How does Gal Civ II compare to SMAC? Will it have as much long term replayablity?

[FullMetalJack]

I'd be interested to hear from veteran SMAC'ians how they rate Gal Civ II compared to SMAC/X?

It's probably too early to say, but do you think that its long term replayability will match SMAC/X's?

I've been reading Syrian's comments about Gal Civ II's AI and it doesn't bode well, at least for now anyway without alterations in patches for those that become experts at the game to hold their attention (in the long term)?

Or not...?

[Kinjiru]

Well, they are very different games, and it also depends on what you mean by replayability.

SMAC becomes extremely easy to beat for veteran players, even on the highest difficulty level. Most people resort to giving the AI even more bonuses by editing the faction files. This same concept is likely true for GCII as well. I haven't anywhere near the level of beating the AI on the higest levels yet. One advantage for GCII over SMAC is that more of the game seems to be changeable by the user via modding the XML. So you can make the AI better through more means than just adding on more bonus factors. Or at least, that is the claim by Brad.

In SMAC (leaving off SMAX for now, as that was an expansion), you had seven factions and several victory conditions. One element of replayability is just to try to win every style of victory with every single faction. This same ability is present in GCII.

Another way in which we talk about replayability with SMAC is the various alternative ways of playing, such as one-city challenge, forbidding use of crawlers, etc. You can do similiar things with GC II, only using your starting planet, not building any starbases, etc.

So, on paper at least, it looks like SMAC and GCII are on pretty equal footing. Perhaps GCII even has some advantages (easier modability, more factions). However, it really comes down to the nebulous fun factor. To this day, I still get angry when Lal is the first to break treaties and use nukes, or when Morgan buys a base out from under me. Does GCII have that immersive quality?

For me, personally, SMAC has a bit more personality than GCII, and therefore a (likely) longer shelf-life. Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy GCII (and do find myself thinking, "Dammit, those ****ing Korx snagged that resource one freakin' turn ahead of me!").

Of course, as the originator of the Spartan Chronicles, I may be somewhat biased...

[bonscott]

SMAC is like Civ.

Gal Civ 2 is like MOO.

I really wouldn't compare GalCiv 2 to SMAC, in my mind anyway.

GalCiv 2 to me looks to have serious replayability potential. I've played about 5 games so far, up to Tough difficulty and each game has really turned out different and each has provided unique challanges. The random events can really play a role here as well.

And there are so many different "game within the game" things you can do that you couldn't in SMAC or even Civ.

[ZargonX]

Yeah, I really wouldn't say it's a valid comparison. Can't each stand on its own worth?

[FullMetalJack]

Thanks for the replies guys.

@Kinjiru, to clarify what I mean about 'replayability', I would cite a game such as Football, or Chess for example.

First, you have to enjoy the rules of the game - that's the fun factor. Thereafter, what gives these games replayability value is that every game is different - even though some games might be similar.

Contrast these with computer games such as Adventures (especially those with a linear plot), which have almost no replay value.

Also - for single players anyway - take a game like Starcraft. Even though each scenario in a campaign is open enough to achieve victory in lots of different ways, again there is little replay value. For multiplayer of course it's a different story.

One of the most essential ingredients for our strategy games must be a random map for exploration before you can even decide on a particular strategy to adopt?

Then, if you can employ different tactics and strategies in each game and you're constantly surprised or impressed by the AI such that each game is unique, then that's great.

That's what I would define as replayability.

@bonscott

I never played MOO so I haven't got any point of reference.

Why isn't SMAC regarded as a '4x' game btw? Or is it?

When I was reading reviews of Gal Civ II, they kept using MOO(2) as a 4x reference, but no mention of SMAC at all!

FMJ

[Barbazoul]

Also keep in mind that most of the things said against the galciv 2 AI come from very very good TBS players, like Sirian ; they played Galciv 1 to death and already know all the dirty tricks.

For the average player, the AI of Galciv2 is really challenging. Of course you will end up beating it often enough, but it's already good.
I didnt play Smac enough to compare those 2 games.
My guess is that they re both exceptional.

[Stuie]

I'm not sure why people insist that SMAC/Civ cannot be compared to MOO/GalCiv. The games are very similiar at the basic level:

SMAC has Cities - GalCiv has Planets.
SMAC has City Improvements - GalCiv has Planet Improvements.
Both have tech trees with various branches to follow.
Both have trading.
Both have unit design (and here GalCiv goes further allowing you to combine a number of units dependent on your logistics ability).
Both have some form of resource mining.
Where SMAC has tile improvements, GalCiv has starbases.
Both have diplomacy.
Both have some sort of uber Council (planetary or galactic) that meets at certain intervals.

One big difference lacking in GalCiv is the social engineering aspect. The government choices in GalCiv are pretty weak in comparison.

What am I missing that makes comparing these games like comparing apples and oranges? They seem VERY similiar to me.

[bonscott]

Originally posted by FullMetalJack
@bonscott

I never played MOO so I haven't got any point of reference.

Why isn't SMAC regarded as a '4x' game btw? Or is it?

When I was reading reviews of Gal Civ II, they kept using MOO(2) as a 4x reference, but no mention of SMAC at all!

FMJ

Yes, they are similar and both 4x. What most people mean is this:

SMAC is simply Civ on another planet and "sci-fi/fantasy" type units and technology. But they are basically the same: Planet, cities, territory, etc.

Wheras GalCiv is in space, planets, fleets of ships, etc. which is more like the other Space type 4x games like MOO.

Yea they are both 4X games, yea they have similar type concepts (colonize, settle, research techs, build military) but they are quite different experiences in most people's eyes. Similar but different I guess you could say.

[Gufnork]

SMAC's greatest weakness was it's AI and I don't think it's any better than GalCiv 2's. If you beat SMAC on the highest setting every time without breaking a sweat, then GalCiv 2 isn't likely to provide much of a challenge. In fact, with a few more modifications to the AI that I feel is likely to happen it will become much better than SMAC's.

But I don't think anyone is surprised when I say I very much prefer SMAC. The most important thing is that each faction feels different, the races here does not. You also had a very good government system in SMAC, that's sorely lacking in GalCiv 2. GalCiv 2 does have a few features that are better than SMAC, but those are not the ones I care the most about.

[EternalSpark]

GC2 won't have staying power. I can promise you.

Look at GC1. Everyone was enthralled with it in the beginning. Then people began to take a closer look at the game's inner workings, and began to see considerable flaws and problems. The developers rejected the thought that these were flaws and problems, holding up their design docs as "proof" that the game mechanics were sound.

After a couple rounds of "no, that's not a bug or engine error, that's how its supposed to be", people started ditching the game. The most replied-to post in GC1-Gen is "why are you putting GalCiv aside?", for crissake.

GC2 is doing the same thing. People are praising it still, but the economy system is getting on player's nerves. And the devs, like last time, are doing their damnedest to explain why everything's fine.

[Barbazoul]

Not at all.

First of all, Galciv 1 was played till the day Glaciv 2 went out. Just look at the metaverse on the galciv 1 website. It had a very strong staying power.


Secondly, the developers claimed in latest posts that the economic system "would be looked at" in the later updates. Maybe they lie ; but considering what they have done until now i think we can trust them.
I think Galciv2 is a real chance for gamers to really get involved in a game, by discussing directly with the developers.

[bonscott]

GalCiv 1 had a lot of staying power. People were playing it well after 2 years after release with a lot of Metaverse submissions. I personally stopped playing it for 2 reasons:

1) I ruined it for myself by figuring out the "win every time on Maso Alliance win for 60K" cheese and I could never play it the same after that. I will not do that with GalCiv 2.

2) Morrowind Anniversary edition (with both expansions) for all of $29 bucks. That sucked all my game playing time for most of last year. Now Oblivion comes out in 2 weeks so GC2 will sit for a while but since I won't ruin the game for myself it will provide a nice break from hours of the Elder Scrolls.

Economic system ruining the game? Come on. Just play the game an enjoy it. I don't worry nor care if some social production is "lost". Who cares, just enjoy the game. The only people complaining about this are the one who are digging into the numbers and want everything to be perfect formulas instead of just getting into the game and having fun. For these people perhaps games like GC2 or even Civ 4 aren't for them. They ruin it for themselves.

I totally agree that SMAC was one of the funnest games I've ever played and I have fond memories of the game. But the only thing that can be really compared to SMAC is a SMAC 2 if it should ever be done.

[shanky]

i agree with the opinios tha they are very different....but the civ personalities just aint as strong in GalcivII....i remember being threatened by sister mariam eithin the first ten turns....that bring me to anothe thing...u just cant threten nybody...u cant go like..give me those techs or im gona crush you option, which was there in smac and civ

But the element from smac i wud most like to see in galciv is a better planetary council....the ability to elect a leader, and te ability to call the council yourself, and choose from a particular set of agendas....instead of randomly being handed down one.

Dont get me wrong...i m loving galcivII, but i dont think it will replace smac as my fav game.

PS: how abt some stronger natives???(read mind worms from smac)....how abt when u choose to be evil....the life forms on your planet fightback and cause some harm to you...or when u choose to be good....the nomads that are there evolve and start rebelling??? The alignment options that u choose are written in such a way that they are gonna have a longterm impact....which should be random one instead of a rigid "19% research" bonus or whatever

[EternalSpark]

First of all, Galciv 1 was played till the day Glaciv 2 went out.

That's hardly relevent. There were some people playing System Shock when System Shock 2 came out. Most gamers know how that turned out.

Secondly, the developers claimed in latest posts that the economic system "would be looked at" in the later updates. Maybe they lie ; but considering what they have done until now i think we can trust them.

I'll concede that I only briefly looked over the posts in question; I tried reading it last night when tired, and couldn't focus... and tried doing it again this morning, and I ain't awake enough to focus now.

I wouldn't say they are liars, but I do remember going back to GC a while ago and realizing the core annoyances I had were never fixed - not because they were lazy, but because they didnt see them as annoyances.

Come on. Just play the game an enjoy it.

It's a 4x game. It's not possible to "just play the game and enjoy it" unless the game's mechanics are clear, precise, and understandable.

Even Brad admitted it with GC1 - as time went by, GC's reader reviews went down quickly. Why? People tried to get under the hood of the game, and couldn't get anywhere.

The only people complaining about this are long-time strategy gamers who perfer that their games be providing accurate, logical information to facilitate accurate and predictable outcomes

There, fixed it for you. Most strategy gamers have higher standards than you. Oh sure, their forums are filled with those who have given up their standards like abused housewives, but thankfully most haven't - and tell the devs what's wrong.

[Kc7mxo]

you can design ships just like you could design units in smac, and there's lots more variety for look. its such an impressive utility. its no rhino or 3dmax, but hey, its good nuff.