 |
| |
|
|
alphaomega
|
|
whats your thoughts? Firstly I loved CIV 2, but havent played much of CIV III...YET, I have other games to complete first. But I love the idea of future tech of AC, but I have heard all the complicated tech trees can be extremely daunting and confusing. Reading the PCGamer rating who call it one of the best games ever, I can understand people thinking this games awesome and many opinions I have seen love the game and all its new details, but I know some people who think it sucks compared to Civ, the biggest complaints being its far too complex and not enjoyable. Also the game apparently would end at a certain year ( I think it was 2800) no matter what. So no matter how good you are and wanted to play on it would have to just end. Also do you get mega weapons? And do the graphics put you off? anyway your thoughts please before I go and get the game seeing as its so damn cheap...thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alphaomega
|
|
quote:
Yes it is. I've spent a year of my life on this forum and I've played AC more then the Civs combined. |
why do you prefer it? is there anything big it has over the civ games apart from the obvious space age? How are the unit customisations? is it really almost limitless?
quote:
Huh? Never heard about that. I think you can play as much as you want. |
so it dosent just end after you get to a certain year then ok thats cool. can you tell me the ways u can achieve victory?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kassiopeia
|
 |
Jyväskylä, Finland
Jul 2001
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
why do you prefer it? is there anything big it has over the civ games apart from the obvious space age? How are the unit customisations? is it really almost limitless? |
Well the unit workshop is one thing. You can design and build units entirely from scratch; you can select the chassis, the weapon system, the reactor type, the armour plating, any special add-ons, all by yourself.
Also I find the diplomacy in AC much more dimensional then in Civ3. The science fiction theme appeals to me (I've even written several AC-based fanfics). Somehow AC has more variance, depth and mood then the Civs. It can appear simple, and you can play it fairly much and enjoy it even if you don't know all the mechanics behind the scenes, but there's still much to learn.
quote:
so it dosent just end after you get to a certain year then ok thats cool. can you tell me the ways u can achieve victory? |
I might be missing some...
Conquest - pretty obvious, kill kill kill.
Economical - collect *lots* of energy credits and at a certain tech level you can use them to overtake the planet economy, making you supreme.
Diplomatical - get as much allies and population to gain support in forms of votes. Then you can try to use these votes in the Planetary Council to get yourself elected Supreme Leader.
And my preference (which nets most points):
Transcendance - develop all the techs and build a secret project called Ascend to Transcendance. Pretty much like the SS victory in Civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joel Velasco
|
|
Do I love the game, YES. Of all the games on the market today, including the Civ series, AC is my favorite. Considering that it is four years old, that's saying a lot.
For me, one of the reasons why I like it so much is that I don't have to suspend my disbelief as I did with any of the other Civs. After all I know history, and when I see Americans in 4000 BC or Persians running away with the game, I go "Yeah right". With AC its all in the future. Further more, you don't have any previous prejudices against this Civ or that tech, its all new.
As far as being to complicated, I do not believe its more complicated than Civ tech trees. The only daunting thing is that it is all new, but trust me once you understand the basics, it wont be a concern. If you have played any of the Civs, the most complex elements of the game are already understood. I would strongly suggest that you get the combo pack with AC-Alien Crossfire (SMAX). Hopefully they will have the tech tree poster within, which is much better than trying to figure out branches in the help menu.
To tell you the truth I have no idea if the game shuts down in 2800. Each turn is a single year, and even on the most difficult levels you will exhaust techs, growth, and world domination long before 800 turns. So to answer your question, you'll have plenty of turns to "mess around" even when the game is in the bag.
Graphics aren't state of the art, again its an old game, but the movies are on par with the latest editions of Civ. The bonus, is a rich back story that develops during the game. Also included are voice bits for each building that is constructed, some of which are rather amusing.
You want mega weapons? How does Cloaked String Disrupter Quantum Gravships sound to you? Even without knowing anything about what all that means, your imagination has to be dreaming up all sort of possibilities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
AO
By all means get it. It is by far IMHO the best of the TBS to date. I too loved CIV2 and were it not for my expectations being raised to the point they were for SMAC would have probably liked/loved CIV3. But since SMAc set the new bar for my expectations I simply can't get the addiction to CIV3.
Big plusses for me over previous TBS games
Social Engineering verses governments. The Social Engineering workshop/screen allows so many different nuances in how to manage your faction/empire that it far outshadows anything the CIV line has to offer. It breaks down governement into 4 eperate flaovrs.
1st level is type of government - Police State, Democracy, Fundamentalist
2nd Level is type of economics - Free Market, Planned, Green
3rd Level is dedicated to the focus of the faction - Power (war), knowledge (research), wealth
4th level is a future society - Cybernetic, Eudamonic, or Thought Control
The combinations of choices between these 4 levels allows much customization depending on the circumstances you face. Much moreso than say CIV 1- 3.
Unit workshop - The allows you to custom build most any chassis with weapon armor and other specials so that you have a near infinite choice of options available.
Terraforming - THis can often be said to be a game within a game. The ability to completely change the landscape exists. You can raise and lower land from/to the seas. The strategy one uses is an often discusses one. Suffice it to say to almost everyone agrees never ever allow the game to handle any task. Auto terraforming, base governors etc. are OK to start but you rapidly learn the AI stands for Always Idiotic.
Special new units such as crawlers allow you to garner resorces without having to assign a population point and whats more they can garner those resources outside base radii. So one can set a crawler half way across the world and have it transport back the equivalent of nuts (food), minerals (shields in CIV speak), energy (trade arrows in CIV speak) every turn to a given base.
Don't get me wrong there are a few odd 100 or so bugs inthe game and first thing I would do after you get the game is go to the FIraxis site and patch it with the latest SMAC patch.
But if the game you want is one full of opportunities for meaningful decision and variety of choices SMAc is your game. CIV 1-3 doesn't give you nearly the flexibility that SMAC does.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Method
|
 |
/me goes to France
Feb 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
there is actually a limit. i believe its in the datalinks. on citizen (chieftain), specialist (warlord), and talent (prince), the game ends in 2600 (IIRC) and librarian (king), thinker (emperor), and transcend (diety) it ends 2500 (IIRC). you might think that that's not nearly enough time, but really, my average game is finished in the late 2200's. i'll be through the tech tree by 2350 at the latest. even when i played on citizen, the game rarely went past 2400. even if you do get to the limit (i never have) i imagine it would let you keep playing, just like you can keep playing after you win.
do not, whatever you do, buy civ3. it really is a waste of money. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zakharov VII
|
|
I believe there's also a line in alpha.txt where you can change the "retirement" date...
Z
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alphaomega
|
|
I just got the planetary pack at my store for 15 bucks!!! yeah I got the tech trees and am just flicking through the manual. Reading some of it sounds really cool, like the sea bases, the manual seems great. It dosent tell you much about units though. I'll read through it first before I actually start playing which will be when I have finished system shock 2.
thanks for the comments. I loved civ II (I dont really play it much now) and I know with civ III they took away wonder movies for some unexplained reason and also i've read corruption is way too great and its full of inconsistancies and alot of fans who got the game seem to be dissapointed (ive looked at gamespot, gameranking etc) but reviews praised it highly but I havent played it hardly yet to know. one thing I didnt like about the civ games is how a spearman can damage a Modern Armored tank but isnt this alot less likely in civ III?..but the fact that the multiplayer add-on is $30 and did not ship with the game is real kick in the jewels, I wanted to play over LAN.
Lastly is alien crossfire a worthy expansion and is the latest smac patch 4.0? And when units upgrade do you actually see the visual difference? thanks again guys I will soon be a smac addict.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:21
|
|
As a certain William Shakespeare might have said-
a game of infinite variety, which makes hungry, where most it satisfies.
The weapons workshop is such pure, untrammelled FUN on one level, and capable of such subtle finessing on another, that it should please the most anally retentive gamer. The social engineering of the factions (while the factions themselves might seem limiting, consider the civs and governments in Civ II- how often do they turn fundy in later age, especially Zulu/Mongol?) gives you a great deal of latitude, and some of the special project movies are firm favourites- the Dream Twister gave me the bejeebers when I first saw it play at 3:30 a.m. one early long night's journey into Alpha Centauri. The back story, the joy of discovery as the fog of unknown territory clears, even things like selected quotes from the Datalinks, and getting the punning references in the Hall of Fame titles- what's not to recommend?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I would rate SMAC as the best civ-type game only if the AI had just been a little bit better.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
gdgrimm
|
|
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this one yet...
One of the most fascinating aspects of SMAX over the Civ games for me is the dual combat modes. SMAX has military units that fight in the usual Earth like way (i.e. biggest club wins) and a whole other range of military units that fight in a unique Planet like way (i.e. called Psi combat, kind of a telepathic thought method that causes people to imagine their skin boiling over with maggots and such). In Psi combat, the weopans used are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how well trained the troops are (or how 'old' the native life form is).
And of course specific factions have specific strengths and weaknesses that help or hurt them in each combat mode.
I distinctly remember one game where I had fallen way behind the Data Angels (who are especially good at stealing technologies and buying up other peoples' troops and cities) in normal military technologies. In Civ II terms, it was like his Dragoons against my Phalanxes and my Elephants against his Musketeers. I really didn't stand a chance in that type of military combat.
But I was the Planet Cult (whom by their very nature get a 20% Psi attack bonus), who was following Green economics (which gives another 20% attack bonus to Psi attack), had control of the Manifold Nexus (geographic 'resource' which gives another 10% bonus to Psi attack), and had just finished growing/training a native life army (immune to the purchase abilities of the Data Angels probe teams) in a short war with the Believers (made especially short because their the worst faction at fighting Psi war).
End result was that my Planet Cult demon mind worm army sliced and diced the medium trained Data Angels. It was great fun!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:21
|
|
There once was a girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good
She was very, very good
When she was bad she was horrid!
While SMAC does have many truly innovative features and clever ideas listed here by others it still doesn't rise to the status of "great." It's detractions (not just "I wish this were a little different") are too many. I do play it, but often the games get boring to me. First, let's get two issues out of the way.
 AO, you are correct. Whatever graphics engine they use is kludgy. When I first got the game it was unbearable on my old PII 300 64M w/generic 8M video. My present Athlon doesn't have a decent graphics card, but even with a super-duper system the graphics are still strangely sluggish (if you're using XP with less than 512M then you take another hit off the speed, but that isn't the graphics' fault).
 Adalbertus, SMAC attack values are double the defense values at equivalent tech levels ("Impact" and above). Defensive bonuses are negligible (eg, +25% in base defends at 8:5 instead of 2:1). Bunker gives squat except against artillery. Probe actions favor the attacker, while psi attacks are normally 3:2. In other words, there is zero defensive strategy: attack, attack, attack. As though to make up for that flaw they took a step back in gameplay. Now aircraft and fast units can only attack once no matter how little damage they take.
 These are secondary to the main complaints I have about the game. Ugh, what a (inter)face! Besides the gloomy, monotonous pallette there are too many irksome traits and little bugs to list any but the most annoying: Lack of organization. Start with the unit design workshop. It is a great idea, but try to find units in that clunky scrolling unit list with no organization whatsoever. Upgrading many units is agonizing. The next choice, pop-up review, keeps presenting unit designs that you have rejected or changed previously. The last option, auto-design w/o review, forces you to wade through the unorganized unit list to prune the ones you'll never use. I end up disabling it all rather than wrestle with the artificial idiot's suggestions. Aargh!
Sort by movement domain (land, air, sea) is a must; by chassis type and by Att/Def values a no-brainer. At least the unit build menu is a 2D grid and does a half-ass job by separating combat from noncombat units. Likewise there is no organization to the Military Command/Security Nexus. Can't sort by current/obsolete, can't hide unit types no longer in service, can't manage upgrades from the screen, and so on.
There are no organizational options for Base Ops screen. It can't display which bases have key improvements you might want to manage (which goes all the way back to Civ1, for those who remember). No grouping by geography, no classification types available (frontier, sea power, air power, etc). Can't sort by name, size, production, psych, etc.
When you click on a base from the Base Ops screen and then return to Base Ops it goes back to the top of the list and pgup/pgdn keys no longer work. I find both highly aggravating; I assume the latter is more of a bug rather than an intent of design. From a programming stance why isn't the state of the display preserved for return when the base screen is invoked? I'm baffled.
Also there are no organizational options for tech review. If I'm using blind research I want to review by category, but that's impossible. For the known tech list it shows category and level beside the name, but not in the datalinks.
 Then the unit chassis types get me. Airplanes, submarines, aircraft carriers, rockets, turbojets, helicopters, hovercraft, hydrofoils, missiles… these have all been developed within a 100 year period which began with dreadfully primitive manufacturing capabilites. These colonists start out with all the general knowledge we've got, plus some, and they can't build a simple ship or airframe? THEY CAN'T EVEN BUILD A FRIGGIN' ATV? Talk about reinventing the wheel! 
 What, do hydraulics (displacement, drag, etc) work differently on Chiron? Does the airfoil work differently? They don't have to build a 100k ton supercarrier, just a simple ship. They don't have to build a Mach 2.5 marvel of technology, just something rugged and practical like the A-10, or even the prop-driven A-26 and C-130.
Does chemistry work differently on Chiron? If you read the appendix, Chiron is rich in reducing (anaerobic hydrogen-fixing) environments. We can make plastics and synthetic crude oil, with 1950's tech, from soy beans. How about methanol, or hydrogen? Basic propellants are the bottom rung of chemical engineering. It shouldn't take them decades to get there; if they can make boilers and pipes, they can refine various propellants from crops. Worry about process efficiency later.
 Hovercraft is the most versatile form of transport; capable of sea, litoral, and inland operation (over unbroken ground). With Chiron's 75% greater air density a hovercraft would have better load/deadweight ratio than on Earth, and better rough terrain handling. You wouldn't need amphibious modifications for any troops or equipment being delivered to the shore by hovercraft (unless faced with sheer cliffs).
It's a no-brainer as the Chiron chassis of choice, but essentially doesn't exist in the game design. The foil chassis (seems Firaxis doesn't know the definition of either "airfoil" or "hydrofoil") is pictured as hovercraft, but allows slow sea-only movement. The "hovertank" chassis is land only.
Let's go back to some really basic transportation predating internal combustion by nearly a century: railroads. Why wait for maglev technology when it's entirely unnecessary? Cripes, GIVE ME RAILS!
That leads me to the other aspect of the unit design and construction model that bugs me. While the colonists begin with a basic understanding that all these chassis types are possible they lack the manpower to build them. Infrastructure and industry are the obstacles, not theory. They don't need to reinvent the wheel, they need to reinvent mass production. A base should need to build fabrication facilities by fundamental chassis type: land, sea, fixed wing, rotary wing, etc. Instead the facilities are optional and only affect the training level of the units.
In a nutshell, transportation technology is delayed in categories where it ought not be delayed at all, and excessively delayed by nonsensical tech barriers where some delay might be expected, yet unaffected by the limited human resources set forth in the premise of the game itself.
 Then there's the whole energy-based economy model. C'mon. Energy Bank? A giant Duracell attached to a capacitor? Get real! Why is there any limit to energy if compact, efficient, and relatively non-polluting fission is available? Obviously there is no political squeemishness, given all the nuclear powered vessels around. No two forms of usable energy are interchangeable in value, which derives from the cost of making it available and demand for its use. If I need to recharge my cellphone and don't have a converter all the power plants in the world mean nothing.
Cashless economy is different from moneyless economy. Pure command economy does well while the colonies are small, and everybody needs a portion of everything. Von Mises proved that a "free" market system based on an exchangable currency (even if abstracted by perceived values in barter transactions) is necessary for any economy above subsistence level. But I digress. Money is the measure of economy, not energy; energy is a product, or rather a wide range of products from electrical power to IC fuels and propellants to reactor fuels.
On to other things. There is nothing between 7.62mm small arms and the high tech weapons in the game. Maybe the colonists were originally only equipped with small arms, OK. But once they start designing and producing their own there's no limit. What about heavy infantry weapons like mortars, machine guns, RPGs, LAWs, wire guided AT missiles, and shoulder-launched AA missiles that we have now?
 There is nothing beyond hand weapons. How about tanks and field artillery? No, not imaginary "artillery" with 200+ km (2 tile) range (the "bombardment" model is a joke), tactical heavy weapons that are the backbone of ground forces. SMAC has the same weapons in vehicles that the infantry carry. No firepower differential, exactly the same. Ships are limited to small arms too; how the hell do you attack a 10k+ ton ship with these things? ("If we fire enough 15mm rounds maybe the weight of the lead will sink her, sir.") I guess they forgot how to make bombs for aircraft, too… I could go on.
 Then the ridiculous stuff. How do you make laser/energy weapon "artillery?" That is, how do you "bombard" from over the horizon, or to bypass line-of-sight defenses, with a line-of-sight weapon? Carrier deck and pressure hull as "special abilities" instead of separate chassis types? Training is a "special ability" of the vessel, not the crew? I picture normal crew compartments being unable to accomodate their enlarged brains.
"Special abilities" limited to 2 on units? Isn't that really the definition of second rate weapons systems? "Sorry, sir, we can't change the armaments on these strike aircraft for the air superiority role. Yes, I know we have a whole year to complete the mission. Why don't we just build new planes instead?" I guess 20th century multirole aircraft are just figments of our collective imagination.
Spearhead units that make or break a military force today are highly evolved from the old single-role model. Modern combat aircraft have long distance sensors of many types, ECM that rocks, surface and air attack weaponry (except for dedicated strategic bombers, another matter entirely); basically every combat "special" on the list except for amphib/drop "pods" (let's not go there either).
Heck, militia units can be equipped with aforementioned shoulder launched AA and AT weapons with minimal training—mujahedeen vs. Soviets taught that lesson. That's equivalent to Comm Jammer (+ vs ground vehicles) and AAA abilities, available cheaply even for noncombat units. Defense isn't defined by what materials you strap around your body; armor is useless without a weapon to deter the enemy's attacks from testing the armor. Mystical armor materials themselves… please, don't even get me started.
It's the stupidity, stupid!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-08-2002 20:00
). When I'm at school I say to myself "ahh this is boring, I wanna go play Alpha Centauri". I thought that eventually I'd get sick of doing the same thing over & over but you don't get sick of it for some reason. It's a great game, go buy it 
: 
|