Which is the beast?

[Alex]

i still play SMAC regularly, at least twice a week, sometimes even more.

[The Mad Monk]

I've been playing SMAC regularly, and recently laid out the cash for SMACX -- via The Laptop Collection.

[Shogun Gunner]

I never got on SMAC.....when I read these postings, I sense that I missed out on a good game....

[Arrian]

I'm still not sold that Conquests is clearly better than fully-patched PTW.

Some stuff is better (some cool scenarios, more civs, new wonders, new traits - which may or may not yet be balanced), but some stuff is worse: the AI's city spacing and worker routines seem screwed up.

Then there is stuff that is neither better nor worse, IMO, like the change to the corruption system (talking about 1.15b now, not the screwyness of the original release and the first few attempts at fixing it).

Fully patched PTW was solid.

-Arrian

[alexman]

Originally posted by Arrian
but some stuff is worse: the AI's city spacing and worker routines seem screwed up.

Not to mention that it doesn't use leaders to make Armies, it bombards coastal city units instead of resources, and the barbarians are lame.

However, I still prefer C3C because overall it feels like the game is more balanced than PTW.

[Brundlefly]

Civ3 is more Beast ly than SMAC...

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Civ3 is more Beast ly than SMAC...

Is that good or bad???

[TheArsenal]

I like C3C, but I have to add my voice to those ranting about the glitch causing the lack of resources.

A game as the Celts last night left me without iron (which I obtained), salt peter (the complete other end of the continent two nations away, so I'm skipping it), coal (near the the salt peter, but I am going to have to war for it eventually), and my gut tells me there’s no rubber near by, although I am few techs short to prove it.

Nothing new to see here, just a vent.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner


Is that good or bad???

I was just trying to answer the question posed in the thread title..

[Arrian]

Originally posted by alexman


Not to mention that it doesn't use leaders to make Armies, it bombards coastal city units instead of resources, and the barbarians are lame.

However, I still prefer C3C because overall it feels like the game is more balanced than PTW.

I'm not sure I agree. Part of it may be resource scarcity (which may or may not be a bug in Conquests, yes?). Often one finds an otherwise powerful AI civ that lacks a key resource (far more common in Conquests than in PTW, where a civ of a certain size could reasonably expect to have the key resources in the majority of games).

Example: my current game. It actually isn't fully mine, since my girlfriend started it. The game isn't necessarily representative in terms of my power vis-a-vis the AI, since an early SGL = free Pyramids and the start position, while not pump-capable, did have access to ivory (which in turn meant that not having iron wasn't a problem at all). It is, however, illustrative of what resource scarcity can do for game balance.

My southern neighbor, China, was either #2 or #3 in size and pop. They had rather nice land, but they lacked something rather important: iron.

I had also lacked iron, but fought the Spanish (the only other civ on our continent) and took 2 resources from them. Thus, when the Chinese "sneak" attacked me, they hit me with a horde of horsemen. That was pretty bad, considering they faced muskets and cavalry. Take away that early SGL and the associated powerboost, and I'd still have had AT LEAST pikes and knights to crush them with. Thus, the #2 or #3 civ (China and Portugal were both strong, and I can't remember which was which) died a very short death, as Cavalry munched up spearmen.

China was a large and populous civ (though the new super wide city spacing thing hurt them). With iron, they would have been rather fearsome, and honestly I probably would have put effort into removing iron from their possession before they got to Chivalry. But without it they were a pathetic paper tiger, and I had been content to leave them be and pursue other things.

I see this a lot in Conquest games. The human can react to the lack of a resource proactively. The AI, on the other hand, does not appear to scheme to get itself iron or coal or whatever.

I think C3C has the potential to be better than PTW, but isn't there yet. Between the city spacing/worker routines, the army thing, the coastal bombardment thing, the lamo barbs, the resources thing, the tech trading thing*... I think things are a little screwy still.

* - The AI seems to place full value on an optional tech that allows a wonder, even if the wonder has been built (Music Theory, anyone?). IIRC, this had been fixed in PTW.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

A game as the Celts last night left me without iron (which I obtained), salt peter (the complete other end of the continent two nations away, so I'm skipping it), coal (near the the salt peter, but I am going to have to war for it eventually), and my gut tells me there’s no rubber near by, although I am few techs short to prove it.

I feel that.

In the game I mentioned in my prior post, my Sumerians faced similar circumstances:

no iron. Ok, take it from Spain. No big deal, since we got Zeus. Archers & AC beat up on Spain and leave them with 3 cities (2 on continent, 1 offshore).

no saltpeter. Ok, capture remaining Spanish cities. Now we have 2 saltpeter (each continental spanish city had one).

coal, check. This we had - 2 sources.

No rubber. Well, almost no rubber. We actually had 1 source inside our borders - next to a city I had snuck in a culture gap on the other main continent to steal incense from Portugal. Upon discovering RP, I learned 2 things: 1) there was 1 source of rubber on my entire continent; and 2) it was as far away from me as it could possibly be. I was, however, already at war with both Portugal (which heavily besieged my incense/rubber town, to the point where I was rushbuying guerrilas and eventually bought 2 alliances to divert their horde of knights/med inf) and China (my neighbor who had the 1 rubber on my continent). Both civs sneak attacked me. I was also in a third war, the one I actually planned on (invasion of the island nation of Greece, or Operation I want their Furs).

Anyway, China is now dead, Greece is dead, and Portugal is just about broken. In fact, if I don't pull up soon, I'll win via Domination. How much you wanna bet I don't have oil?

-Arrian

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Arrian

Example: my current game. It actually isn't fully mine, since my girlfriend started it.

That's what I need - a girlfriend who plays Civ. Then I wont feel so guilty about not spending time with her..

[Shogun Gunner]

Okay, that's a good point about the AI not being able to scheme effectively to grab the resources it needs/lacks/wants. However, previously, it was almost a lock to get one of every resource you need, not luxury, but resource.

So both extremes have their pros and cons. Scarcity makes the game more interesting, but the AI can't adapt. Plentiful distribution of resources makes for a boring level game since the only thing you have to do is build a road to your resource. Why have it there in the first place then?

Still both of these approaches are better than Civ2 where it was just sending caravans around the world for paydays. The resources actually mean something in Civ3.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by bfg9000


That's what I need - a girlfriend who plays Civ. Then I wont feel so guilty about not spending time with her..

Well, then you get into the issue of sharing playing time (unless you have 2 computers which both have civ on them).

My gf doesn't play all that much, and at times does complain about the amount of time I spend playing. But she's been playing more recently.

Unfortunately, we found playing Hotseat no good, and playing "together" in SP doesn't really work. I end up playing. I can't help it.

Me: "No, you don't..."

Her: "What?"

Me: "Well, it's just... you don't want to waste worker turns on a hill tile this early in the game. Road/mine those grasslands, cut the forest, irrigate the plains. Oh, and you need granaries."

Her: "Granaries are evil, they cause disorder."

Me: *sputter* "No, growth is good. Trust me, granary" - and I take the mouse and change a build.

This is how it starts. Flash forward 20 turns, and I'm ordering all worker jobs and picking most city builds.

-Arrian

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Arrian



Unfortunately, we found playing Hotseat no good,

What dont you like about hotseat?