Is Alpha Centauri better than Civ 3?

[Windwalker]

I am asking the question because I keep hearing people talk about how such and such a feature was in SMAC but not in Civ III... It seems as if the gameplay in Alpha Centauri is more developed, from what y'all are saying... So, purely in terms of gameplay (no historical or realism considerations), is Alpha Centauri better than Civ III? Professional reviews have given the edge to Civ III, but I think a lot of reviewers would feel pressured to give Civ III a great score, no matter what they think of it...

So what do you think? AC > Civ III?

- Windwalker

[Patashu]

for a start, you could have done a poll...

[Rhuarc]

why does it matter if he did a poll or not?!?!?!

Anyway, In my opinion as far as gameplay goes I think that Civ3 is better. I know there are some features missing, but I just like the feel of civ3 better. I know there are a lot of people that disagree greatly, but this is my opinion!!

[Harovan]

I like SMAC, but overall think, Civ3 is better. In SMAC, I especially like the diplomacy, and the unit workshop. This one probably can't be implemented in Civ3. And the "fun" factor is greater in SMAC, but that is highly subjective. In general, I prefer Civ3.

[The Andy-Man]

i luved SMAC.

but the fungus was soetimes a lil annoying, but different. and sometimes there were to many units that seemed the same.


but SMAC is WAY better then Civ3, even had bombardmet. if only it had the new take on air units and was set on earh. Civ2 SMAC edition.

[BustaMike]

SMAC is a million times better.

[Yook]

*de-lurks*

I stopped playing Civ3 a couple days after the latest patch came out. Hadn't really played it since a few days after the last patch came out. I like it well enough, but I just wasn't having any /fun/ playing it.

I recently re-installed SMAC, and I have been having a blast. Not sure why, but it's just fun. And the atmosphere is great, with all the incidental quotations and the wonder movies (which /did/ get tired after three games or so, but for those three games I was making wonders just to see the movie).

Anywho, for me, SMAC is more fun. I don't know which is a better game. I don't necessarily /want/ to work real hard to enjoy a TBS, and I don't necessarily enjoy having to carefully plan out a war and organize a combined-arms army, etc. I just want to run out there with some units and play a bit. *shrug*

Though, in small doses, Civ3 has proven to be excellent fun. Just not lately, and most definitely not in a whole game context.

*re-lurks*

-Yook

[elfstorm]

I like SMAC.

Civ3 is very good but it just seems a bit... rushed.

Hopefully when (if?) Fireaxis do a major new expansion pack they'll include some of the stuff SMAC had.
Especially the world council thing, which was great.
And better diplomacy.
Civ3's sucks.

[Method]

i do kinda prefer SMAC to civ, because of many features in it namely social engineering and unit workshop made it so different from civ though i understand how they couldn't really be adapted to civ. unit workshop wouldn't really work, the game being about history and everything, but social engineering could have maybe been adapted. in the end i bought civ3 because i wanted to play the game on EARTH again with GREEN land and light blue water and because it seemed to be a decent game. and really it is with resources and culture and all that but still i miss many features from SMAC. The main problem with Civ2 was that all the civs were the same but civ3 has sortof fixed that problem. SMAC factions still have more personality though.

[Persepolis]

I prefer SMAC, or Alien Crossfire, but playing without aliens.

[Guest]

As currently implemented: SMAC>CIV3

Future patching/updating could of course change this.

[Windwalker]

I have a question for all of you SMAC lovers... For those who didn't post why, can you please explain why you like SMAC over Civ III?

Also, how does the AI compare between the two games?

SMAC dominates in the features department, no?

Is SMAC challenging without the AI cheating (or is it about equal to CIv III in that respect, in that AI cheats in order to be competitive)?

Is SMAC more replayable than Civ III? For this, strategic depth of options would probably be the main consideration...

Is SMAC more fun than Civ III? People who've posted so far seem to think so...


If that is the case, what are all of you doing playing Civ III instead of SMAC? Or are most of you playing SMAC as well currently?

Thanks for the responses...
- Windwalker

[ixnay]

I think SMAC is a great game, and I also think that even with its problems, CivIII is a good game. I'm playing civ right now, though, as I managed to completely overdose on SMAC last summer (i tend to do that with games) and since I got civ3, I've just been playing that. I have no doubt, though, that if I were to start up a game of SMAC, I'd be hooked again...

[BustaMike]

There are a bunch of reasons I liked SMAC better...

1. More personality - Morgan and Yang were great. The quotes with tech were cool. Some of the wonder movies were hilarious, namely the longevity vaccine.

2. WAAAAY more flexibility in playing style. Builder, hybrid, borg, etc. were all very viable options and you could succeed no matter how you played if you used that strategy correctly. Civ 3 seems to force you to play one way or get your ass handed to you from the AI.

3. Unit workshop and social eng were cool, but I guess you can't really have those in civ3.

4. MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!!

5. Combat seemed much more fair. In civ3 I seem to lose battles I should never lose and that stupid random number seed (if it is really random) can't be changed by reloading. This should at least be an option like it was in SMAC with ironman.

6. Bull**** AI favoritism - I admit the AI is way smarter in Civ3, but in civ all the AI's seem to team up against you from the beginning, not to mention the AI's hatred for the human player screws other features of the game. The trading of resources and luxuries is a really cool idea, but as I've seen posted numerous times the AI will only be happy with a trade along the lines of "my saltpeter and iron and money for your gems". That's a terrible deal but the AI won't accept any other. On the other hand the AI opponents will make very generous deals with each other. IMO, this is a bunch of crap and really ruins the game for me anyway. There are 2 solutions for this, make the AI a little nicer (or at least certain civs) and/or release multiplayer. At least I could make a fair trade with another person.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Windwalker
Also, how does the AI compare between the two games?

Civ3's is better, overall. The game is simpler in many ways, so the AI doesn't have to work _nearly_ as hard in Civ3.

SMAC dominates in the features department, no?

Right. The only biggie that SMAC doesn't have but Civ3 does is Strategic and Luxury Resources. SMAC has a number of nifity things Civ3 doesn't. (Unfortunatly, "An AI that can't cope with all the options" is one of them. SMAC also has multi player.

Is SMAC challenging without the AI cheating (or is it about equal to CIv III in that respect, in that AI cheats in order to be competitive)?

No! Nor, of course, is Civ3. Yes, they both "cheat."

Is SMAC more replayable than Civ III? For this, strategic depth of options would probably be the main consideration...

Maybe. SMAC has more "stuff" (techs, improvements, etc.) to explore. I found myself getting bored with it reletively quickly, though, because I didn't think the AI was up to snuff. (Like MoM, if you've played it.) If I was more interested in SMAC multiplayer I might have played it far longer.

There was a big discussion on the "strategic depth" recently. What I got out of it was that civ3's "strategic diversity" isn't as great - you can't pursue "vastly different" strategies from game to game. Civ3 seems to have more "tactical depth", though (the details matter more - mostly because the AI is better). And the pursuit of Strategic and Luxury Resources adds a layer of strategic thinking that SMAC lacks. Hmm.... SMAC had more diplomatic options, and they were interesting... but I like "diplomacy" in Civ3 more because the AI is so much better at the trading-game. It's pretty ruthless.

In Civ3 your "grand" strategy is going to generally be the same from game to game. The "depth" is in executing that strategy against an AI that isn't as clueless as most AIs. In SMAC you can select a number of strategies.... but (after some practice) it's more a matter of simply deciding "How do I want to win?" rather than figuring out "How can I win?" Against another human, though, SMAC is considerably more interesting.

Is SMAC more fun than Civ III? People who've posted so far seem to think so...

If you like Civ3 (or 2, or 1) at all its certainly worth trying. Hmm.... I think the _only_ let down for me was the AI. Up untill I didn't find the AI challenging I had a wonderful time. Multiplayer lasted a little longer, but I have other games I'd rather play with other people.

"As currently implemented: SMAC>CIV3

Future patching/updating could of course change this."

I think that's a good point - Civ3 has some problems, but I don't think there are any big flaws in the system - the flaws are with the values assigned to various things, the "balance." Patches (or your own use of the editor) can make the game much, much better.

Another point I that I think should be mentioned is that there's a difference in the basic design philosophies between Civ2/SMAC and Civ3. Civ2 was "Civ1 plus more stuff." SMAC also has lots and lots of toys - not just interesting features but many techs, units, improvements, etc. etc. Civ3 has fewer everything (the notable exeption being the addition of Strategic/Luxury Resources). I'm satisfied because the AI makes decent use of what the game does have.

So, if you really want a better-than-average strategy game challenge, then Civ3 is the way to go. Or if you want a simpler, more "streamlined" game, Civ3 is the way to go (just don't play it on a very high difficulty level.) If you want a explore a complex game with a not-totally-clueless AI, then SMAC is the way to go. The fun you get out of seeing all the techs, learning how to win, designing units, etc, etc. will be well worth the purchace price.

I think most people fit into the second and third "types" (want a simple game, or want to explore). I'd recommend SMAC over Civ3 to most of the people I know. Civ3 is a game I've been playing a great deal since it came out, and will probably occasionally go back to for years to come because of it's challenge. I played SMAC A GREAT DEAL - I don't know how many classes I skipped - for awhile, but havn't played it since.

My advice: Only buy games when the price is low enough that you can afford several and won't feel bad about tossing (or reselling) the ones you don't especially like. Most people should find Civ3 and SMAC both worth playing.

One more thing: I firmly belive many (if not most) of the most vehament Civ3-detractors (or DiC's, if you will) dislike the game because of that different design philosophy. Civ3 is a worthy _alternative_ to Civ2 or SMAC, it isn't really the successor to either one.

To get back to your first post:

So, purely in terms of gameplay (no historical or realism considerations), is Alpha Centauri better than Civ III?

I think Civ3's gameplay is better - but how, exactly, do you define "gameplay"? For me a good AI is extremely important to "good gameplay." When I buy a game and then don't play it much the reason is almost always poor AI. Hmmm.... I'll go ahead and call SMAC's AI "poor" - in that once a human has really learned the game the AI doesn't have a decent chance of winning. However, I had more than $50 worth of fun "really learning" SMAC.

Professional reviews have given the edge to Civ III, but I think a lot of reviewers would feel pressured to give Civ III a great score, no matter what they think of it...

I doubt if reviewers felt "pressured." I can imagine many being intimidated by the title though, and thinking "If I don't seem to loooove the game people will think there's something wrong with me."

I would say that it got so many good reviews because experienced reviewers were able to get past Civ3's lack of features (compared to SMAC or Civ2) and see through to the excellent game play offered by the improved AI and the interesting new features actually supported by the AI (Resrouces, and trading.). I _would_ say that, but I think a high level of reviwer perspicacity explains only a very few of the favorable reviews...