CTP/SMAC cast your vote..

[Jamie]

I was disapointed in SMAC. I waited and waited for it and then it came and the graphics looked depressing(Though the 3D terrain was nice) and the tech's never seemed real(To abstract). The custom units were nice but on the map it was hard to see what a unit was.
Now I have CTP and am even more depressed.
The interface is clunky and bugy. The tech tree is to fast at the end and to slow at the begining. The wonders are unbalanced and often you or the Comp's don't have time to build them before they are absolete especialy in the later stages of the game. The wonder movies are awfull(Unlike SMAC which had great Movies).
The truth is that the original civ game was the best game ever made and Civ2 was good only because it was not changed much from the original. I would have to say that SMAC is better than CTP but neither is as good as MGE.
So in closeing what we should be calling for is not a new game but an update of Civ.
But we wont get that now since the Civ team has left Microprose.

CIV FOREVER !

[Dim Cat]

CTP sucks big time, especially UI. Graphics is awesome, but you can't make a cool TBS game out of graphics alone. SMAC have some problems here and there, but is muuuuuuuch better. So my vote CTP 1, SMAC 10

[Questlp]

SMAC for sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pythagoras]

Oh yeah! Well I give SMAC Infinity! There end of thread, we win!

[Mind Elemental]

How can CTP be better when it's missing features like playing on pre-made maps and scenarios? Yes, I know Activision is releasing maps etc, but they should have put them in the initial release.

Not to say SMAC is better either...they're both great games, and I can't say which is better.

[Maca of Oz]

Both SMAC and CTP broke my heart.
*borders in SMAC were a great inovation
*but sadly the whole sci fi theme brought the game down
*what were activision thinking when they designed CTP's diplomacy?
Now I have to sit around and wait for activision to have another crack at it and make a game worthy of the title CIVILIZATION!

All said, CTP's got it over SMAC, history rules, space is boring.

[meowser]

Whoa! Lots of post. I think its just about that time for our favorite moderator/administrator to start a new poll.

[Pythagoras]

CTP = Civ1 + Unconventional Warfare.
SMAC = Civ2 + Much much more

oh yeah, check out my site-
http://members.xoom.com/pythagras/ModBin.html
PLEASE! I will love you forever if you do!

[Andrews]

This time it should work..

[This message has been edited by Andrews (edited April 09, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Andrews (edited April 09, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Andrews (edited April 09, 1999).]

[smartin]

I wanted to verify a suspicion that I have had since I bought CTP. I got out all of my Civ genre games and reinstalled them. I fired up Civnet and played. It was FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNN! Then, I fired up Civ2 and played. It was FUN! Then I played a scenario from one of the scenario packs (It was the Mars scenario). It was fun. Then SMAC came out. It was pretty fun to play for a while. But, now is pretty boring. Then CTP was released. It wasn't much fun to play at all--even in the beginning. It quickly became more tedious with every attempt to play it. Anyone spot a trend?

You know, SMAC has Sid's name on it, but it's Brian Reynolds who did the game, not Sid. Sid had very little to do with any of the Civ iterations after the first one. Civ2 is like taking Civ1 and putting Brian Reynolds stamp on it. SMAC should have been called 'Brian Reynold's Alpha Centauri'.
The hallmark of Sid's games is that they are FUN to play. Sid's Gettysberg is FUN. Railroad Tycoon is FUN.

The further Civ gets from Sid, the more tedious the game becomes. Brian Reynolds took the original FUN game and added his technical stamp but left enough of the game alone to keep it fun. Brian changed even more of the game for SMAC and it's a step down (fun-wise) from Civ2.

We need to get Sid back working on the Civ game and get him involved from day one (and in every facet of creating and balancing the gameplay) to create a true Civ3. Then, and maybe only then, will a Civ title match the FUN of the first game.

[Michiel de Boer]

CTP : 9
SMAC: 4

CTP : positive points : More civs, far better graphics, public works, trade routes, more elaborate wonders and units.

SMAC: negative points : Too few and always the same civilizations (where the yellow always get killed first), dark graphics, native life and landscape, confusing keyboard shortcuts, no doughnut worlds.

------------------

[don Don]

smartin is right. SMAC is frustrating. Interesting enough to play it, but menus, movement, diplomacy, terrain, unit graphics etc each have something kludgy about them that makes the whole experience frustrating even when doing well.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I just got my VISA bill. Over $600 spent at Best Buy last month. Mostly games.

On my 1-10 scale.

SMAC - 2.
CTP - 2.5 maybe 3.
Longbow 2 - oh baby! 10!!! (with voodoo card)
Falcon - have dont loaded it yet.

So, let me just say that I'll be playing CIV II MP for a while longer (till something better comes along - maybe a long while).

[jojo]

yeah, um SMAC not particularly replayable-- don't ask me why. Maybe I should disable those little vignettes that get posted once in a while.

While I prefer CTP, I have NOT played my last game of SMAC.

------------------
Your mileage may vary.

[Caroliner Rainbow]

I've been playing my 1st game of CTP for about a week now, and its the 1800's. This is on a small map. And i've been putting several hours into it a day. I greatly enjoy it, but damn is it ever slow! I think the interface is fine, i dont see what everyone's problem is with that. The diplomacy is weak, i've never had a conversation with a foreign dipolomat that made any sense at all. My intelligence will say that they really like me and i'll ask for a treaty, they'll insult me and say no everytime. I've never yet had anyone accept a treaty with me no matter how good i treat them or how badly they need my help. Other than the diplomacy it's an excellant game with a few minor flaws (such as units and wonders being obsoleted way to fast around the modern age) I'm waiting to see what scenario making will be like because thats a crucial point for me.
I like AC, the diplomacy is excellant, but it gets boring after awhile. Its like playing the same scenario over and over, no matter how good it is it will get old in a few games. I'm very dissapointed with AC's scenario building options, too much is unchangeable to really make a decent scenario that isn't practically the same as the original game, which is sad because because the scenario editor is pretty cool, but what good is it if the units are unchangeable? The AI has absolutely no sense for even the most rudimentary tactics also. Every game i've played the computer will have all the defenders walk out of a city leaving it unguarded at least once, usually several times a game.
So I'm gonna have to say that i'm enjoying CTP more, though its not perfect. AC is good but its just not holding my interest after a couple months because the setting is too fixed.