 |
|
shclo
|
|
texas
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
OK, I'm embarrassed to ask, but what is "SMAC"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Compugasm 2
|
|
Without arguing finer points, i agree. SMAC = Sid Meyers Alpha Centauri.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
minmei
|
|
Indiana
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
SMAC/SMACX is different.
SMAC lets you completely customize your units. Any offense + any defense + any movement as long as you know the tech and can pay the cash.
SMAC diplomacy is laughable, even if you don't like Civ3 dip it's more realistic than SMAC dip (If you're in the lead everyone hates you.)
SMAC has 2X wonders to build and you can rush them. No leaders, but stacks. Naval power wimpy, aerial beats all. Half the time it's a rush to copters, then copters blow everything away.
Resources sometimes suck in Civ3, but it makes you play a more balanced game instead of rush your military/research/whatever and wipe the world with your power.
Different.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord_Myst
|
|
What happens to bad companies that release poor products is they go out of bussniess. A good example is Origin Systems. They use to release THE best RPG games in the bussiness fifteen to ten years ago. The early Ultima series set the standards for RPGs that RPGs still follow today. However, in later years, they started releasing games that, like Civ 3, were nothing more than beta tests. (Example: Ultima 8,9 + Ultima Online.)
These days Origin Systems is no more.
To answer the original question of this thread, I also think SMAC is a superior game. Some examples:
1) A border system that actually works. This "culture" system returns the big problem of Civ 2: another Civilization plops a city down right in the middle or in a remote corner of your nation, leading to the swiss-cheese effect of cities. I don't see the French deciding they can own the end of Cape Cod because we "aren't using it."
2) being able to create a building cue for cities.
3) Being able to stack units so I don't have to move my 10 Chairots across the map one at a time!
4) Being able to tell an inferior or "conquered" Civilization to STOP waging war on my friend or ally Civilization.
5) The supply unit to add releases from useless map squares.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Turnipshooter
|
|
Yea SMAC has way more little things that make it better
Nerve staple
cultral absorbtion in civ 3 is stupid...especialy when 20 military units disapear in a city that changes sides
custom units
orbital incisions
you find yourself being overwhelmed by Yang way to early in the game? churn out some bio weapon jets and you have a chance at geting ahead....if the mind worms dont get to agitated at you
mind worms were cool...even tho i hated them to death
playing the map of Chiron on the hardest difficulty with CEO Morgan is way more challenging than Civ 3 on diety
The movies and those speechs in SMAC were killer
Governments in SMAC were cool too
probe teams rocked
AI in SMAC knew how to balance growth/production/wonder building/security and offensive capabilitys
Global diplomacy was had a better system
Planet Busters were not to powerfull....if you used one you get every psycho wanting to kill ...plus mind worm hordes in 20 turns and melting polar caps
Actualy CIV 3 AI is realy retarded.....im about to beat diety setting....game started managed to build one extra city before i saw 3 other civs encroching on me with citys...was like wtf they already have 4 citys each while i havent even got the pop back from my one settler that i made.....so im like "screw them" started churning out archers...took the chinese capital with horse resources....stared churning out horseman...whiped out the chinese,germans,russians and french by 600AD ( French were the lead technologist who i purchansed all my techs from till i became the leader with there fall)....
i did all that with the Japanese pretty good civ yet challenging because you can not upgrade anything into Samuri for some reason...well i didnt check swordsman but sorry units with no retreat and low defense are useless.
Lets get into why the AI is retarded tho...
1 he cant defend his citys worth a crap....
2 they will let me suck there gold production from cheesy things like comunications and world maps...
3 they sell techs
4 the idiots will have 3 citys left and still try to build sistine,coprinicus and magelalans while i have a horde of fast units outside his city walls.
5 The AI will hardly ever fight eachother...witch makes me own a huge continent while the other 8 civs have wee lil nations on the other continent
You play CIV 3 on regent or below and the games way to easy...play monarch and above and theres only one way you can win and that waging constant war from day one becuase the cheesy AI just reproduces so retarded like not giving one care about security or stability.\ and if you dont he will get to a point where he so out produces you it isnt even funny.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Turnipshooter
|
|
Ohh forgot to sum it up......All things considered Civ 3 is a realy linear game....
The AI will not surprise you like in SMAC
Like say your the belivers and your leeching your techs from the university till he builds that wonder that negates all probe team actions and then university get the space elevator and starts droping veteran Anti-mater singularity drop hover tanks on your continent.
Or your the Morganites and Yang is trying his zerge on you but your managing to fend him off. When he strikes a deal with the belivers who out of nowhere drop a buster on 2 major production centers...(miram was so willing to use busters in every game i played if she could get the tech...was pretty cool...stupid psycho lady).
Or the global council decides to make nerve gas legal.
the list can go on for days
One tactic for victory with no surprise's is not going to keep me interested in this game very long...
the AI needs more than one personality.....
some should be more warlike towards any civs not just yours...
Some should not worry as much about expansion and focus on security.
AI has one personality right now....and iv mastered his sillyness
I wouldnt care so much if i could play some real peeps
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma
|
|
Midland, MI, USA
Feb 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
I like the speed that civ3 plays at, nice and slowly. If it had a bit more AI variety and all the bugs were fixed and a bit of the gameplay tweaked it would be fun...
SMAC is still my fav though, I like that sci fi aspects of it, the specialization, and the amount of skill required to do well.
Part of the reason the AI does better in Civ3 is that the game is *drastically* simplified, it would be nearly impossible to program the AI to use crawlers effectively. Pop booms also, pretty much all of the skill aspects that the player used to tactically outmanage the AI have been removed, I can still trounce the AI in war but not quite as easily as SMAC, wars are based more on attrittion which the AI is good at (it knows how much stuff you have).
I liked the SE idea a lot better than a few generic governments... of course a futuristic game like SMAC is less constrained by history than a game like civ3.
I think this game will be better single player after some patches, multiplayer is a tossup though... long games of attrition do not sound like my cup of tea for MP.
This game does put far too much of an emphasis on how much developed land you have, it is too easy for a dominant superpower to stay that way in my opinion, you can make military and infrastructure too easily, and they use the same kind of production infrastructure (IE shields).
SMAC seemed much more skillfully crafted at times... lets not forget it had its share of bugs too though (infinite air drop anyone?)
But the community after patch 3, we were left with a big list of bugs that weren't fixed. I don't think that they will now, I have a feeling that Firaxis will try to interact a bit more with the consumers. They are probably as pissed at Infrogrames as we are... it is not like they knew when they signed up with Infrogrames that they would have to release a beta...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
georage
|
|
I will back up my initial statement that SMAC is better:
1. It was a new, fresh storyline with characters (AI) that actually felt like different types of opponents. And your opponents could be tweaked to no end. Multiplayer was possible. Civilization 3 seems tired by comparison. SMAC meant constant backstabbing, sabatoge and battles against humans and an alien planet. Civ3 plays more like a "horde and build" Monopoly fest.
2. The movies and voices may be the best I have ever seen. The opening "Conclave Bible" quote from the Gaian lady still gives me chills. Completing a project felt like an achievement. And how cool was the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm?
3. Mind worms. An unholy terror at max levels. And you could grow your own! DEMON BOIL.
4. Scenario Editor was awesome! Like another game almost. I loved pitting the Gains (me!), University and Morganites against Hive/U.N and Spartan/Believer teams with the diplomacy editor. On the highest difficulty this always ended in planet-busting armagedeon. I usually lost, but still it was a blast.
5. The unit editor. You have never heard maniacal laughter until you've seen a nerve gas chopper or SAM hovertank in action. Anyone ever try a sea-crawler!
6. Combat made more sense to me. Strange how a unit made 10 years later (in game time) in SMAC dusts an inferior unit but in Civ3 you have archers taking out tanks. We're not rewriting history, Sid, we're ripping apart what is plausible in favor of the absurd.
7. Planet Busters! I already touched on this, but the coolest way to win in a super huge map game of SMAC was to build submersible domes in your major cities and just start planet busting the hell out of people. Yang isn't so tough when half his cities are in craters and the other half are floating away! The whole rising and falling oceans things was great.
8. Blood truce and probe teams. (OK, I know they are not really related but I have to fit all these into 10 reasons!)
9. In massive games the governors seemed better at running their cities, the building que was awesome and the display of city information was a lot more sensible. You need a steady stream of tanks? Que them up.
10. The interface was better, moving units in Civ3 is a joke. So is the cultural border thing. It sounded cool in the manual though!
Just an opinion of course. But a year from now I will still play SMAC.
G.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dev
|
|
CIV3 has no MORGAN, nuff said!
/dev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zakalwe
|
|
...the Cloning Vats project movie. Somehow it always manages to scare the s**t out of me...
While I've been happily playing Civ3 for several nights, it doesn't hold me in thrall the way SMAC did. I can't pinpoint the dissatisfaction, but likely it has to have something to do with the lighter tone. I really loved the seriousness and dark humour in SMAC, and would have preferred a more sombre approach in Civ3 It's probably linked with the fact that I've been trained as a historian - not too conductive a basis for a light-hearted approach to six thousand years of misery and suffering.
Still, I can see the potential in Civ3. After a few patches, It'll probably be the best game of the genre.
Z
Last edited by Zakalwe on 15-11-2001 at 15:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dev
|
|
Another couple of pro smac things.
- Elite units gain an extra move. (should have put this in Civ3 too).
- Improved power sources upgrades unit life.
Some SMAC cons
- AI building zillions of useless water cities.
- Copter being way overpowered (can be changed in a text editor though).
/dev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Earthling7
|
 |
of pop
Jul 1999
time: 06:16
|
|
I am going to compare the two. I haven't made up my mind yet, but will look at this post before submitting and conclude.
Interface: SMAC - Civ3 has a lot of commands, but most hidden. You need to use the keyboard. Evidence of an unfinished game.
Originality: SMAC, hands down. When you look beyond the story, graphics and names, SMAC is essentially a Civ game, but so many new things were added. It was the first true sequel. Civ3 has added Resourses and Culture, which enhance the experience, but taken too much out to deserve this point.
Graphics: This is a tough one. The elevated SMAC map was great, complete with it's own weather system, but very basic looking. Civ3 units are good, but the tiles leave a lot to be desired. The CtP tiles looked better. I'll give this to SMAC, simply because Civ3 failes to impress in the area.
Units: SMAC. I miss the workshop. I loved assembling my own units. I know the setting makes a huge difference, but they are games designers, they should have thought of something.
Multimedia: Does Civ3 have multimedia? Intro movie, easter egg movie and a final movie. SMAC had some of the finest videos ever seen in a game.
Packaging: My standard SMAC box is more impressive than the Civ3 tin, let alone the standard box.
It looks as if SMAC is walking away with this trophy. Don't take this wrong. I am not pro-SMAC - anti-Civ3. I love Civ3. I agree with Yin (?) that Civ3 is a jewel in the rough. It has the potential to be the best game ever, but it will take an expansion pack, and even then, many things, mutimedia especially, will not be addressed.
I remember when SMAC was being developed, it was supposed to be released before Christmas, but it wasn't ready. Instead of releasing a beta, they released it in the new year. Less lucrative, but better PR. If Firaxis would take advise from me (which they probably won't), it would be to work more with EA and less with Infogrames.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Dev
|
|
quote:
If Firaxis would take advise from me (which they probably won't), it would be to work more with EA and less with Infogrames.
|
You better be joking... :P
EA is by far the worst company in the entire industry, ask any Ultima Online player.....
Thery ONLY thing that matters for them is $$$ and they could care less if that means publishing unfinished games (much much worse than Civ3) and having horrid support in general.
/dev
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Compugasm 2
|
|
While I think the CivIII strategies are good, the trade system is great, game operation in general is bad. I have a chess game, and i don't play it for the graphics. So until patches come out, i am shelving this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeadDireWolf
|
|
A big difference between Civ3 and SMAC that nobody has mentioned yet (and it surprises me). Eventhough Sid's name was in the title he had (from what I've read) very little to do with the game.
SMAC was a Brian Reynolds' game and not a Sid Meier game.
That my friends is the big difference. Why doesn't Civ3 and SMAC have a different feel? Cuz Brian had enough of Sid's big headed **** and left the project. Hence -- not as good as game. Now, who's the real design genius here? Give credit where credit is due. Don't get me wrong, I like Civ3 but that's why they games have a different feel. IMHO, of course.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-11-2001 08:18
) to ask why.
|