the premise that the AI is easier to conquer.

There you go. That's an unbased attack calling me biased although I've shown no tendancy of it. I've said many prefer history over scifi and that it is a deciding factor in the marketplace. And I've said the game did add a lot (read the beginning of the first post!). That's what I mean. You've taken the offensive and made some pretty pointless attacks. Try to keep that to a min. I'm curious as to whether or not you prefer scifi to history, however.

Looks like this forum really, really supports SMAC relentlessly. It's a shame to see fanboys taking over the place without regard to the quality of the product they bought in relation to its prequel. I'm just trying to bring up a small topic about whether or not civ is, in its heart, a more oringinal, satisfying experiance.

But I'd still like to know if anyone agrees with me

[Wiglaf]

An evil double post.

[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited March 25, 2001).]

[The diplomat]

If we are "putting SMAC on trial", what are the charges?

SMAC is by no means perfect, of course, it has its flaws. But, I think that SMAC did advance the civ genre a lot compared to civ2. the new features are more than just aesthetic. They do improve the game in a way that I believe makes it more enjoyable than civ2.
I enjoy the historical aspect of civ2 too, but that alone does not make civ2 better than SMAC. The truth is that civ2 is "old" compared to SMAC because of the SUM of the new features in SMAC. Personally, I can't get myself to play civ2 anymore because I prefer the features of SMAC. I can't see myself playing a game without borders, without build queues or without SE now that I know what the game is like with them.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Wiglaf]

quote: I enjoy the historical aspect of civ2 too, but that alone does not make civ2 better than SMAC.

Oh no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying SMAC is better when directly compared, but a good hard look at civ and smac will show that civ has strong multi and much stronger single player ( the sp part is already agreed upon), and as such shouldn't be boycotted like it is now. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying that civ shouldn't be considered old because a game came along that does nothing to change the engine but instead adds some nice little things that were missing from civ. In ten years, will smac or civ be a classic? Surely SMAC won't be known as a classic because it has borders and better graphics. Pound for gameplay pound, I'd have to say civ delivers the simple, direct goods without the forced plot, aliens, and conversions of civ units.

I guess my point is that Civ2 pioneered the engine. SMAC merely reuses it. Now I'm not a smac hater. I'm upset that you guys are civ haters.

[WhiteElephants]

SMACed -- Here's what you said:

"But then the stunning reality sets in - SMAC really is civ version 2, and we all know that. And while a good deal of people would say an improved version is better than the original simply because it's improved (after all, why play a worse version of the same thing), it is reasonable to wonder exactly why the AC community now boycotts civilization. When I look at the pros of SMAC, I see (and many of you have pointed this out to me) that it pioneered the empire border system, unique faction attributes, and 3D terrain. But, let's face it, that's asthetic."

Now, to me you've just stated that all the pro's are simply asthetic. I'm not sure this could be interpreted any other way, and appears to be the thesis of your arguement.

You also stated this:

"Something about the Carthaginians raiding Rome with chariots and later with warheads leaves a better taste in my mouth than using a Vorpal Dog to laser a pathetic Morganite."

So, my comment about your bias towards historically gaming, in fact, does have a basis, and wasn't just pulled out of the sky. Here, you clearly state that you enjoy historical gaming over sci-fi. I don't think this could be interpretted into anything else. I hardly think this is a "pointless attack". What I'm suggesting here is that you are biased toward historically gaming, that's not an attack it's an observation.

It's not that I relentlessly support SMAC. It's the fact that your making claims without supporting evidence other that the AI is easier to beat. Of course their going to use stuff from Civ, but they've taken it to another level and you haven't been able to refute that.

I'm not a civ hater either. I think that SMAC has more to offer and have decided to play it versus Civ2. Now if you think I'm attacking you, you underestimate me. What most people call this exchange of words is an "arguement". If I intended to attack you I would and have. Instead I choose to attack your words. In order for you to "win" this arguement, thereby convincing me that: yes, Civ2 has so much more to offer or that the additions made to SMAC are purely asethetic; you need to demonstrate that the pro's you mentioned earlier are simply asethetic which you orginally claimed with supporting evidence. Otherwise I'm forced to believe you are either confused or simply biased toward historical gaming.

As a side note, I actually prefer WWII era gaming or fantasy.

[knowhow2]

how did a "Smac on Trial" turn into "smac vs civ2 contest" with WE on one side and SMACed (confusing choice of name by way .... )on the other?


beside I also would like to know what "charges" Smac is confronted with.

[The diplomat]

Well, I prefer SMAC over civ2 precisely because it is vastly improved over civ2. Like you said: SMAC pioneered a border system, better diplomacy, Social Engineering, Unit Workshop, unique factions, city governors, build queues and the list goes on.
When I play civ2, I really miss the improvements that SMAC introduced. As a result, civ2 really does feel old now. No Build queues! Just that makes civ2 really antiquated. How can I play a game without build queues now that I know how great they are?

It is like: why would you watch a show on a small black and white tv set when you have a HDTV big screen?

It is true that I like the history aspect of civ2. But civ3 is coming with the history part of civ AND the improvements of SMAC and beyond!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Closey]

quote: I guess my point is that Civ2 pioneered the engine. SMAC merely reuses it. Now I'm not a smac hater. I'm upset that you guys are civ haters.

I'm not a Civ hater. Not at all. Civ's a great game, but all the new featuresc combined makes SMAC more fun to me.

And maybe it's just me, but I like the 'forced' story. Don't know, but it kind of makes SMAC feel more, hmm, special. Something like that.

One big thing that probably makes me like SMAC more than Civ is that I actually haven't gotten tired of SMAC SP yet.

Hmm, I want to play Civ again actually. (Not Civ2) Maybe I should give it a try when I come home tonight.

[Locus]

I love SMAC/X and Civ II. I think we need to clarify to people who are not familiar with all the Civ games that we are talking about the original Civ and Civ II and it's enhanced version in Civ II MPG. We are NOT talking about any freakin' Call to Power garbage. Anyone whose experience with Civ is limited to Call to Power games should understand that that is not Civ.

My "two cents" is: I play SMAC/X more than I played Civ II because of all the improvements in gameplay. SMAC/X also allows you to pull-off military conquests very early in the game. Conquering in Civ II before artillery is very costly and you may lose to another nation with advanced tech. SMAC/X just gives you more options on what kind of game you want to play...builder or conqueror, etc. However, I am very excited about Civ III since I am a history buff. Although I enjoy SMAC/X very much, it just doesn't give me the rush I got in Civ II. Capturing a city with the "Ascetic Virtues" just is not as thrilling as capturing the Pyramids or the Statue of Liberty. I am really looking forward to a game that gives me the gameplay and diplomacy options of SMAC/X but on Earth. I guess I am just not as visionary as a lot of you about space colonization. I look backward with mankind to find our future. Just my opinion.

------------------
Brother Locus of the Peacekeepers

[Cybergod]

OK guys, stop arguing, this world is full of it.

Any suggestions about the game and what you want more of in smac or any possibly related civ game please post to my new thread, esp. Lotus, your sugestion about a game based on Earth, that's kinda what my idea's like, but I won't reveal anything....

------------------
"I hate this storm. The others all pretend they're not afraid but I know better. They're as scared as I am, but they won't admit it. They look at me and smile and make brave faces and they can see how frightened I am. The wind howls out there and they all pretend they don't hear it. And when I turn my back to them, when they think I can't see them, they laugh at me. I can hear them laughing at me even over the noise of the wind."

Extract from
"Return to Mars"
by Ben Bova

[Cybergod]

BTW, just discovered I got upgraded to Chieftain
*screams out loud: "Yes! Yes! Yes!"*

Sorry for sarcasm :lol

[johndmuller]

By way of returning to something adjacent to the original issues of this thread, I'd llike to bring up a few things I found to be significant improvements as well (as departures from) CIV:

Native life
The Design Workshop.

I imagine that there are numerous other (subtle or not) differences, but having skipped from Original Civ to SMAC (I passed on CIVII at least partly due to feeling ripped off by several intervening (not) upgrades), I can only infer what was in CIVII from what I read in places like this.

IMO, the Native life - the fungus, worms etc. - and its associated psi combat, capture rules and linkage with the player's planet rating are all new features and I enjoy messing with them (perhaps using native life more than good game play would indicate). The native units apparently occupy the slot of the Barbarians in Civ, but unless they were substantially revised in CivII, they are way different.

I didn't necessarily like the design workshop at first, but wierd and buggy behavior of the automation kind of forced me to micromanage the units and once I started to make novel designs, I really got to like it. It't too bad that they seem to have decided to drop that feature in CivIII. I wonder if it was the daunting tasks involved with cleaning up the loose ends (bugs and dubious AI utilization, etc) or some idea of historical accuracy which lead to that decision.

Having had a significant vacation from Civ, I found that I reexperienced a lot of the initial fun of Civ when I first started with SMAC and also appreciated a lot of additional features and greater degrees of control than I recall with CIVI. It was definitely true for me that the initial buzz I got from the Techs and Wonders in Civ was deeper than I got from the Techs and SP's in SMAC, eventually they just became game features in Civ, just as they are in SMAC. The SP's and the Wonders are each forced to some degree requiring some of that willling suspension of disbelief; the original notion of their power as source of inspirational to the people seems to have gotten lost along the way.