Help me decide! EU or SMAC??

[Ramo]

Definitely EU. EU is so much richer than SMAC...

[weird god]

i bought both and enjoyed both - however i prefer EU because of it´s historic background. if you already got civ2-multiplayer there´s no need for SMAC anyway - it´s the best of all and just to similar to AC.

[Khan Singh]

I love the map in EU, and the history. But I think the designers really needed to decide what was fun and what wasn't.

In the first place, this game is a micromanagement nightmare. A lot of people thought SMAC had too much micromanagement ( I didn't). But EU is ten times worse. You have to control the complete economy, army, navy, colonial office, religion, trade and diplomacy of a European nation and it's worldwide empire. In real time. It is just too much work and too little fun.

The really annoying thing is that half this work could easily have been eliminated with no real loss to gameplay and a huge gain in play speed and enjoyability. Provincial management should have been eliminated completely. Most of it is repetative and by the numbers anyway. Trade could have been streamlined by 90%. Warfare should have been made either simpler or more complex; as it stands your armies are extremely hard to merge or coordinate, but combat is also simplistic and dull. You either have to make combat inherently complex and interesting or make it simple and quick. Complex and boring just doesn't work.

Secondly the interface, while functional, is no more than that.

And finally, the production values are just plain bad. I don't demand first rate sound from a strategy game. Generally I turn the sound off completely. But unfortunately you need the sound in EU to tell when your troops are in battle. And the sounds are so bad they are almost unbearable. The combat sound makes me think of somebody ringing a dinner bell---continuously for a full minute. And they ring it 3 minutes out of every 10 minutes of play time in some scenarios. Arghhhh!

SMAC is much better game all in all than EU. It is actually playable, for one thing. And the interface, sounds and graphics are all better. While it lacks the historical interest of EU, it has interesting and thought provoking factions and ideas. Its scope is large enough to be epic, but not so large as to be unmanageable. It is the culmination of the Empire genre of games and is a classic.

I like the immensely informative map in EU, and the setting is interesting. But the game just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. The detail is incredible and the strategy is epic, subtle and intelligent. But the whole mess is inaccessible and, frankly, tedious.

[Allemand]

How long have you played?

[Vitmore The Great]

I bought EU a few days ago, and must say that I love it! I am a history fanatic, and am impressed with its historical depth. True, the interface could have been more streamlined, and the manual could have been better (a table of contents or index would have been nice), but for its shortcomings, once you get into the game and get adjusted to the nuances of the game, it becomes a smooth ride of historical love. I was just playing Prussia during the Seven Years War, and must say that I kicked ass and annexed Poland! Yeah! There are still some tings I have to understand, but I guess the self discovery of how the game works is part of the charm. Worth the bones.

Vitmore

------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me

[Keygen]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-21-2001 06:56 PM Which game would be (a) easier to get into? (b) better preparation for Civ3? and (c) more exciting/fulfilling to play?

a) For a Civ player I would say SMAC. For someone who haven't played any civ type game I would say SMAC is more difficult to learn to play good and EU to understand how some basic features work!

b) Defenetelly SMAC. EU is completely different than any Civ type game. Not relative to Civ III.

c) Both! It's just that in my opinion that SMAC has more resistance in time than EU. EU doesn't have the depth of SMAC thereby it will probably keep you busy for less time than SMAC.


SMAC's graphics are not good though. They are quite boring and they have kept some Civ/CTP players from keep playing it. If graphics are not a first priority then SMAC would be great.
EU has superior graphics but its interface is quite bad designed and it has not in anyway the depth and complexity of SMAC. Its strategy is less managable but it's still good.

Two thinks that I can't use to it yet in EU and on the negative things:
1) The technology model it uses. One of the most deficient I have ever seen. Not even close to the Civ model.
2) The way you accually poses a territory. As much as army you have there you don't own it! You have to send colonists or merchants but in many times is hell to make a successful colonization. You might have dozen of army there but keep failing on any colinization attemp for a very long period.

In few words, EU is different, good but won't probably keep you for too long in interest. SMAC is good, nice strategy but a bit old. When the Civ III comes out you will certainly drop it .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I must just respond to Khan Singh, because I disagree with just about everything he said!

quote: I love the map in EU, and the history. But I think the designers really needed to decide what was fun and what wasn't.

They did... the game rocks

quote: In the first place, this game is a micromanagement nightmare. A lot of people thought SMAC had too much micromanagement ( I didn't). But EU is ten times worse. You have to control the complete economy, army, navy, colonial office, religion, trade and diplomacy of a European nation and it's worldwide empire. In real time. It is just too much work and too little fun.

NO, see, the micromanagement IS the fun part! And if you feel overwhelmed there is a pause button, USE IT!

quote: Provincial management should have been eliminated completely. Most of it is repetative and by the numbers anyway. Trade could have been streamlined by 90%. Warfare should have been made either simpler or more complex; as it stands your armies are extremely hard to merge or coordinate, but combat is also simplistic and dull. You either have to make combat inherently complex and interesting or make it simple and quick. Complex and boring just doesn't work.

Are you smoking something? Provincial management removed?! That IS the game! And combat should be simplistic, you aren't a general, but you give them goals where to go. Combat is a means to an end, gaining territory (War is Diplomacy by other means - Clausewitz). The combat is meant to be simple and the game isn't really a war game, so it works very well.

quote: Secondly the interface, while functional, is no more than that.

Ok, fine. But that does make it better than most games, no?

quote: And finally, the production values are just plain bad. I don't demand first rate sound from a strategy game. Generally I turn the sound off completely. But unfortunately you need the sound in EU to tell when your troops are in battle. And the sounds are so bad they are almost unbearable. The combat sound makes me think of somebody ringing a dinner bell---continuously for a full minute. And they ring it 3 minutes out of every 10 minutes of play time in some scenarios. Arghhhh!

Uh... why do you need sound to tell if your troops are in battle. If you need the sound for that, you haven't been playing long enough. After a Declaration of War, I keep vigilant eye on my armies. You should too.

quote: I like the immensely informative map in EU, and the setting is interesting. But the game just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. The detail is incredible and the strategy is epic, subtle and intelligent. But the whole mess is inaccessible and, frankly, tedious.

Totally disagree. EU is complex and while it has a large learning curve, it is heavenly afterwards.

[Leonidas]

I've played both games.

I would say to get the SMAC Planetary Pack first - it has all 14 factions plus the manual and strategy guide and is fully patched. It's one heck of a deal. Plus there is a ton of user scenarios/factions that you can add to the game. The diplomacy is outstanding. The story and graphics are well done.

I'm not sure why people think the graphics in SMAC aren't well done - I think they are - it is after all a TB game; not a RT strategy game.

Then, 6 months from now when they have properly patched/fixed EU, and the price comes down, or they put out an EU Gold edition, then get that game. EU is very well done, but some things could have been implemented a bit better. The interface is a bit clunky; it takes up a good portion of the screen. I've had the game crash on me several times - never had that problem with any other game (and this after a ton of patches). When I load the game it just feels unstable - like there's an old car under that new coat of paint. I just wish they had used a better interface - it feels like the game was made several years ago... click, click, click...

SMAC is a polished game; EU still needs a bit of work.

Both games are very enjoyable - but I would suggest SMAC - Sid's games rule

------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
[This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited May 04, 2001).]

[Keygen]

quote: Originally posted by Leonidas on 05-04-2001 09:46 AM I'm not sure why people think the graphics in SMAC aren't well done - I think they are - it is after all a TB game; not a RT strategy game.

They are quite dark, the technologies are represented with very simple and poor graphics, the city improvements and the secret project the same and if you switch to higher resolutions, e.g. 1024x768 then the graphics on the map (terren, units) get worse.
Well, they are not completely throwaway but Call To Power has better. And I must say that the most people that don't like SMAC graphics are those playing CTP .

[Ilkuul]

Just to let you all know -- I did end up getting EU as a birthday gift! And let me say at once that I'm absolutely dazzled by EU!! It's a really GREAT game, I've been playing it in every available moment ever since I got it. I wouldn't yet go so far as to say that it outshines Civ, but it comes a VERY close second for me. The richness and depth of the diplomacy, trade and exploration models definitely put Civ2 in the shade. I can only hope Civ3 does half as well in those areas...

The main problem for me so far with EU is that it's far too prone to crash on my machine. I've installed the latest patch (1.08), but that hasn't significantly improved the crash-rate. Most frustrating of all is that I haven't been able to save my first GC game beyond 1611! Any attempt to save in 1612 causes an immediate crash to desktop with an incomplete/corrupt save file. Can only hope the upcoming patch 1.09 puts this right!

[Usually Insane]

is there a demo or something so you can test the game before purchasing it?

[FunkyGhost]

One thing you should consider before buying SMAC is the color problem. I am quite sure, that I would have liked the game, but I tried the demo and (since I have a green/red weakness) was not able to distinguish between the tiles in a comfortable way, i.e. I could not find good locations for my bases, ...
So I am not able to play this game at all in a reasonable way. I know there is a color patch, but one told me, that it destroys the atmosphere of the game (and for my part, atmosphere is a very important aspect of every game). Unfortunately I never saw some screen shots. If anyone has some, I would be happy to take a look at them. There are lots of people with this color weakness, so try the demo before you buy!

[Jeje2]

EXCELLENT

Originally posted by Ilkuul
Just to let you all know -- I did end up getting EU as a birthday gift!

LOL!
So lot's of trouble solved in one lucky strike.

And let me say at once that I'm absolutely dazzled by EU!! It's a really GREAT game, I've been playing it in every available moment ever since I got it. I wouldn't yet go so far as to say that it outshines Civ, but it comes a VERY close second for me. The richness and depth of the diplomacy, trade and exploration models definitely put Civ2 in the shade. I can only hope Civ3 does half as well in those areas...

Yup, pretty much my opinions too...
I'm glad that you like the game.

The main problem for me so far with EU is that it's far too prone to crash on my machine. I've installed the latest patch (1.08), but that hasn't significantly improved the crash-rate. Most frustrating of all is that I haven't been able to save my first GC game beyond 1611! Any attempt to save in 1612 causes an immediate crash to desktop with an incomplete/corrupt save file. Can only hope the upcoming patch 1.09 puts this right!

OK, one question is that is your hard-drive full?
(I know it's a silly question, but ...)


Well, now that you have both games and have an own opinion. Which game would you suggest to buy, if one were only able to buy one game? (SMAC or EU)

[ak]

I've played Civ2, SMAC, CTP2 and EU. And the winner is ... EU. I like the historical aspect. I can actually learn while I waste time. The balance is well done also. And the simplified - enough is enough - tech tree. No more Tanks vs Chariots.

[Zorro's Z]

I'd go for SMAC. EU is kinda too complicated for me...