12-01-2005 06:37									#31
	Suffering from ads?

Interesting I thought the inclusion of rescources and better (than civ2 not SMAC) diplomacy made it better. Never having played it however I can't really say. Yay planscape torment was absolutly wonderful, if you don't have a copy find one the story is wonderful the game is completly open and it is actually quite hard.

	12-01-2005 19:24									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by dacole Interesting I thought the inclusion of rescources and better (than civ2 not SMAC) diplomacy made it better.

First off, I did like resources. Secondly, a step back from SMAC is still a step back. You can't take a step back in art without offering something in return.

	12-01-2005 20:56									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

true but I was comparing it to CIV 2. I know it isn't anywhere as good ad SMAC why I didn't buy it. I"m interested to here you call computer games art, not enough people see it that way. The great games Black and White, SMAC, planescape I think do end up being art.

	12-01-2005 23:00									#34
	Put an end to popups!

Hey if they can refer to pop music singers as "artists" then word is not too sacred.

	14-01-2005 23:24									#35
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by livid imp Nope, it was not. Gimme Civ2 any day. Late 90's, same as the other games I had mentioned From everything i had heard this is SMAC's RPG sister in the quality dept. EQ was the first 3D MUD. It had a scale that was completely unmatched. And if you played EQ simply to repeatedly level your toon, then you missed the point. There was a lot more to do in the game, I pity power levelers.

It'a better than civ2 trust me. just not better than SMAC

civ2 had howitzers that could take over the world. units were maintained by individual cities, so small cities couldn't even deploy units outside their territory in a democracy.

	28-01-2005 12:43									#36
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: EQ was the first 3D MUD. It had a scale that was completely unmatched. And if you played EQ simply to repeatedly level your toon, then you missed the point. There was a lot more to do in the game, I pity power levelers.

Scale of levelling and item farming was unmatched at the time this game was released, true.
There is a lot more to do in older Ultima Online (some say that UO is the only online World), but EQ definately lacks depth.

quote: Everquest is important because it was one of the first online role playing games but it had no real point and no real story just leveling for the sake of leveling so any of the later ones I consider better.

Before EQ there was Meridian 59 and Ultima Online.

	10-02-2005 09:31									#37
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

When I first played Civ3 I hated it; it had really unbalanced game mechanics and the presentation was terrible. No voice overs, boring menus, and no wonder movies was unforgivable.

Since the Conquests expansion pack I like it much more though and enjoy playing it. All the UU have their uses, Civs and their attributes are quite balanced. All in all I feel its game mechanics have achieved a level of maturity and balance SMAC never reached. Nationalized support is one of the things I like most about Civ3.

SMAC while awesome perhaps has to high a learning curve; Terraforming is difficult though highly rewarding. Some things in SMAC were also just stupid, clean reactors, poor AI and that rediculous hurry system. Not that Civ3 AI is too hot either.

In many ways though Civ3 is a dumbed down Civ2, Terraforming is easier, as is support and governments. Still becaus Civ3 had such poor presentation and didn't do much new I wouldn't rate it above 75, Conquests no more than 85. Alpha Centauri despite its few game mechanic misgivings deserves to be in the vaunted 95%+ category because more importantly than anything else it has a rich sci-fi feel and an incredible atmostphere that no Civ game has ever reaced.

	11-02-2005 08:57									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm not sure I would like national support for units, a democracy being able to have units outside its boundries is reasonable and one of the things I like about free market in alpha centauri. What is wrong with the hurry system and how did civ three improve it? What exactly made clean reactors stupid...? Was a good way to take care of support problems.

	11-02-2005 11:54									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

The hurry system in Alpha Centauri is somewhat abusable and doesn't conform to logic (size 1 city building the AtT in a single turn, just because you paid them overtime...).

Clean reactors are much less unbalanced than they may initially seem. The extra 50% cost will on most units be more than they would cost in support over their lifetimes, before discounting the value of future minerals. Clean is suitable for garrisons and formers, and little else.

	11-02-2005 14:01									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Chaos Theory The hurry system in Alpha Centauri is somewhat abusable and doesn't conform to logic (size 1 city building the AtT in a single turn, just because you paid them overtime...). Clean reactors are much less unbalanced than they may initially seem. The extra 50% cost will on most units be more than they would cost in support over their lifetimes, before discounting the value of future minerals. Clean is suitable for garrisons and formers, and little else.

I use clean when playing the morganites in free market all the time. those support costs will eat you alive.

Just ask the ai. They are often awash in overwhelming support for their armies.

	11-02-2005 14:07									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

about the rushing. I forgot to address that above.

both games have terrible rushing if you ask me. Population rushing doesn't seem entirely realistic. But the good thing about it is you can't do it if you are too early in the project (it will cost too many lives). You can also rush using gold depending on your goverment.

I think an improvement/unit should be at least 50% completed before you have the option to rush it. That's my 2 cents.

	11-02-2005 15:04									#42
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The AI is incompetent and shouldn't be used as an example for why an ability is too powerful

Clean reactors help alleviate the downsides of low support, but are a poor substitute for high support. Even after clean reactors, Morganite units come at a premium.

Rushing should allow you to increase a city's production up to a limit, which could be determined by population or normal production levels, perhaps in tandem with government choices. MOO1 limited the effects of rushing to adding 100% to a planet's production. Thus, not only could you effectively not rush a unit not already half done, but you had to plan ahead to rush that much.

	11-02-2005 17:17									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by dacole I'm not sure I would like national support for units, a democracy being able to have units outside its boundries is reasonable and one of the things I like about free market in alpha centauri. What is wrong with the hurry system and how did civ three improve it? What exactly made clean reactors stupid...? Was a good way to take care of support problems.

Well I like the National support (Civ3) as opposed to localized support (SMAC) because it takes away the unnecessary micromanagement of continuosly rehoming units. It allows your bigger cities to build units to defend your smaller cities which are trying to catch up in Infrastructure.

I agree that it is nice to be able to only partially rush things in SMAC but its annoying that the game basically forces you to bring out a calculator to calculate the least amount of cash required to rush with 1 turn of production remaining. Anyone interested in making their faction run as efficiently as possible will feel urged to do so. Civ3 is just one quick, easy rush. No probs or neccessity for a calc.

Clean Reactors may not be so bad by themselves but when combined with a faction like Drones whose massive industry makes the additional cost of clean reactors insignificant, the drones can build a practically limitless supply of troops. But perhaps Industry is another issue alltogether.

	28-02-2005 08:03									#44
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Rush-building uses resources saved (usually from outside the base).

(A) Think of cash taken from the treasury as taxes spent to hire many private contractors to build urgent infrastructure for you. Cash-rich factions have a thriving private economy with all that implies. (Contrast the Hive.)

(B) Supply crawlers are saved production: think of rush-building with them as assembling component parts accumulated in long preparation. (Or as emergency reassignment of resources as happens in RL and in SMAC when war breaks out.)