SMAC/Civ III comparision

[n.c.]

Only three levels? Is that a mistake?

Are there other ways in which Civ III will be inferior to SMAC?

[Inverse Icarus]

yes. the "flat" landscapes is a step down IMHO, but maybe thats to "un-civ" for Sid.

[Urban Ranger]

No Social Engineering.

No Unit Workshop.

*sniff*

[connorkimbro]

Actually, I for one am happy with all of those developments.

All the different levels of "veterenness" was ok for SMAC. . but it wouldn't be good for Civ3 i don't think. .
3-d map - i'm neutral about. i don't think it's a step down or a step up, just different. i can't think of any depth it would necessarily add to civ3 that they aren't already getting (being able to see farther from mountains, etc) . .
and i really didn't care for social engineering and i HATED the unit workshop.

[Urban Ranger]

I <em>knew</em> you're going to say that, connor. You party popper

SE is good because you get to find tune your ruling policies. <em>Everybody</em> knows communism is an economic system and not a type of government, right?

The Unit Workshop is good because I can create units that are best suited to my own unique situations. For example, if I have a lot of horses available, I can build exclusively mounted units.

[connorkimbro]

lol UR: . .
i'm move of a fan of set governement types. . along with "ordinances" that you can enact, ala simcity . .
though that probably won't be in, SE is at the bottom of the list. .

[isaac brock]

i'll miss lots of things from smac, but most of them would be hard to implement into civ 3.

I really liked social engineering instead of having anarchy for a turn and having, like four viable government options. you could fine tune your society and make, like 10000 a turn.

I'll miss the orbital probes, those *****es were useful. and you could destroy other probes and defend against missiles at the same time with orbital defense pods.

I hope they give us an option to get rid of flat terrain. Its a step back to make it flat, as far as i'm concerned.

The design workshop was sweet, but it couldn't be put in with civ 3. you could make some pretty sweet units, including a probe boat.

The terraformers and colony pods distinction ws important, but i think civ 3 fixes this somewhat

in smac, secret projects made more of a difference than in civ. they could make or break a faction. I'll miss each of the 34 projects (yes, 34! i want more wonders in civ.)

don't get me wrong, i'm sure civ 3 will set the TBS benchmark. but i will continue to play alpha centauri until it is released, and afterwards.

[isaac brock]

you ****lickers censor the word *****? That's ****ing *****ed up. i hope you guys ***** ponies and recreational vehicles.

[genghisvick]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
No Social Engineering.

No Unit Workshop.

*sniff*

I hated both of those "features".

[Kautilya]

Well one area where Civ3 is necessarily inferior is the basic story with different factions , their philosophical agendas etc. which was pretty compelling. While there will be the option for differentiated civs the basic concept of Civ (ie building your civ from scratch) prevents the designers from taking that too far.

Another area where SMAC will remain superior was the whole interaction between terraforming, the environment and alien life-forms. Things like that can happen on a big scale only towards the end of Civ3 and then not nearly as much.

Again by its very nature you can't get cool technologies like air-flight right till the end of Civ.

So no matter how good Civ3 is ,SMAC will still probably live on ...

BTW I liked SE quite a bit as well.One of the most interesting things about it was the interaction between your SE choices and your diplomatic position with other factions.

I never quite got to like the unit workshop but that's probably because I still haven't played that much SMAC.

[Grim Legacy]

I don't think there are large drawbacks associated with 'flat' terrain. Civ is not a tactical RTS kind of game where individual rocks serve to cover your infantrymen. It's about large areas of a given type, each of which still carries defense/movement specs.

Also, the veteran levels seem fine to me. Even the best RTS so far (Emperor: Battle for Dune) uses only three levels for the units. No need to meddle with a superfluous number of levels, which would be more in place for a wargame.

[n.c.]

MODERATORS- could you make the thread title "SMAC/Civ III comparision"? Please?

Originally posted by isaac brock
The design workshop . . . couldn't be put in with civ 3. you could make some pretty sweet units, including a probe boat.

But those exist in real life. The Soviet "fishing trawlers" off the coast of the US, for example.

Social Engineering also happens in the real world. Look at China: they went from Planned to Free Market (well, almost). Russia changed from Police State/Planned to, well, what ever the heck it is now.

I don't care much about the map; IMO graphics are only of material significance in a shoot 'em up game. Civ III could be based on stick figures if the AI is decent.

connor, as a soldier don't you think that unit moral/ablity/training falls into more than 3 categories? In reality I would think it is on a continum, and thus the more you differentiate the more you reflect reality.

[MarkG]

title edited


thread moved to the Community forum. i'm repeating that such comparison threads are to be posted here....

[n.c.]

Originally posted by MarkG
thread moved to the Community forum.... such comparison threads are to be posted here....

Well, that kind of sucks.

[spartak]

Why does it suck?