Hypotetic poll: Civ 4 NOW.

[Nubclear]

[QUOTE} cloak, etc [/QUOTE]

Um...? I've never seen cloak before, but remember that I'm a *relative SMACX newbie*

which could end up being completely worthless if you're say the Americans)

Art reflecting life

[BustaMike]

Cloak is in there Tass, though it doesn't come until late in the game. I personally don't use it but I think it lets you ignore ZOC rules which could be pretty useful.

IIRC, Civ3 got rid of ZOC rules... another lacking feature.

[Nubclear]

Speaking of which....Civ3 seemingly got rid of borders as well.
I'm sure everyone has noticed how the AI disregards your borders and if you demand that they respect them too many times....they declare war!!!
And at least while I was playing, this wasn't just a run of the mill type thing. This happend nearly every game.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BustaMike
Have you even played SMAC. There is a FULLY CUSTOMIZEABLE UNIT WORKSHOP which allows you to not only make units with a multitude of combat bonuses and abilities, but also non-combat uses.

Yep, but it always end up being a chopperfest. Much like Civ3 ended up being a ModernArmorfest before the Conquests expansion.

And I played SMAC, I enjoyed it (save for the atrocious palette and general austerity). I know what the game is about, and that it's a rich game. But SMAC's richness compared to Civ3, while true, isn't as extreme as the Civ3-disappointed believe. Civ3's diplomacy system, for example, is very close to SMAC's (the possibility to trade anything for anything), with a good interface. Now, I'm aware there is no peacebrokering nor unit-trading, and I say for long in Civ3 forums it's very wrong.

SMAC has bombardment implemented at least to the degree Civ3 does

Except that planes now work like special long-range bombing units, and not like an ordinary unit that can pass all terrain. The strategy involved with Civ3 planes is much more interesting than with SMAC's bombing units.
As for the rest: non combatant units in SMAC are the heir of the spy/diplomat of Civ2, which have been scrapped for another approach on spying.
And cloaked units / nationality-discreet units, they exist in Civ3. And better yet, they are worth using.

I will concede that the Civ3 trading options are more plentiful than in other Sid games, but anything here is really superficial at best. Sure you have a couple more options but really it still comes down to treaties, alliances, trading techs and cash, and not much else. Any advantage here can be disregarded because the rest of the game is so bad.

Oh, so everything that could make the game good is not worth discussing eh? You have decided Civ3 is bad, so it is forbidden to speak about its qualities?

Civ3 does not have more features than anything. One stinking golden age and one stupid civ specific unit (which could end up being completely worthless if you're say the Americans)

And finding the good timing for one's golden age is a strategy in itself as well, because most people playing with ancient Civs will try to avoid using their UUs until the good time for a golden age preseents itself.
As for the American's UU: now that air combat has been beefed up with Conquests, this unit is far from useless. And even before, the Americans could rely on an excellent set of traits, and their Civ would have been a killer with a late medieval land based UU (such as the minuteman or something)

Not to mention Civ3 has less techs than Civ2 and some of them do absolutely nothing. What the hell is that?

What exactly did Physics and Atomic Theory do?

Civ2 has nice wonder movies

Yep, I too regret those were not implemented in Civ3.

an actual ending (not some crappy you win screen)

That's funny, the crappy you win screen was strangely CG-animated last time I won the space race in Civ3.

Civ3 makes a pitiful attempt to give civ specific characteristics based on who you choose but the system doesn't offer even 1% of the customizeability that SMAC's faction specific bonuses and social engineering do.

This is true, I forgot about SMAC's Social Engineering. The SE was a great thing in SMAC, and only since Conquests did Civ3 have a more interesting take on governments than the simplistic "war / peace" mantra.

Obviously Civ3's AI is going to do much better with this optionless system than it would with SMAC's complex social engineering.

Yep, but you forget to mention there was a very high commitment in providing a good AI in Civ3, in terms of prorammation time. A commitment that goes far beyond what has been done in previous games.

Now about the units. All the Civ3 AI has to do is build the best defensive and best offensive units available at the time based on what tech you have and it's set.

Wrong. The Civ3 AI loves units that have hidden nationality, or pretty much any special bonus out there (and there are many, if you check the editor). I think for example of the Age of Discovery scenario, where AI Civs will try to sink your galleons full of riches with privateers rather than with more powerful (but open) warships.

There's nothing to think about. This isn't the case at all in SMAC. When used correctly, inferior technology can crush superior technology through effective chopper use

This is something I'd be about as ashamed as Howitzer use if I was defending Civ2. In Civ2 and SMAC, end game warfare was pretty "straightfoward" to say the least because of these units, and Civ3 managed to make it a tad more complex already. Now that Conquests is out, end game wars have become significantly more complex thanks to the expanded abilities of air power.

All I'm saying is that the Civ3 AI only looks a lot better because the simplicity of Civ3 gives it no chance to look bad. And I think I've made a pretty stong case.

That's a strong case only if you overlook Civ3's adeptness compared to SMAC's and Civ2's in areas where it's comparable. The most simple example is that Civ3's AI will attack you with many units, and it will have real chances to take some of your cities during a war. Not to mention seaborne attacks on backward parts of your empire. Gah, I just hate losing a city because of some boat full of knights . Also, Civ3's AI weighs better than others when to go to war with you or not. Blatant idiocy happens only when you have manipulated them, or when the random factor plays too much. Lastly, the AI knows how to really rake money from you with maps, communications, resources, luxuries and techs. You can end up paying a real bundle for them.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BustaMike
IIRC, Civ3 got rid of ZOC rules... another lacking feature.

ZOC are here, but are limited to units stationing in forts. OTOH, the function of ZOC (slowing down the enemy) is still here and much better implemented: the enemy simply doesn't use your road or rail network. That explains why there is no more Howitzer assault.

[Asher]

SMAC and Civ3 both suck. So does anyone who likes them.

Civ2 blew too.

[Space05us]

C3 was an improvement over C2 in almost every possible way

skywalker, it hurts me greatly to say this but you are no longer my son. I disown you.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Speaking of which....Civ3 seemingly got rid of borders as well.
I'm sure everyone has noticed how the AI disregards your borders and if you demand that they respect them too many times....they declare war!!!

The AI will pass through your territory if it needs it. It will even declare you war if you block their access too insistently. I remember a game where there was a large free area north of me, and a small inhabitated area south of me. There was only a small passage to North, that I blocked with my units.
The AI got so frustrated at not being able to send its Settlers there that it declared war on me.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
SMAC and Civ3 both suck. So does anyone who likes them.

You wish

[Asher]

I don't like berets, Spiffor.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
nah, civ3 isn't 'CIV.' Its a poor game going under a great name.

So many uncivilized, ignorant people out there to enlighten, so little time.


Civilization III is obviously a great improvement over Civilization II. I love it!!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Asher
I don't like berets, Spiffor.

[Nubclear]

But SMAC's richness compared to Civ3, while true, isn't as extreme as the Civ3-disappointed believe.

Trust me, I've played both games as you have....I even played Civ3 first. If you check my posting history, near the beginning I defended it quite ferociously, BUT....
It does not EVEN compare. You know that feeling when you get in war in Civ when, during the first ten turns, you lose 90% of your maybe 20 city empire? Thats kind of like how badly SMACX slaughters Civ3.

which have been scrapped for another approach on spying.

Which is almost universally critisized as being inferior.

And cloaked units / nationality-discreet units, they exist in Civ3.

What? The privateer and submarine?

You have decided Civ3 is bad, so it is forbidden to speak about its qualities?

Err...The quote you replied to kind of proves he was speaking about it

And even before, the Americans could rely on an excellent set of traits,

Thats another thing about Civ3. The differences that set apart many civs are simply UUs, and nothing else! There aren't enough traits. In SMACX you'll probably never have that problem.

What exactly did Physics and Atomic Theory do?

Granted.

That's funny, the crappy you win screen was strangely CG-animated last time I won the space race in Civ3.

And the last time you won CONQUEST in Civ3? Or perhaps the last time you won the CULTURAL VICTORY? DIPLOMATIC VICTORY?

Yep, but you forget to mention there was a very high commitment in providing a good AI in Civ3, in terms of prorammation time. A commitment that goes far beyond what has been done in previous games.

AKA: Its the thought that counts

the expanded abilities of air power.

Could you tell us of these abilities?

Lastly, the AI knows how to really rake money from you with maps, communications, resources, luxuries and techs. You can end up paying a real bundle for them.

As I mentioned before: Bad diplo AI.

Also...One does have to consider the time differences between SMACX and Civ3. If Firaxis, in their infinite benevolence and thought, decided to revamp the SMACX AI, brush up some graphics, and re-release...?

The AI will pass through your territory if it needs it.

Thus proving my point.

Asher, MrFun, Spiffor.....Does anyone not see the connection here? Firaxis is OBVIOUSLY targetting a different auidence with Civ3....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


Asher, MrFun, Spiffor.....Does anyone not see the connection here? Firaxis is OBVIOUSLY targetting a different auidence with Civ3....

Civilization III is the best civ game by far.

It says so in the Bible (Firaxis version), so it must be true.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Also...One does have to consider the time differences between SMACX and Civ3. If Firaxis, in their infinite benevolence and thought, decided to revamp the SMACX AI, brush up some graphics, and re-release...?

If they change the palette as well, that would be a killer. Unfortunately, the problem is not thinking about the many features of SMAC (especially now that they have been programmed already), the problem is precisely to create a new AI, new graphics, and pretty much a new game.
I hope either Firaxis or BHG will do a modern SMAC one day, because the SMAC universe can offer great things Civ cannot. A successful SMAC2 will blow up Civ3 to smithereens without any doubt. But for now, Civ3 is clearly superior to me, if only because I find real playing pleasure in it, much more than in SMAC or Civ2.