CTP-The True heir to civilization

[scipio]

I saw on the SMAC site that some reviewer said that SMAC is the true heir to the civ series. I have to contest this because I always thought the most facinating part of civilization 1 and 2 was not the great gameplay, but the chance to re-write history. We have all taken various history courses and know how it went basically. I love the ability to use earth's true history as a reference point and to see just how I can make my own history different.
Sure Civ is a great strategy game, and SMAC is a great strategy game too. But SMAC can never give me that great feeling of crushing the French because they just got too close to me....

[LordStone1]

Totally...being the English chasing the French all across Asia into India over 2000 years doesn't compare to some border skrimishes between Sister Miriam and Yang.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I was more angry I'd tell you off, but I understand why it is called the "true heir". Why? Because of Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds, Jeff Briggs! Also, because it is taking over from the end of Civilization, and is not a remake: a true sequel. Many are praising AC. Come join the enlightened ones. We are waiting.

Imran Siddiqui

[Akbar]

(applauding Scipio and Lordstone, laughing heartily at Imran) You will pay SMACer don't worry......

Scipio did you hear about Dan Rather's true identity yet. See off-topic.

[Chuckles]

More like an illegitimate child than the hier apparent.

[St Leo]

I fully support Imran in his evaluation of the two games.:-)

[scipio]

I saw that. I would have never guessed Dan Rathers true identity. Congrats to Lordstone!
oh, st leo... the CTP defector...I remember seeing you here last summer....now you have turned to the dark side. Well actually, like I said, I am sure the full version(i only have the demo) is a great strategy game, it just lacks what made civilization great for me.

[Jackal]

In my opinion the question which game is the best is not important. The question is do you like a historical turn-based strategic game or a science fiction turn-based strategic game. Maybe both.

I agree with Imran that SMAC is a sequel and CTP a remake. But (like scipio) I am attracted to the historical part of CTP. I like science fiction (Star Wars, Star Trek, books by Asimov, comics), but I'm not attracted to the story of SMAC.

I played CIV I a lot. My experience with CIV I and the info on this site make me very enthousiastic of CTP, but I will not buy CTP before seeing the demo (the demo will probably be available before CTP is released in Europe, so I won't have to wait that long).

[Colon™]

Forget SMAC, forget CTP, buy Imperialism II.

Serious, both games have their advantages and disadvantages.

I playe the SMAC demo, and I like the borders, the "goverment" system, and the concept and story (starting whole over again with a clean sheet without having to think "this is historical incorrect") but I'm not sure about the AI.
But it has the replay. (In my demo the replay is in, so I guess it will be in the game as well)

About CTP, I dunno, I'll have to try the demo first, but I like what they've done against the micromanagement and the trade.
I hope there will be a way to get 32 civs, which should offer great scens.
Basicly it's more of thesame, but that thesame is something I like.
Also the new goverments and the sea and space coloisations are very interesting.

[Daniel Frappier]

I have bought SMAC even if I suspect I probably won't play much with it after the release of CtP.

Sure SMAC look like it will be a great game, even if I had not the time to pass full judgment on it. 85 % of it is Civ II, base management is exactly what City management used to be, only names and appearance have changed (plus more options to tell the AI how to manage the base).

SMAC add some cool features like... (well you know them already). It only 2 drawbacks I see are poor terrain graphics that makes gameplay harder because you have difficulty telling what is what and a technology tree that is alien as the planet.

I can't wait for CtP, the design is brillant, (even the most die hard fan of SMAC will have to agree that it's design is much more ambitious then SMAC), and the possibilty almost endless but I am afraid the programmers will have a hard time delivering on that design, particularly the A.I.

[St Leo]

I like the terrain graphics due to their grimness. SMAC is the first game that's I've seen(not really) that has dark terrain and it looks cool.

P.S. How is CtP ambitious? It just redoes the Civ thing and adds some stuff like some silly units and sea colonies that also appear in SMAC. Oooh, ambitious!:-)

[LordStone1]

Yea, I thought that "ambitious" thing was funny. Neither SMAC and CTP are that ambitious. Ambitious would be making Civ into a RTS game (god forbid). CTP is a update of Civ with new units and new concepts and SMAC is the sequel to Civ, on a new planet.

[Daniel Frappier]

It's not that I dislike the appearance of the terrain, it's just that I have a great deal of difficulty telling wich sqare is good for food and wich one is good for energy, etc. all the sqares looks a lot a like. I did not had time to play a lot yet, maybe it will improve a lot as I get use to the graphics.

I am getting a great deal of respect for SMAC each and every day as I get more acquainted with the game. I did not think of bying the game at first since I dislike sci-fi games.

I think CtP is ambitious in it's design because while SMAC keeps the core of Civ II and adds a lot of complexity, CtP throw up a lot of what made Civ II so great. At the core is city management and the relationship between food-shields and trade that is totally new. I know it may not sound like a lot but I think it will have a profund impact on gameplay. Most of everything else is also different and getting the A.I. to use all those new strategies got to be difficult. So let me know what you think

[Stormhound]

Each game has its own claim. SMAC is the sequel; CTP is the remake. I'm not sure it makes any difference...at least, in terms other than ego...which one gets the holy mantle of "heir to Civ II". I mean, really...all that matters to me is whether the games are any good. My comments come as a devotee of the turn-based strategy game...it's really my favorite genre by far.

CTP looks like it could be really good. Haven't seen much, and certainly haven't seen a demo, but what I've seen promised will be good IF DELIVERED. I hope it IS delivered, because I rather imagine I'll be buying the game. But at this stage, it's still a pig in a poke, like most games, and I've heard lots of sizzle but not yet tasted steak. I've seen unit lists and feature lists and neat graphics, but I haven't seen it all working. Until I see how it plays, how it flows, how it WORKS, I won't know if it's any good.

SMAC, I can evaluate. It's got a few bugs, it's got a few things I don't like, a lot of things I do. It's missing a thing or two that CTP is supposed to have. But having taken some bites, I can definitely pronounce it a steak and not Spam. It's good, and I think it'll get the patches it needs to be a lot better than good.

They're two different games. I'd suggest sticking to evaluating them on merit (keeping in mind that "merit" varies widely from person to person), and leaving the p***ing contests to the lawyers.

[TCO]

I'm still playing Civ2. Should I move to CTP or to SMAC?