 |
|
|
And you ask this in a SMAC forum, with all the lo--, er, I mean devotees who are still playing SMAC the only ones seing it? Get EU. SMAC is outdated, gets wearisome quickly, and lacks the most vital ingredient of Civ2, the great customisability. I stopped playing it within 3 months of release.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Ilkuul
|
 |
of Thame (UK)
Mar 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Many thanks for the feedback!
To answer your question, Sprayber, why it has to be an either-or situation is that, sadly for my computer game-playing, I live in England, where all computer software just has the £ (pound) sign substituted for the $ - though a pound is worth around $1.45. So even if the planetary pack is available cheaply over here, $20 --> £20 --> ±$30, plus EU at about twice that, goes beyond my humble birthday budget!
I'll try shopping around, though. What I've read here makes AC sound like the better bet on the whole, but if I can get both I will, and will give you my reactions to EU, WhiteElephants!
(You were the only negative voice, Snapcase: do you play EU??)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sindai
|
|
I dunno, but here's some stuff I've gleaned about EU from scanning their own boards and the gongold.com forums:
-The game is meant to be extremely historically accurate. Certain events happen at certain times, and you simply aren't going to do as well with say, Bohemia as you would with France or Spain. Gameplay is, of course, lmited to a single map. SMAC is significantly more flexible in the possibilities area.
-The manual is crap. Even hardcore fans agree with this. It is more historical fluff than actual rules, and the "tutorial" mission is almost as bad. If you want to become a proficient player, expect to spend a lot of time on the official EU forums asking questions. For what it's worth, the Alpha Centauri manuals (both SMAC and X) don't have this problem.
-Conquest is apparently way more discouraged than it is in SMAC. Armies in the field suffer attrition (ie: troops desert and die just from sitting or marching); it takes a long time to break down fortresses and castles, even with large numbers of cannon, and all the time you are trying those armies will be suffering attrition; and finally, every war you provoke adds to your "badboy rating", which is a huge factor in the Ai's willingness to war on you. Even after only a few wars your badboy will be high enough to cause half the world to gang up on you at the drop of a hat.
-You also do not "conquer" a province simply by moving an army onto it. You have to offer the enemy country a peace in exchange for that province, and they have to be sufficiently frightened of you to accept. You can have armies in every single province of an enemy country and still not actually "conquer" that country until it diplomatically submits and allows you to annex it.
-Because of the above, "peaceful conquest" is actually a decent option. If you're larger than a given country and have extremely good relations with them, you can turn them into a "vassal" which is quite similar to submissive factions from SMAC. Years later, you are allowed to "peacefully annex" a vassal country.
-Technology research is somewhat simplified compared to SMAC, wherein SMAC you have specific techs which do specific things and allow other specific techs to be research, in EU you simply have several "areas" of research (like "Land", "Trade", and "Sea") into which you throw cash and gain advances, which are simply labeled things like "Land 3" and "Trade 10".
-The game starts in 1492 and ends sometimes in the early 1700's (I think) no questions asked. A world conquest is practically impossible because of the warfare limits, so the "winning" country is the one with the most victory points (which are based on a whole ton of things, like the SMAC "overall" catagory under "Who's Who.") at the end. of course, you could also try something interesting like doing your best to merely get into the top 5 in victory points with a minor country....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mark13
|
 |
Northampton, England
Sep 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I have played both - here are my thoughts on comparing them:
First of all, SMAC is a *totally* different type of game to EU. As you may or may not know, EU is an RTS, whereas SMAC is very much in the 'Civ' mould.
As such, you can expect that to master Civ3, SMAC will be a million times more useful than EU. Forget the history thing, Civ3 is basically going to be Civ2 with all the features of SMAC. The borders, a more advanced SE etc. are all in Civ3 as well. So from that point of view, SMAC all the way.
However, a lot of people like EU for its sheer complexity and historical accuracy. Basically, if you are a history nut, you will enjoy EU, as it effectively allows you to rewrite Medieval history in a much more detailed and realistic fashion. However, there are several flaws in the gameplay of EU, which really turned me off it. EU went straight back to the shop for me, I'm afraid.
The crux of the problem was to do with tedium. I found that unless I ran the game at a reasonably quick pace, an awful lot of the time, nothing ever happens - all of a sudden you can be rushed off your feet - this problem is offset some by the pause button, and different speeds, but otherwise gets tiresome.
Yeah, I know, I know - typical RTS complaints from a TBS player. I guess that's because I am a TBS player. Which is why I have been playing SMAC now for the best part of 2 years.... 
If you enjoy Civ2, you will enjoy SMAC, I think. Although a lot of the romance is taken away by it being on a different planet and all, it uses basically the same engine. You will see a lot of the same facilities and projects as you did in Civ2 (with different names, of course) but there is a lot more besides to give it its own personality.
The best addition to the Civ series, IMO, is the social engineering screen. Rather than running a single government, as you do in Civ, this allows you to run a combination of different socio-economic models, each with their own pros and cons. This allows you even more flexibility whilst paying, and allows more contrived and varied strategies.
In addition to this, each faction (or civ) has their own personality and agenda. This allows for a lot more varied gameplay than Civ2, and games can get personal (read the 10,000 "Damn you Yang!!" threads on this forum)
However, there is a lot to be said on the flipside. First of all, it is a very buggy game. Nothing show-stopping, but very annoying. You will find the various bugs listed here on this forum somewhere, and most of them generally are avoidable.
In summary:
Having stated what you want from a computer game, I would go for SMAC. In terms of Civ3, SMAC is certainly a lot closer to it than EU. However, if you are a history nut, and want a game that accurately represents the history, politics and trade of the time (which doesn't strike me as being high on your priority list) go for EU. I have a feeling you will get a lot more out of SMAC than EU - you may find yourslef bored very quickly with the latter.
P.S. In response to Snapcase, I know several people have that point of view, and most of it is simply being stubborn. "I've played Civ2 for three years now - why should I bother to change" is the crux of it, and I just don't buy it. SMAC is superior to Civ2 in virtually every capacity, and I really don't see a lot wrong with the customizability features. After all, SMAC is a lot more complex game, so of course it is going to be more difficult to do - it goes with the territory.
[This message has been edited by mark13 (edited April 23, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Argonaut
|
 |
Toronto
Mar 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
I'd have to that if you only get one, definetly get SMAC(X). I just got EU as, yes I'm sad to say it's true, I've grown a little tired of SMAC. Of course, I've played SMAC almost exclusively since it was released, and before that Civ II and before that Civ I (my very first PC game If you don't count the Commodore 64), so I definetly got my money's worth. And I know I'll go back to SMAC eventually, AND I will invest in Civ III too. But EU is definetly a good game, it's quite different, and includes a lot of stuff that I always wanted in Civ, but wasn't practical for the scope of the game. So if you ever see it cheap, and you can spare the cash, I recommend picking up EU too. (Or if your rich and you can afford too) 
------------------
Argo
"People want to believe what they see is true, even if it's only for the time they are in the playhouse. That's what theatre is, don't you understand? Showing people what they wish were true."
-Robertson Davies "World of Wonders"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Misotu
|
 |
Leamington Spa, England
Dec 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ceci n'est pas Snapcase on 04-22-2001 07:12 AM
And you ask this in a SMAC forum, with all the lo--, er, I mean devotees who are still playing SMAC the only ones seing it? Get EU. SMAC is outdated, gets wearisome quickly, and lacks the most vital ingredient of Civ2, the great customisability. I stopped playing it within 3 months of release.
|
Yes, I loved the customisability of Civ2. Oh look, the green faction is attacking me again. And now the blue faction, which is completely identical in every respect to the green faction, is attacking me on the other side.
Totally fascinating. 
(I played Civ for years, and Civ2. But SMAC smacks the pants off both, heh heh, if you can cope with the complexity of the game.
Not that I want to be controversial Ceci n'est pas quelque chose baffling )
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2001 03:52
Are we talking about the same SMAC/SMAX? Anyway back to the question. If you want to get ready for Civ3, you might be disappointed if you get EU. The only thing the two have in common is the historical aspect IMHO. Everything else is different. If you get EU, you won't need Civ3. If you can find it, you can probably get SMAC and SMAX for under $20. Why does if have to be an either or situation? 
|