Smac

[lorddread]

SMAC I have heard this term used before. What does it mean?

[SpencerH]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

[Inverse Icarus]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centuari

[Purple]

Alpha Centauri

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC for short) has been called Civ in Space or Civ 2.5.

For my money, it is the best-realized of all the Civ's and Civ-imitators, but the science fiction setting puts some people off. If you can find a copy, snatch it.

It's sequel, Alien Crossing (SMAX), is an expansion pack (you need SMAC for SMAX to run), doubling the number of players ("factions"), adding techs, etc.

The two have been combined into a Planetary Pack (or something like that), which probably incorporates all the patches.

Definitely thumbs-up!

[Locus]

IMO SMAC/X is the closest to perfect a strategy game has evercome. I envy you for the discovery that you can and should experience by getting it. I wish I could go back and discover the game again but alas, the AI is flawed and once you learn how to beat it every time, it stopped being as much fun. It took me about 200 games at least to get to that point. Get the game and expansion pack!

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, the SMACAI sucks. I have already figured out the Civ3 AI so it sucks too. There is no difference.

SMAC has more depth than Civ3 by a factor of infinity. PBEM is very good. Compare games, some built on scenarios are very good. Lots of folks are migrating back to SMAC.

SMAC is going to enjoy a revival. Originaly a cult hit it very well may be accepted by TBS mainstream as the definitive gem of the genre.

No offense MOO players....

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yes, the SMACAI sucks. I have already figured out the Civ3 AI so it sucks too. There is no difference.

I think you're utterly wrong.

SMAC is a great game, but if you can't tell the difference between the SMAC AI and Civ3's AI well, then, my opinion of you will just have to stay the same.

[QUOTE]
SMAC has more depth than Civ3 by a factor of infinity. [/QUOTE}

That's also a bit of an exaggeration.

In SMAC you do have more broad strategic choices. Which part of the tech tree to develop, or victory condition to persue, for example. (Yeah, Civ3 has various victory conditions but the system isn't as well done/defined as it is in SMAC.) The "factions" are differentiated more than the civs in Civ3. Much more to the tech tree. In general there's many more "toys" to play with.
SMAC's a great game. A rather _different_ game from Civ3. Civ3 is more about "tactical" decisions, and a heftier challange. And SP play.

[Golden Bear]

I concur. SMAC and X are the top of the genre. An update with buffed up graphics and a better tuned interface would be cool. However, I guess that people would complain that they were ripped off for the buying the same game. Hmm, XCOM could do with new graphics but no gameplay changes.

Allways worth playing. I try to wait several months before approaching it again so that I will forget some of the tricks and force myself to learn some new things.

GB

[Capt Dizle]

Tarq,

I am not concerned of your opinion of me!

But, when I said there is no difference in the AI, this is what I meant.

Smac's AI was really funny if you toggled the scenario editor and watched it. The pathfinding was atrocious. The lack of terraforming was disturbing. Overbuilding of military units and underbuilding of improvenments. It was pretty bad.

By comparison, the Civ3 AI is much better across the board, in part due to the simplification of game mechanics and in part due to better programming. But it doesn't matter.

Why? Because the AI can't learn, it can't evolve. Once you have it figured out, winning is certain, barring lousy starts or cheats like with the production bonuses on diety level.

When I say there is no difference, well, there isn't. Its more tedious to beat the Civ3 AI, not more fun, more entertaining, or more satisfying. There has to be other stuff for the player to do, to enjoy, to experiment with, to lose oneself in. The whole idea of expecting the AI to carry the day is, well, foolish.

jt

[ixnay]

SMAC is a great game...I believe it is still the highest rated game ever in PCGamer, with an incredibly impressive 98%

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Why? Because the AI can't learn, it can't evolve. Once you have it figured out, winning is certain, barring lousy starts or cheats like with the production bonuses on diety level.

Worse yet, the CivIII AI only has one generic strategy, which is modified by "agression factor". As humans we can play a game for a while, and then adopt the most promising strategy as the game evolves. The AI can't do this.

(i.e. provide massive support to all the other civs on the other continent, except England)

Cheers,
Shawn

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

SMAC and SMAX are the best civ style TBS bar none IMHO.

JT like what he says or not brings valid criticism to the gaming realm of both CIV3 and SMAC.

For SP play, if what you really desire is a balanced AI then CIV3 has a slight nod. Point being is as a human you do eventually learn (even a slow poke like me) and ultimately will find a way to best the AI. It was easier to do this for SMAC perhaps then CIV3. But CIV3, again IMHO, appears to formulaic in the best means to win. SMAC had many different approaches to win from early conquer, to build and outtech, to a hybrid approach. AI diplomacy was superior. Goverments were far superior. Unit workshop was a masterful idea if somewhat klugey in its implementation. etc. etc.

So consider the AI's a bit of a draw but a slight nod to CIV3. Features, depth of game, immersibility and replayability orders of magnitude in favor of SMAC.

All these features then fuel the interest in SMAC in its most popular incarnation the multiplayer realm. All the toys make humans drool with anticipation of trying this or that underhanded trick in multiplayer realm.

For me its not even a comparison SMAC easily over CIV3.

Do yourself a favor pick up SMAC in a bargain bin. Course don't blame me when your suffering sleep deprivation.

Og

[MosesPresley]

I'm sorry, but I had to chime in on this SMAC lovefest.

SMAC 4.0 is excellent and near perfect.

SMACX SUX. It is full of gamebreaking bugs and overpowered factions. They, Firaxis, Jeffrey Morris in particular, promised us another patch to address the bugs and never delivered. SMACX is simply shovelware. I know some people enjoy it, but the bugs, paratroopers, naval elevation, and too many others to mention, killed any potential enjoyment of it for me.

[Capt Dizle]

what bugs, there are no bugs in SMAX

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

When I say there is no difference, well, there isn't.
jt

Other than being "much better across the board", OK, I see. You're a really profound guy.

Once you have it figured out, winning is certain, barring lousy starts or cheats like with the production bonuses on diety level.

Well, if you like a challenge, and not just, for example, raising and lowing land, or seeing if your score is 10% higher by following _this_ tech branch, not _that_ one, there _is_ a difference. Sure, eventually I'll learn Civ3 just like I learned SMAC, but it'll take longer. During that extended interval I'll still be having fun with Civ3.

What level did you used to play Civ3 on, anyway?