SMAC is better

[georage]

SMAC is better.

[shclo]

OK, I'm embarrassed to ask, but what is "SMAC"?

[Compugasm 2]

Without arguing finer points, i agree. SMAC = Sid Meyers Alpha Centauri.

[n.c.]

I agree. Here's to hoping that BHG re-does that game (in which case it will be BRAC).

[yin26]

O.K. I'll give this one a shot:

Care to explain why you feel this way?

[FrantzX]

I must admit being spoiled by SMAC. The things I liked best about it were the tech and building voiceovers, SP movies, and the factionial idealogy. With Civ III, under their belts, imagine how a SMAC II, would be like.

Dear GOD!! Mirian or Yang + the Civ III AI =

[minmei]

SMAC/SMACX is different.

SMAC lets you completely customize your units. Any offense + any defense + any movement as long as you know the tech and can pay the cash.

SMAC diplomacy is laughable, even if you don't like Civ3 dip it's more realistic than SMAC dip (If you're in the lead everyone hates you.)

SMAC has 2X wonders to build and you can rush them. No leaders, but stacks. Naval power wimpy, aerial beats all. Half the time it's a rush to copters, then copters blow everything away.

Resources sometimes suck in Civ3, but it makes you play a more balanced game instead of rush your military/research/whatever and wipe the world with your power.

Different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I disagree, and echo Yin's point (who'd have thunk it ) to ask why.

And remember, Yin and I were basically on opposite sides of the SMAC spectrum. I genually liked it, Yin thought it deeply flawed.

[Lord_Myst]

What Happens to Bad Companies

What happens to bad companies that release poor products is they go out of bussniess. A good example is Origin Systems. They use to release THE best RPG games in the bussiness fifteen to ten years ago. The early Ultima series set the standards for RPGs that RPGs still follow today. However, in later years, they started releasing games that, like Civ 3, were nothing more than beta tests. (Example: Ultima 8,9 + Ultima Online.)

These days Origin Systems is no more.

To answer the original question of this thread, I also think SMAC is a superior game. Some examples:

1) A border system that actually works. This "culture" system returns the big problem of Civ 2: another Civilization plops a city down right in the middle or in a remote corner of your nation, leading to the swiss-cheese effect of cities. I don't see the French deciding they can own the end of Cape Cod because we "aren't using it."

2) being able to create a building cue for cities.

3) Being able to stack units so I don't have to move my 10 Chairots across the map one at a time!

4) Being able to tell an inferior or "conquered" Civilization to STOP waging war on my friend or ally Civilization.

5) The supply unit to add releases from useless map squares.

[Jeje2]

Re: What Happens to Bad Companies

First I would like to say that Yesterday I just quitted playing Civ3, becouse disliked the whole idea of playing it. (I think I really need the patch, or then just a short break from getting civilized.)

Originally posted by Lord_Myst
To answer the original question of this thread, I also think SMAC is a superior game. Some examples:

1) A border system that actually works. This "culture" system returns the big problem of Civ 2: another Civilization plops a city down right in the middle or in a remote corner of your nation, leading to the swiss-cheese effect of cities. I don't see the French deciding they can own the end of Cape Cod because we "aren't using it."

Amen.
I'm also getting bored with this. Though if the AI would not walk over my area I could live with it. (If he sends a boat around - he may take the land.)

2) being able to create a building cue for cities.

Try pressing shift-down and select your cues in Civ3. So IMHO in Civ3 this is better. (OK, deleting is a bit to hard)

3) Being able to stack units so I don't have to move my 10 Chairots across the map one at a time!

Wow! How do you do that in SMACX?

4) Being able to tell an inferior or "conquered" Civilization to STOP waging war on my friend or ally Civilization.

Yup, sure liked this.

5) The supply unit to add releases from useless map squares.

Used quite rarely..

6) But I liked the different, but yet equally usefull choises in Social engineering options. In Civ3 I go directly to Democracy and that's it.

7) Also I somehow learned to like the much aclaimed unit workshop.
(And yes it was hard to separate the units)

And have only played in SMAC/SMACX one game on diety level sofar. (My last one) So some potential still excists in SMAC for me.

(But I do consider Civ3 to be a uncut jewel - the potential excits)

[Turnipshooter]

Yea SMAC has way more little things that make it better

Nerve staple

cultral absorbtion in civ 3 is stupid...especialy when 20 military units disapear in a city that changes sides

custom units

orbital incisions

you find yourself being overwhelmed by Yang way to early in the game? churn out some bio weapon jets and you have a chance at geting ahead....if the mind worms dont get to agitated at you

mind worms were cool...even tho i hated them to death

playing the map of Chiron on the hardest difficulty with CEO Morgan is way more challenging than Civ 3 on diety

The movies and those speechs in SMAC were killer

Governments in SMAC were cool too

probe teams rocked

AI in SMAC knew how to balance growth/production/wonder building/security and offensive capabilitys

Global diplomacy was had a better system

Planet Busters were not to powerfull....if you used one you get every psycho wanting to kill ...plus mind worm hordes in 20 turns and melting polar caps








Actualy CIV 3 AI is realy retarded.....im about to beat diety setting....game started managed to build one extra city before i saw 3 other civs encroching on me with citys...was like wtf they already have 4 citys each while i havent even got the pop back from my one settler that i made.....so im like "screw them" started churning out archers...took the chinese capital with horse resources....stared churning out horseman...whiped out the chinese,germans,russians and french by 600AD ( French were the lead technologist who i purchansed all my techs from till i became the leader with there fall)....

i did all that with the Japanese pretty good civ yet challenging because you can not upgrade anything into Samuri for some reason...well i didnt check swordsman but sorry units with no retreat and low defense are useless.

Lets get into why the AI is retarded tho...
1 he cant defend his citys worth a crap....
2 they will let me suck there gold production from cheesy things like comunications and world maps...
3 they sell techs
4 the idiots will have 3 citys left and still try to build sistine,coprinicus and magelalans while i have a horde of fast units outside his city walls.
5 The AI will hardly ever fight eachother...witch makes me own a huge continent while the other 8 civs have wee lil nations on the other continent

You play CIV 3 on regent or below and the games way to easy...play monarch and above and theres only one way you can win and that waging constant war from day one becuase the cheesy AI just reproduces so retarded like not giving one care about security or stability.\ and if you dont he will get to a point where he so out produces you it isnt even funny.

[yin26]

I also find the government choices too limited, Jeje. All in all, it looks like Civ3 is about 1/2 to 3/4 of the game they wanted it to be. It's so evident that Firaxis basically had to give an order: 'Alright! Anything not already in the game ... and serveral things you are working on now ... need to be forgotten! Our one and only goal at this point is to provide the basic game by the end of October. If it sells, we try to add back in some stuff. If it flops, we suck it up and try for a comeback on the next title.'

All the while, staff was hired for Sim Golf. It's like a bad soap opera.

[yin26]

play monarch and above and theres only one way you can win and that waging constant war from day one

Yes, that certainly seems to be the easiest way to go about it. All my Monarch games are going that way. Unless I kill my neighbors and get that big land mass early, I don't ever seem to stand much of a chance. This is fun until you realize that once you *do* have that landmass, there's not much satisfaction in finishing the rest of the game because the civs themselves begin to play it safe and time just rolls on ...

[SITS]

Also the big thing that SMAC has going for it is multiplayer....

Whereas I like (very much) some aspects of Civ 3 it doesn't provide the same atmosphere that SMAC has. At the moment it feels much more of a click-fest than the experience provided by SMAC. A combination of the two (with the bugs fixed) would certainly make me a happy camper....

[Turnipshooter]

Ohh forgot to sum it up......All things considered Civ 3 is a realy linear game....

The AI will not surprise you like in SMAC

Like say your the belivers and your leeching your techs from the university till he builds that wonder that negates all probe team actions and then university get the space elevator and starts droping veteran Anti-mater singularity drop hover tanks on your continent.

Or your the Morganites and Yang is trying his zerge on you but your managing to fend him off. When he strikes a deal with the belivers who out of nowhere drop a buster on 2 major production centers...(miram was so willing to use busters in every game i played if she could get the tech...was pretty cool...stupid psycho lady).

Or the global council decides to make nerve gas legal.

the list can go on for days

One tactic for victory with no surprise's is not going to keep me interested in this game very long...

the AI needs more than one personality.....

some should be more warlike towards any civs not just yours...

Some should not worry as much about expansion and focus on security.

AI has one personality right now....and iv mastered his sillyness


I wouldnt care so much if i could play some real peeps