Civ3 or SMAX?

[Ned]

Googlie, I'm glad that I am not alone in my feelings about Civ III. Ned

[Hydro]

I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or satisfied (vindicated?) at the reviews Civ III has gotten. Now I know I won't be rushing out to get it. Maybe there is more mileage in ol' SMAX yet…

Hydro

[jones]

It's got a certain karma to it

After all, we've enjoyed SMAC all this time while those who didn't like it (or just plain preferred civ2) had to get by with scenarios and expansion packs of varying quality.

Now it looks like I'm in the same boat, sans hope for more expansion packs. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's finding the current civ3 a little too simplistic and lacking in depth, though.

[bondetamp]

I figured that Civ3 was a rather simplistic game after I had played my first full game of it, but after my second I'm not so sure.

The biggest difference in game play, IMO, is that there is a lot less options to beat the AI. If an enemy city has started a Wonder that you are building as well, and he has the better production, then there aren't all that many things you can do about it. You can't cash in crawlers, you can't rush buy, you can convert a few grassland-tiles to forests, but it takes time and isn't all that effective.

And culture and special resources do play a major part i the game. In my last game I found out that I lacked oil, uranium and aluminum in the late game, so I couldn't build anything mothorized (like tanks, modern warships or planes), I couldn't build nukes and I couldn't build the space ship unless I traded those resources.The AI seemed very aware of the value of those resources and I had to bend over backwards to get aluminum, and start a major war to get uranium. It was the first time in several years that I didn't know whether or not I was going to win three turns before I did it.

But, as I said, the game does lack many of the option that SMAX had. This makes for a better AI, but I still miss them.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by bondetamp
The biggest difference in game play, IMO, is that there is a lot less options to beat the AI. If an enemy city has started a Wonder that you are building as well, and he has the better production, then there aren't all that many things you can do about it. You can't cash in crawlers, you can't rush buy, you can convert a few grassland-tiles to forests, but it takes time and isn't all that effective.

Espionage... have the spy's blow up his production, the earlier, the better. The more shields accumulated, the more expensive it is to blow him up, so knock him out early and often.

[civcop]

SMAC for me

I'd all but decided to not get Civ 3 due to Christmas coming soon (didn't want to spend $50 at this time) and some minor concerns that it might stink. So I was in a store and saw SMAC for $9.99 and thought I'd get it in place of Civ 3. I'd read so many good comments in forums at Apolyton about SMAC and was excited to try it out. It is far and away better than Civ 2, which I haven't touched since my purchase of SMAC.

Now, if a SMAC/X 2 were announced, would you all want Firaxis to make it? I'm going to guess most would answer "No", even if El Sid slapped his name on it again.

[T-hawk]

Re: SMAC for me

SMAC is nearly perfect. Take out population-booming, balance crawlers, and add the Civ 3 AI, and I'd never play another game again.

[Googlie]

civcop:

Make sure you download and instal the four smac bug-fix patches - you can get them here at 'Poly or from the Firaxis site itself.

G.

[Flubber]

I took another crack at civ3 last night for a couple of hours and I remain unimpressed. Its an ok game I guess and I will give it a fair trial BUT it just seems to lack the depth of gameplay that SMAC/X has. I was totally disappointed that it does not have SE choices or a design workshop.

I like the idea of culture and growing sphers of influence but other than that it seems to be a dumbed down game, made less complex so the AI can compete-- I also find the interface to be attractive but for the most part, not very functional

Some of the game concepts are frustrating-- I don't mind corruptions so much since that was likely an attempt to combat ICS but this great leader thing-- I have tried and tried to get one and failed. It strikes me that if this concept is unchanged in a MP edition, the whole game could hinge on the luck of getting these-- you know CIV A gets lucky and gets 2 or 3 GLs and Civ C fights as many battles with as many elite troops and gets none-- so based on luck one guy gets 3 instant wonders --hmmmmmm-- why not just have a chance to pop a wonder from a hut ???

and the manual-- don't get me started . . . page after page of generalities with the few specifics tucked away in a few tables--

[civcop]

Patches? I don't need no stinkin patches!

Originally posted by Googlie
civcop:

Make sure you download and instal the four smac bug-fix patches - you can get them here at 'Poly or from the Firaxis site itself.

G.

What bugs do they fix Googlie? I have the latest version of SMAC...do I still need the patches?

Also, how was that in the picture avatar under your name? It's too small for me to make out (looks like a man on a stage in his underwear) and it bothered me to not be able to figure it out.

[spartak]

I'll keep playomng SMAC for a while. No point buying CIVIII until you lot have thoroughly big tested it for me and Firaxis have issued a patch or two.

[Turnipshooter]

Hello,

I thought CIV 3 would be an upgrade of SMAC....its not

At first i thought CIV 3 had very formidable AI...by my second game i dominateded difficulty lev 3 (1-6 6 is hardest)

So i shot right up to difficulty 6.....start my game manage to build one other city...then i notice 3 AI civs just boxed in my 2 citys....i find out they each have 4 citys already while i have 2 and could not have posibly had anymore than 2.....so im like "WTF am i suposed to do"......"screw it" I build up archers and rush the chinese capital and take horse resources.....start pumping out horseman witch i use to genocide all the civs on my continent by 600 AD...(germans,french,chinese,indians,english and russians)...i bought all my techs from other civs untill i could produce a new tech every 4 turns witch put me about 10 techs ahead of the other 6 civs on another continent.

Basicly the AI is realy poor...while he may expand fast he has no concept of defense...i just blitzed him and everytime it worked......the AI can apear good if you let him out tech you and build more military units but he realy sucks....if you wage war from day one you will dominate all civs easyly.....

Trust me Yang is way more chalenging than anything this game throws at you....If your good at SMAC it should take you about a week to figure out how to mold this AI and dominate everytime...this AI will not ever suprise you....it will never want to be the real dominant factor in the game....

I still learn stuff when i play SMAC....in CIV3 all the civs act the same to a tee and i have figured out how to realy kick them in the nuts...there is no point in going on with this game now that i have masterd it...maybe if there was MP but i doubt this game could stay together online if that was even an option.


I do not recoment CIV3 if you love SMAC...you will be disapointed

[Googlie]

Re: Patches? I don't need no stinkin patches!

Originally posted by civcop

What bugs do they fix Googlie? I have the latest version of SMAC...do I still need the patches?

Also, how was that in the picture avatar under your name? It's too small for me to make out (looks like a man on a stage in his underwear) and it bothered me to not be able to figure it out.

If you have the latest version (v 4.0 for smac, v 2.0 for smax), you have all the patches

When in the game, hit Ctl and F4 together to check your version. If it's earlier than those above, you need the downloads.

(Alternatively check your readme.txt - that should show what version you have and will also detail all the changes since the original release).

And the avatar is a cricketer - a bowler (actually bowling a 'googlie' from whence comes the name

G.

[Drago Sinio]

Googlie: Your comments on the speed of the program I agree with. My machine is is an older one and can just barely run the game. I guess thats the animations causing that, which I turned off. Still a bit slow, but then again my comp. is three years old, time for an upgrade I guess.
I disagree with you on the interface though, I like it. I find I use the right click for most things I need to do in the cities, and I also use the F1 screen to see an overall view of whats going on. I really like the way you can see what the city is building and when it will grow on the main map . Thats a good idea. And I turned on a function that shows a cirlcle in the Civs color around each unit. Makes them easy to see and recognise to whom they belong.

Flubber: On the G. leaders, what civ were you playing? The militaristic civs have an easier time with the leaders. If you play as Rome for example and build the Heroic Epic wonder you will have great leaders flying out of your ears in no time.

As for the manual, well, ....

[Flubber]

Hey Drago-- long time no see--


My civs to date have not been militaristic and I know that that reduces the chance of a GL but it does not change my point. GLs are huge for wonder building and if they remain as they are for MP, I can see whole games turning on the luck of how and when they are created. Even if you get one or two, you might lose out on some important wonders simply because the random number generator gave a GL to an opponent a couple of turns earlier


Is the difference with a militaristic civ that large?? because if it is then perhaps I might switch my approach and go militaristic. Even the ability to rush that forbidden Palace would be nice.


It just strikes me that Great Leaders are one of the most powerful game-changing elements in the game and they are determined by luck. If it was more stable, say a GL appears after an elite unit wins its 15th battle as an elite (say 12th for militaristic civs) against non-barbarians-- then it is something to accomplish and work for-- creating GLs would be a goal not dependent so much on luck