SMAC/Civ III comparision

[n.c.]

Re: Why does it suck?

1. it doesn't make sense: the topic generally dealt with Civ III, which suggests a forum area; I have no idea what this "Community" area is supposed to be

2. the thread had an interesting discussion going before it moved here (I predict at most one more comment on the thread subject)

But it's Mark's site, he can do whatever random thing he likes.

[MarkG]

the Community part of this forum are meant for things that are common for the entire or a part of the civ community. comparing two civ games is one of these things....

[Garth Vader]

Well this sucks. They aren't including most of what I liked about SMAC

[MarkG]

Originally posted by n.c.
Russia changed from Police State/Planned to, well, what ever the heck it is now.

mafia state

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.

true, but an 16bit earth-colores elevated rotatable map would be great

[TCO]

Mark,

Please reconsider your decision.

This kind of thread fits much better with the Civ3 forum than this one.

[Provost Harrison]

Well the two will be different games, but I consider SMAC to be a considerable move up from Civ2, and was a lot more adventurous in the methods it used. I would have liked to see in civ3 a graduated experience system and some form of social engineering, modified of course to make it more suitable to the context of the game. It would be a shame to lose some of the better features of SMAC...

[n.c.]

Thanks, GP.

Originally posted by MarkG
comparing two civ games is one of these things....

I at least now know the rationale (wrong as it may be).

Garth and PH- My sentiments exactly. The major adopted improvements are the build queueues (?) and colonies, which are good, but that's not enough.

MarkG- Mafia state is correct. I must be the only guy that doesn't care about a map!