31-01-2001 02:27									#1
	Poll: like civ2 or like SMAC ? Got spare money?

If you had to choose or civ3 should look more like civ2 or more like smac(I mean the game mech here not the time area the game plays in) ?

My vote goes to civ2 because teh following things where better in civ2 then in SMAC:

-scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever
-unit balance: in SMAC was there no sense in building other offensive units then choppers.
-variarity of strategies: in civ where there lot's and lot's of strategies who worked good. In SMAC looked or every faction was forced in some predefined strategies
-SMAC is a scenario, civ2 is game with as many scenario's as you can download.
-Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC.
-Graphics: SMAC is to dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

	31-01-2001 03:32									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I for one would be very disappointed if Civ3 looked more like SMAC than like Civ2...

Civilization and Civilization II were the games we all loved... SMAC was just another thing, some people liked it, but I'm sure it didn't caught everybody who loves playing civ games...

And I'm not just talking about the general look, I didn't like things such as the unit workshop either...

	31-01-2001 05:37									#5
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Like civ 2.

I think in SMAC the level of involvement was much lower than in civ 2 and the sales figures prove it all too well.

Futuristic technology? Red-fuxia-blue all mixed up nothing to understand squares? Units that needed a microscope to tell them apart?

Like Civ 2 unquestionably. But incorporate some cool stuff from SMAC like frontiers etc
(Civ is THE game of the world meaning you have a feeling of history and of re-writing its course too)

I have both games, obviously, but I have played CIV 2 like 2 bazzilion times, SMAC 3.

	31-01-2001 05:57									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I'm more aligned to the "revolution CIV concept" than "evolve a bit CIV concept", so I don't think the poll has a real meaning: we need a game different enough to make any "SMAC or CIV II" argument not really important

Of course Civ II had a greater "sense of empire", because it embraced a longer timeline, with more involvement of the player because of its historical "realism".
SMAC tried some new technical concept: Social engineer, Unit workshop, Faction unique points, more "3D like" terrain, borders...

Apparently lot of players would like a mix of the two, merging the game into a "Civ Engine" concept, really open to different MOD and scenario for every taste.

I'm not sure it will happen, because it's a bit unrealistic that Firaxis will left to the customer the ability to pay once and play forever, IMHO

May be Firaxis is trying to make money pushing Civ into larger fields: a new, feasible, multiplayer (monthly fee), or a new CIV engine and set of tools (scenario editor, AI editor), improved every three/six months, where we'll pay the upgrade to improve our "gaming experience" as every P.R. people will sell us

The best compromise probably should be an "open" CIV backbone where to fit different module: a research module, a battle module, a building/production module, a diplomatic module, a trade module and so on.

We should be able to chose a basic, easy module for every area of the game we don't care much, or a deep, complex module for our loved area (e.g. warfare, diplomacy or research). Of course every module need a dedicated "AI code" tailored to cope with that part of the game, while the "backbone AI" must act as a supervisor to "glue" all the pieces. Pay per module model, and everyone will be able to tailor the game on him/herself

Sorry, I'm draggin a bit the topic, but I'm trying to change a bit the point of view on the often debated Civ/CTP/SMAC/Colonization/put-your-favourite-game-here argument

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

	31-01-2001 09:51									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If you're talking about "feel" then CivII wins over SMAC. CivII had grandeur - SMAC had an OK storyline.

But if you're talking game mechanics - SMAC has it all over CivII. Do a blow by blow analysis:

Diplomacy - SMAC's is slightly better (not great, but better) - more options, more varied AI responses

Internal Politics - social engineering is light years ahead of "hmmm, do I want to be a king or a president?"

City management - Governors are a great improvement (they may screw up sometimes, but if you've got eighty cities, a few mess ups are better than hour long turns)

Combat - the addition of multi-tiered morale levels was a huge plus in SMAC - as was the unit workshop - finally i could give my settlers/formers some armour

The Map - they both sucked (the world is not a tube!)

Sure, there are lots of great things about CivII that need to be incorporated into CivIII - but they are almost all about feel, not game-mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I love the feel of CivII (heck, I still watch the wonder movies) - i just think that SMAC has the better underlying game-mechanics.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."

	31-01-2001 14:00									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

current results:

CIV2:4
SMAC:1

Only vote's for civ2 or SMAC are legal so posts who didn't express there preference clearly(tniem and Adm.Naismith posts) aren't included(otherwise would everyone vote both and won't we be able to see which one is loved most)
But they can still vote for one of both if they want.

	31-01-2001 16:43									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I'm going to "spoil my ballot paper" too. If Civ-3 is sufficiently close to either Civ 2 or SMAC in all its key concepts I would be very disappointed. Any hack programming house can produce a clone. I'm expecting FIRAXIS to produce a new game with potentially the same appeal and longevity as Civ 2 - which means they will have to introduce some new features that have no relation to any predecessor.

	31-01-2001 20:50									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

My vote goes for CIV2 - after all this is CIV3 not SMAC2

	01-02-2001 02:48									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Totally disagree with the feeling thing. Civ2 drew you in because of the history and game, yes, but SMAC sucked you in because of great story and the amazing atmosphere.

I'd like a combination of both, but I'd MUCH more like it to be like SMAC, without the unique factions.

So, another vote for SMAC.

	01-02-2001 05:46									#13
	Put an end to popups!

SMAC is clearly the better game of 2. It's unfortunate that many people don't like its atmosphere. I admit that it also took me some time to get used to it, but after I got immersed in its story and gameplay, I found it far more superior to Civ2. If you guys check out the Velociryx's guide for SMAC, you will realize that this game offers far more variations and details than Civ2. The goal of Civ3 is really to combine the great atmosphere of Civ2 and great gameplay of SMAC, and I'm very confident in Firaxis's ability to do so.

	01-02-2001 14:31									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Half these argument points are stupid.

Civ2 had a greater imperial feel - Well of course it did, that was the point of Civ, it wasn't the point of SMAC.

SMAC forced strategies on factions - Bull****. What about civ, it had the same strategy for ALL it's civs.

SMAC didn't have scenarios, it was a scenario - Well Civ3 won't be that scenario anyway.

Graphics - Civ3's graphics are going to be way better we know that.

I'm not going to vote either way. I wan't civ3, not a rehash of either of these games.

	01-02-2001 17:18									#15
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The real question on graphics isn't Civ2 vs SMAC, it's TOT vs SMAC, since those are the most recent products from the companies collaborating here. TOT's graphics are even darker than SMAC, and the "3D" units seem to float over the tile (I occasionally find myself moving a unit the wrong way because it looks like it is in the tile above its true location).

Comparing Civ2 to TOT/SMAC is the light and airy feel of springtime to the cloudy, gloomy feel of a Great Lakes winter.

The second problem with SMAC is the uniformity of the units, especially the infantry.

I agree that SMAC felt more like commanding a corporation than a mighty Empire. SMAC didn't have much variety in strategy (attack, attack, attack) due to the 2:1 disparity between attack and defense strengths.

	03-02-2001 04:59									#17
	Got spare money?

current results:
civ2:6
smac: 3

I want to clarify the meaning of this poll: This poll is NOT should civ3 be the same as civ2 or the same as SMAC.

But they will most likely base there design on the previous design of civ2 and smac(maybe also colonization) offcourse will they expand this design heavily(otherwise is there no sense in making a new game ) but still will a lot been based on previous design(like civ2 had a lot of elements of civ1) and will they ask themself the question "like in SMAC or like in civ2?". This poll is about which of them they should choose in situations like that most of the time.

	03-02-2001 17:24									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Hmm, combination of the best ideas from both, plus some new elements would be nice.

	04-02-2001 03:43									#19
	Put an end to popups!

I suppose these too quotes from the Firaxis Website could be relevant.

"In 1998, Firaxis Games released Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, a turn-based science fiction strategy game. Alpha Centauri was extremely successful and had many game play innovations that advanced the turn-based genre. Firaxis Games will utilize many of the cool innovations made in Alpha Centauri in CivIII. In Civilization III you'll find borders (but even more realistic than in SMAC), unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose, enhanced and more realistic diplomacy AI, build- queues and more ways to delegate commands for those who want to minimize micromanagement at later stages in the game. These are just some of the innovations that will be found in Civilization III and that made Alpha Centauri the highest rated PC game ever!"

Another quote from the site:

"This game isn't simply about a face-lift or adding more "stuff" to the existing design. It's not even just about keeping and refining the good, addictive aspects of Sid Meier's Civilization I and Civilization II and combining those with what was new and innovative in Alpha Centauri - though this is a major thrust of our efforts. It's also about amplifying some previously unexplored areas of gameplay and enhancing some others in ways that give players more options and fun choices to build their empires the way they want to."