didnt you all really want SMAC on earth?

[Louis XXIV]

I like SMAC's Planetary Council, and most of the faction diplomacy. I love Civ 3's trade (and trade is more influential in history than the UN).

I think Government custimization would be "nice to have." (Although the one thing SMAC had was someone who did not micro-manage governments could still continue, because the basic government had no advantages or disadvantages, aside from what your civ had).

I do not want unit custimizing (That definetly feels out of place).

The live terraine is nice (No, not xenofungus that trys to kill you)
Forest could expand, mountains errode, etc.
Weather would be nice (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Snow Storms, Draught, and the "now implimented" disease).

I think Barbarians act sort of like Mind Worms (although they are obviously not as creepy, and are downright weak later on, but that's another topic).

I'll still play SMAC occasionally (or just watch that cool opening video), but the games colors make it depressing.
I considered getting the expansion, but I heard that some of the new factions were completly un-balanced (so what's the point, if I don't include them).

[Master Zen]

I agree that SMAC's colors are not ideal. They kinda get you angry after a few hours of play.

My only other gripe is that it is too similar to Civ2 to really qualify as a "new game", it's more like Civ2.5 in space. It's the Civ2 engine going as far as it can, and succeeding admirably.

The real deal is that these games did not dissappoint when they came out, something that Civ3 did, and it is only superior thanks to its patches and especially PTW.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
SMAC is to Civ3 as Russia is to America. America may seem pretty on the outside, but once you get right down into it....Russia is always a superior country

You're funny, Tass.

[Ubergeek]

Oh, one other thing I wish had been carried over from SMAC: the ability to subjugate a defeated nation. I would much rather be able to make a badly-outclassed nation a reliable satellite than have to screw around hunting down every last one of their cities and settlers because you know they'll always be a pain in the a$$ if you don't.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
Oh, one other thing I wish had been carried over from SMAC: the ability to subjugate a defeated nation. I would much rather be able to make a badly-outclassed nation a reliable satellite than have to screw around hunting down every last one of their cities and settlers because you know they'll always be a pain in the a$$ if you don't.

Yes please. I would like to be able to have the remnants of a defeated civilisation as a vassal or protectorate. There need not be any tribute involved (probably prefer it if the master has to pay the client state a modest subsidy), just take control of their foreign policy, they can't declare war but they join you in war. Perhaps they could trade with whomever they please? They should be able to throw if the yoke if you make too many demands on them.

[Verto]

How exactly did 'subjugation' work? I never played the game, sounds interesting.

[CivPatriot]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV

The live terraine is nice (No, not xenofungus that trys to kill you)
Forest could expand, mountains errode, etc.
Weather would be nice (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Snow Storms, Draught, and the "now implimented" disease).

I agree that more dynamic terrian should have been incorporated, altough the erosion of mountains are too long term for even the vast scale of Civ. I wish that forest expanded and contracted, with pollution having more of an effect on a terrian tile than just while its present(or limit the ability to full clean up a pollution tile till really advanced tech is aviailable?).

Weather as a random event would be nice, since its a proven fact that climate changes have had a dramatic effect on history(this coupled with a more dyamic an coherent minor civ or barbarian system whould be awesome(think migrations of minor civs or barbarians to your area or others then becomeing a major civ).

In terms of Random Events, i miss that from SMAC, it makes the game alot less predictible than it currently is. I just wonder why they ingored some great concepts from SMAC when they did Civ3, it almost feels as it they made Civ3 before SMAC and just added the graphics for modern standards.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Verto
How exactly did 'subjugation' work? I never played the game, sounds interesting.

I don't know, as I always said destroying them would be a gift to humanity. Then my spartans (Morgan is just cooler, that's why he's my Avatar) would procede to wipe out the Lord's Beleivers.

[CivPatriot]

I believe that the subjugation worked as like this, at some point in a war(or a series of wars) if you had beaten a faction bad enough, they whould give you virtually anything to survive and if you did, they were greatful enough to you to never bother you again and to do you bidding(kind of like the Warsaw Pact of Russia). I may be wrong, its been awhile since i sat down a played SMAC.

Also, didn't SMAC have an option when you took over a town that had been taken over by another civ(like the Gaians took over a Spartan town and you took that from them) to return it to its previous owner? I think there was but i'm not sure(was a Civ type game i know) that whould have been a nice addition to Civ3(a good way to help out allies in a war as well).

[mrboo123]

last time I checked, you CAN give away cities in civ3...

[CivPatriot]

I know that you can give away cities in civ3. but i was was thinking more along the lines of when City was as a city was captured you were given a set of options

1. zoom to city
2. raze city or the version of SMAC(what ever it was called)
3. Liberatate city(return to original owner).

it was just a quick and easy way to return control of a city back over to the original owner(gained you alot of credit with the faction you helped too). Its just easier than the go to diplo screen give city that's in civ3.

[Inverse Icarus]

i want civ3 with social engineering and a unit workshop.

the problem is, it gets more and more un-civ with each addition like that.

civ is civ is civ. firaxis had a history to cling to when designing the game. perhaps another company (or firaxis) could make another civ-like game with many new elements.

[pedrojedi]

I agree with that. Civ is not just "a game", it became a traditional gaming reference. Each change must be very well thought so it does not make Civ fall into "a different game" category. Which can be good, of course, but is also very dangerous to the series.

[CivPatriot]

I agree that Civ could be damaged by significant changes, but i also think that the Civ series is risking staleness if it doesn't try to venture on new territory.

I think that the social engineering could have been relegated to the modern age(when most of the odd experimentaion with gov'ts began), or at least on a limited basis beforehand(consitutional monarchy, elected monarchy, absolute monarchy, etc just on that kind of gov't alone).

The unit workshop whould have been out of place in Civ3 I think. But i think that the units should be more dynamic and dependant upon the civ (or atleast how the civilization has evolved) than they currently are.

I had hoped that Civ3 would have incorporated the best elements of SMAC Civ2, CtP(I and II) plus new ideas to make it a refeshing and ground breaking game. But oh well, i'll be waiting for Civ4(just not buying it the first day like i did Civ3 or its better predecessors SMAC SMACX, Civ2 and all its XP). Sadly, Civ3 made me far less confident in the series. I like it but, its not as great as its predessors in concept of ideas and in execution.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


You're funny, Tass.

I am simply the bringer of truth to the ignorant masses