There should be NO replies to this post if I'm right.

[lockstep]

I like Civ3. I even like the fact that Firaxis chose to strip down quite a lot of Civ2/SMAC features so that the the AI can be challenging. But Social Engineering should have been the exception to this design rule - it is superior in every respect compared to Civ3's government system.

[aahz_capone]

hmmm... I don't agree there lockstep. Stripiing down SMAC was a mistake. Hell, I didn't KNOW there was anything to strip down in civ2 until I saw that civ3 hasn't got engineers, refrigeration, etc.

IMHO, SMAC was the most replayable game BECAUSE there were so many options and complexities, each a variable in itself.

That's why the so called drug addiction theory led hard core SMAC fans to become SMACaholics, with SMACdiction to SMAC. Hell even the word SMAC sound like drug. InSMACification can SMACup your whole life.

[ACooper]

SMAC SUX!

If Firaxis even thinks about making Civ 3 into something like SMAC I'll be worse than Lib and Yin combined!!!!!

Keep It Simple Stupid. The KISS principle applies. Millions (Billions?) of Checkers players can't be wrong.


Maybe someday there will be a SMAC 2, but please leave our Civ games alone.

[Mars]

I agree with bigfree1, civ3 in many ways was a disappointment, the only good additions in my opinions were culture, AI and graphics. Everything else were superior in either civ2, ctp, ctp2, or SMAC. They even got rid of some fundemantal civ2 stuff like even the most basic of basic scenario creaters. (yes that was in the orginal version, you could at least put down units and cities, change knowledge for different civs, in fact for those who never owned the orginal version everything in MGE's cheat mode bar is from the first release of civ2.) Things like MP weren't added. Combat was made incredibly more simple (i made a model for it in C++ class in like five minutes) and dumbed down. If you think the armies were new play ctp where not only there are armies but good versions of them (in ctp you not only had to be a strategition but also a tactican. You could defeat superior groups in numbers by having shortranged in the front with flankers on the side and ranged out of harms way in the back. Also you didn't have to pay to build armies you automatically got the ability along with everyone else.) and the government system of SMAC (which far outstripped any other systems government system i've seen yet).

Don't get me wrong I'm not totally against the game, in fact it is an ok game, but i'm very disappointed in its presentation and elements, and think it could have been done extremely better

BTW, MOO3 sounds like a promising game. It sounds as though they're adding a horde of new cool features you should check it out.

[Brutus66]

Since the patches fixed so many of the things that aggravated me earlier, there are a lot of things that I like. One single simple thing remains that really keeps me from loving it: no MP. It's just that simple for me. Its GOT to have MP or it's just yet another dull single player experience.
Oh well, the wife and I will be playing Empire Earth until they finally get Civ3 right.

[Mars]

I'm sorry ACooper but what you say contradicts itself. I bet that the majority of people on this board wouldn't mind some aspects of SMAC be included in fact i bet the majority at least liked the game if not loved it.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Mars
I'm sorry ACooper but what you say contradicts itself. I bet that the majority of people on this board wouldn't mind some aspects of SMAC be included in fact i bet the majority at least liked the game if not loved it.

Contradict myself? How? My point is that Civ games are best left simple, strategic games, not the crap that was SMAC.

[GePap]

Simple?

Simplicity is both a fuction of the number of rules and the clarity of them- I found SMAC more simple than civ3 because, while there are morethings to do, they follow simple patterns and are sensible. What about a gopvernment just collapsing in the middle of a war, when all cites are in WLTKD? That's chaotic, not simplistic.

Civ2 had far more than Civ, and was a far better game. I don't mind the Unit Gallery gone- for Civ it makes no sense. I don't mid things like the fungus gone and so forth, but the diplomacy and internal management in SMAC was, if more numerous, far more entertaining and player friendly than Civ3. Players had choices in SMAC, choices that allowed them to make their socio-political situation fit to their playing style. In civ3, you must conform to the few given standards or fail. Look at all the crap over MPP and trying to figure out when to go to war with a dem, how long before, if not relegious, to go into a long and sometimes crippling revolt to change over to communism if you think you won't make it fast enought to win with a dem. The whole great leaders! I mean, that is just based on randomness, and there is nothing more complex than randomness.

Social enginnering was a great advancement for TBS in SMAC. That Fixaris got rid of it is sad.

[godinex]

No, You are wrong

[Mars]

Godinex why don't you clairfy your stance, kinda left us standing there by not giving us a reason why we're wrong. (Or are you just a spamer )

I also agree with GePap, the great leaders were often unbalancing as well. I don't think i ever saw the AI come at me with an army. There are ways to make things more optionable, fun and complex code wise without making them hard for the user to understand. The only thing civ3 achieved was a simple code for the basic functions. You can code civ2 combat seriously in less than 15 minutes easy even if you're just a middle of the line programmer like my self. Prehaps even a beginner(that is to say they didn't make it blaringly more complicated than they had to with the results they achieved).

[Guest]

ACooper, you are WAY off base calling SMAC crap! Have you ever seriously played it, I don't think so, because if you had you would have had more fun with it than you do now with Civ3.

This, of course, is based upon the assumption you're a reasonably intelligent individual. But maybe since you called SMAC 'crap', well, maybe we shouldn't assume too much about you......

[aahz_capone]

I can understand some people don't like 'sci-fi' and thus found it hard to get into SMAC and thus never played more then the demo, but if you are in anyway happy with civ2 or ctp you'd put faith in SMAC and learn to love it.

I don't understand how someone wants to KISS. Granted too much complexity can make the chance of unbalancing increase, but if you want to KISS, go back to playing tic tak toe.

[ACooper]

I have owned and played Civ, Civ 2 (and all its X-packs), SMAC/SMACX, CtP, CtP2, MOO. I gave SMAC a serious try, even bought the expansion pack. I found the replayability suspect because it always came down to the same types of games. Not that that is a much different than most TBS games. The best game ever was Civ1. It was simple yet had many different ways to play.

Before you question a person on their intelligence I suggest you get some facts yourself. I do not like SMAC. Never have, never will. You like it, fine. I come to this board to discuss CIV 3, not some game that is a second rate sister to the Civ series.

[The Andy-Man]

but i is 2nd rate for a civ game. civ 3 is like the diot bastard son of the civ series.


SMAC was a very involving game that, becasuse of the Sci-fi aspect, i personaly had a little trouble with, but the game was fun all the way through, it implemented many civ3 things properly (borders worked great in SMAC, and so did bombardment). If they just made and XP for SMAC that set it on earth with earth civs in 4000BC, then you have a fantastic civ3 right there.

[aahz_capone]

That wouldn't be too hard, andy-man. Invent the wheel, invent riding, you can design a chariot. Armour it with iron. Put bowmen on it. Using the SMAC style unit builder can work perfectly in ancient times. Don't see why they didn't do it.