CtP vs SMAC

[DanMc]

Hi there!

I'm posting this here as I recognise most of you and you all know CtP.

I'm thinking about buying SMAC and was wondering how it compares to CtP. I've read all the comments criticism of the CtP/CivII debate, and have no wish to re-open that thread. What I am looking for is some of the main differences, and the positive/negative points about SMAC (I know all about CtP).

Also, this is not intended to start a whole "Which Civ is best" thread - I'm simply interested in finding out what other CtP fans think of SMAC.

(I think I've made that clear now. Although I could say it again! )

Dan

-------------------
Just wondering.....

[WesW]

I posted a summary of my thoughts of CtP vs. SMAC at the end of the "Is CtP the best civ game ever" thread, started by Nordicus. Check the threads from the last 20 days.

[Gregurabi]

CTP has better graphics and user interface. It also has stacked combat (stacks of units can fight in one big battle), and a greater emphasis on non-traditional units (Cleric, Slaver, Abolitionist, Lawyer, Corporate Branch and so on).

It seems that CTP is more extensible. There are some amazingly comprehensive "mods" (user add-ons) available here on Apolyton.

SMAC has better AI/diplomacy, allows you to customize combat units, and is (IMHO) more balanced overall. It's also got some unique "alien planet stuff" (xenofungus, native life forms that attack you, etc.).

Each SMAC faction has its own unique strengths and weaknesses (e.g., Miriam gets +25% attack strength but has research penalties; Zakharov gets a research bonus and free Network Nodes (which are like Libraries), but gets unhappiness penalties; etc.), and the system of "social engineering" (government style choices) is two-dimensional instead of one-dimensional.

In short, they're both good games.

[DanMc]

Wes: Thanks, I'll take a look.

Gregurabi: Thanks too - plus a nice little 'duck' at the end