Civ IV Reviewed from a SMAC devotee

[Kataphraktoi]

I would agree with that. on my 3rd game of cIV( only play noble) and have already gotten into a set way of playing thats somewhat scalable to difficulty afaik, with russians\catherine and cottages and stuff. its still a fun game, but im not surprised i can already start playing it like that. :/

[WotanAnubis]

Originally posted by Senethro
I'm attempting to find the common element here.

Do people like SMAC because it is... dark?

(If you think about it, even the hologram theatre voiceover is sinister in what it applies about Morganite methods)

Dark? Well, darker anyway.

But I think the main difference is that SMAC/X is a story, and Civilization is not. Civ is about replaying history (kind of). And history has no narrative, no plot, no great protagonists, no fiendish antagonists. It's interesting, but it doesn't draw you in.

SMAC does have a story. It does have heroes and villains (although it leaves it up to you to decide who the greatest villain is) and, helped by Interludes, the movies and a multitude of quotes, the story races towards a climax. Especially at first, reaching any kind of victory wasn't about 'w00t I beat the game', but 'I've finished the story'.

And the faction leaders, of course, all their own flavour and they're not one-note characters either. I hate Miriam Godwinson, but I also think she has some of the best, most enlightened quotes in the entire game. And having them around for centuries doesn't break the illusion, it's sci-fi after all, there's bound to be ways to expand the human timespan by then. Heck, over the of the game you discover lots of ways you can do that.
But with Civ, well, you know Ghandi wasn't around in the Stone Age and you know Ceasar is dead long before the twentieth century. So it becomes really difficult to trick yourself and suspend your disbelief.

...

OK, so I guess this was just me using way too many words to say that SMAC's basically a lot more immersive than Civ with or without the dark atmosphere, but hey, if we can't rant, what good is the internet?

[Marid Audran]

Originally posted by WotanAnubis And history has no narrative, no plot, no great protagonists, no fiendish antagonists. It's interesting, but it doesn't draw you in.

More accurately, I would say that Civ IV's depiction of history is this way. Which is why it's weak on the storytelling/characterization front.

On another note, one which I forgot to mention in my review, is that navies are atrociously weak in Civ IV, almost not worth buiding at all. The galley is the only vessel you can build for a long time, and is very limited in its scope, hugging shorelines with a plodding two-square movement rate. The next ship available actually travelling freely in the water is the caravel, sometime in late medieval/early renaissance period, which can carry a whopping one non-combat unit. The only worthwhile seafaring units to start appearing are the galleon and the frigate with astronomy, well into the mid-point of the game. And transports in the industrial age can only carry four (!) units in cargo.

Comparried to SMAC's early (w/Doc:Flex) customizable gunboats, transports, and later fusion troop carriers and powerful battleships, with a range of options workshop options, there is no contest.

I working on a way to beef up early navies in Civ IV. Woe are the large water maps with feeble options like Civ's.

[GeoModder]

For the transport thingie, SMAC transport foils start low on cargo space as well. And even fission cruisers only carry 4. It is only from SMAC's midgame on (with fusion) that transporting whole "armies" becomes feasable. So in that aspect you can't really make a comparison IMO since the late game C4 tech roughly is comparable with teh early game SMAC tech.

[Marid Audran]

Sorry, but I totally disagree.

Compare the sole early Civ IV naval unit, the Galley, to SMAC's, the foil transport.

Both carry the same cargo, true. But galleys have to hopscotch from shoreline to shoreline, plodding along with a movement rate of 2 to the foil transport's 3. Foils can enter the ocean freely. If you're unlucky your galleys may never be able to really venture out from home. Taking these two things into account transporting armies is much more feasible, especially since SMAC doesn't have its navy restricted with annoying ZOC laws in the ocean.

Doc: Init arrives at the tech tree much earlier than Civ IV's early late-game tech combustion. Both unlock transports with ability to carry four units. SMAC continues to expand on this with fusion carriers that carry eight with Fusion tech (also arriving a earlier than Combustion), by mid-game, whereas Civ IV is capped for the whole game at four.

Doc: Init, as I see it in the tech tree, is even available a little earlier than Civ's contrasting Astronomy, the Frigate/Galleon liberating tech. Civ's Galleons are limited to three units to boot, and (still) have to put up with ZOC control laws, a major issue if one needs to pass through a rival territory that one doesn't want to wage war with, but is ornery on the prospect of Open Borders. The only ship this doesn't apply to is the Caravel, which is a fairly feeble transport. Ironclads are so clunky and slow they aren't worth building, and one is better off using Frigates until modern oil/uranium using ships come along. Cooresponding modern gun-toting vessels can be had much earlier in SMAC.

I find navies to be a chore and a disappointment in Civ IV.

[dacole]

well one is in 4000 BC and one is not

I mean people didn't have navies that could travel across the world in 4000 BC. I agree that AC is more of a war game than Civ IV but that I think was a bit by design. Look at the way AC handeled submarienes that was terrible! In MP most people stopped using transports and the chopp became the strategy of choice. Yes your early ships might not be able to travel far but you can go for frigates much earlier if you go right for it and if you get them before anyone else due to the ZOC you can control most of the map. There is a price to pay for that of course since you loose out on early growth, but that is what makes it an interesting tactical decison!

[Marid Audran]

I stand by my criticism. It's too arbitary, limiting, and kills the fun of early sea exploration, and early naval warfare (however limited, though history is rife with galley/penteconter/trireme warfare during the Hellenic era of civilization).

Even bringing back the CivII trireme, which risked capsizing and being lost at sea if you were so bold to leave the shoreline, would be a vast improvement. At least that gave you, the player, the option. (and I never reloaded to get a favorable result)

A direct B-line for Astronomy would be suicide, in the same way that a direct B-line for Divine Right in order to get Islam would be, since it'd neglect too many critical, basic techs in the meanwhile. A SMAC B-line for Doc:Init is less crippling, though even Doc:Flex would do.

Civ IV has its strong points, in Great People, City Health/Growth, Resources, and Trade, certainly. Navies aren't one of them. Plenty of people in CivIV--Creation feel the same way.

[The_Reckoning]

Too right, the CIV navy is boring.

Not to mention in SMAC the IotDs swimming around to stop your transports getting out too far, and the unity pods for popping in the sea give a good reward for being the first with a boat. Also being able to trasport settlers [colony pods] or a unit for exploration of islands straight away is more fun for discovery.

And don't talk about realism in CIV, since as was said Ghandi is dancing around in 2000BC, and you can found Taoism in London. Plato can be born around 1000AD in China.