CTP/SMAC cast your vote..

[Pythagoras]

In SMAC Reynolds degree in philosphy shines through, and cause of that I think its the most brilliant thing ever. Who cares if its just a buffed up Civ (with tons of new features). I see Civ as Chess, nobody changes the rules of chess, and I've always thought they just needed to come out with a new version every few years with improved graphics and slight, needed improvements in gameplay. SMAC is the piccacle of this. It has a fully built in ecological engine w/ 3 simple values for terrain- Rainfal, Rockiness, and Elevation. The brilliance behind Meier's and Reynold's games is that they seem to accurately model the utterly complex with the greatest simplicity. CTP violates this, it is not simple at all . . . I mean it is too complex,
and contrary to what Icedan says, the interface is about twenty times better than Civ II's.

How can you say there is no replayibility? Its so easy to create factions, you CAN randomize personalities, you START OUT with this same amount of Civs as in CTP. There are more ways to win then CTP, the same amount of turns. Also the cut-scenes are much better.
In conclusion - CTP is a whole new game entirely, SMAC is the classic, reborn.

Oh yeah - the SMAC future advances are vastly more realistic than the CTP stuff, CTP's wonders are stupid (Come on, Hollywood?)

So
SMAC-100% (what it deserved in PCGAMER)
CTP - 86% (its hard to scre up Civ)

This should stir some rukkus . .

[Tim19]

smac versus ctp 1:1
both are good, but ctp misses some nice features of smac, you know, automising some things, if u have an empire such as mine u have to work too much to keep it running and in smac the things are sometimes a little far fetched...

[RickA]

Well, I've got both games, played both games, and SMAC is better, damnit. I really wanted CCTP to really come out and set the new standards but that just isn't the case. Heck, even the little details, like the Wonder Movies, are done in a slapdash fashion. :-(

[smartin]

SMAC is mediocre at best. After all of this time surely they could have come up with something better than what amounts to no more than a MOD pac. There is something absurd about attacking an enemy with what looks like push lawn mowers. It is ultimately not very innovative. Instead of a marketplace you have an energy bank, etc. All in all, SMAC is too little too late. I give SMAC a 5 out of 10.
Recap of SMAC:
1) great idea
2) no feeling of empire building
3) diplomacy is annoying
4) graphics suck
5) fun to play for several times, but eventually boring (and this is all that matters in the end)
6) it's basically a MOD pac to Civ 2

CTP is a rip-off. Activision is just cashing in on the Civ name. The only reason that I don't score the game a 0 out of 10 is that there were many, many excellent and wonderful ideas that were included in the game. Unfortunately, the game has been so shoddily put together that the wonderful ideas simply serve to make the game frustrating because you can glimpse what the game COULD have been. Diplomacy is even worse than SMAC and that's really bad. I give CTP a 2 out of 10 ONLY because someone at least tried to include some great ideas.
Recap of CTP:
1) unforgivably bad interface
2) cheesy battle screen
3) unit stacking (great)
4) no feeling of empire building
5) cities in space (not as cool as it should have been
6) diplomacy that is SO tedious it would ruin the game even if everything else was great and everything else is FAR from great
7) it's BORING! (and this is all that matters in the end)

Both game makers either forgot or more likely simply didn't care that a game should be fun to play first and foremost. Activision and Firaxis thank you for giving them your money.

As far as CTP/SMAC? neither

I agree.

I agree to the fact that both Firaxis and Activision have failed to capture the addictivness of the classics, Civ 1 and 2.

You need to go back to what made those two games addictive, and work on THAT.

[SuperDave]

I won't cast any votes on which game is better because I don't care. We are all going to have both sooner or later anyway. One thing on my mind about CTP is the quickness of the game. The first time I played the game...maybe it was for 2 or 3 hours...I researched every possible tech and I must admit it felt awkward. I know that CTP has more techs than SMAC, but discovering these techs was too quick for me. Some of you might wonder why it is that I am complaining about this...well, here's a good reason. In CTP, wonder building can be pointless because they are rendered useless by later discoveries. It's not like King Richard's Crusade and Industrialization...not just one wonder...I forget which techs do this but sometimes 5 different wonders I have built have been rendered inoperable by a new discovery. I can't stand this...because then wonder-building is done solely for points at the end of the game. If anyone agrees or disagrees (I'd love to be corrected...because I want to like this game) please do say so.

[mikag]

Both games are a huge letdown in the only area that really counts, playability. So for me Civ II is still king.

[Cyborg]

After I played CTP, I removed SMAC from my hardrive.
CTP=1 SMAC=0

[VvGaMeRXvV]

Neither CTP and SMAC live up to Civ2. They are like spinoffs of a popular TV or comic book series. Spinoffs are never as good as what they are loosely based on. However, sometimes they are better. It's like comparing "Cheers" and "Frasier". Or the Spiderman series vs the Venom series. Of course the original masterpiece will be a tough game to beat. But in a couple of years, with all the technology and stuff, hopefully programmers and graphics artists will be allowed more freedom with newer languages and tools. You got to remember that these games are really just a bunch of numbers and letters. 0s and 1s. I don't envy the programmers of either game

[SuperDave]

VvGaMeRXvV, IMHO I believe that better processor speeds and system designs will mean more for programmers than software development tools. That and wider distribution of larger media than the standard cd...(is it me or were the wonder movies in CTP very short). We've already come a long way in programming languages but these newer achievements are not really necessary for either SMAC or Civ:CTP. Honestly, in a way I feel that CTP and SMAC are letdowns to Civ2...but I know better than to admit it wholeheartedly...when I first got Civilization 2 a few years ago I wasn't really smitten with it at all. It was merely ok to me...something to pass the time. But as I played "IT" more and more I began to like "IT" on it's own merits and it became extremely addicting. I don't care to hear rabid SMAC lovers turn down CTP without giving it the rightful playtime it deserves and I don't care to hear CTP owners who claim to have uninstalled SMAC right away on impulse. These games are meant to grow on you over an amount of time greater than an hour or a day. This is exactly why some of us can still play Civ2 and have fun. So to all those SMACers out there, give CTP a shot as they're very different games in their own right. To all those CTPers, do the same. I'm glad that I have both to be honest with all of you as neither was a waste of money.

[Mannamagnus]

Icedan,
My first impression of the user interface was like yours; it doesn't look good. But once you get into the game you'll find that it is very good. It's clean and crisp and not too hard to get used to. The problem however that most die hard civ2 players (myself included) have is that the interface is very much different from civ2 or smac.
To me the most important criterium regarding wether or not I like a game is how much effort it costs my wife get me to stop playing and how eager I'm to get going again.
To me CTP is extremely addictive, unfortunatly smac is not. True, like smac CTP will need some major patches, but after that I think we can safely inaugurate CTP as the true heir of civ2.

PS To me the best interface ever made for a game is that of Railroad Tycoon 2. Check it out.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If CTP gets constant 90% from reviews, then you can (maybe) say that it is Civ2's true heir. Until then, I'll just stick to my beloved SMAC, the actual true heir to Civ2!

Imran Siddiqui

[Rob]

Humm...I am a HUGE, and I mean HUGE, Sci Fri buff. Both SMAC and CTP where a litte bit disconcerting at first..but I have to admit that only CTP caused me to start losing sleep and drooling as I attempt to once again rule the world (and the oceans, and space!). SMAC just lost it's interest to me after a while. I will say this. A synthesis between the ideas of SMAC and "the new civ" CTP, would be the ultimate.

[Pique]

(Note: I posted this as a response to some guy on Firaxis' forums and got a nasty email saying it belonged here[!], not there...so by the magic of cut and paste, I present my [probably] irrelevant opinion...happy, nasty emailer?)

Impressions after having the game for a few days (A week yet? Maybe, seems like I've been fighting it for a year...):

Stacked combat/ranged units/etc- great. A lot more realistic (IMHO) than the old system.

Special units- good. I like the abilities these give you, but the corny names and non-traditionalism seem to be a turn-off for many.

Lack of borders- a real drawback after SMAC. The CP's have no concept of whats yours OR whats theirs.

AI- not particularly good. Don't know how many times I've demanded a non-tresspass treaty partner to leave my territory. They will withdraw their 5 or 10 units, only to send them in again next turn so you have to withdraw again. The only way the AI has any chance at all is by giving it huge advantages over the human player. In other words, pretty standard.

AI does use non-traditional units pretty well, and they are hell on trade routes. Treaties that expire every 10 turns are stupid, and add nothing except frustration from renegotiating them constantly. Diplomacy as a whole is sadly sub-par, mostly due to the stupid AI and the lack of a defined territory (borders again!).

Trade- great...way more in depth than other offerings in the genre (IMHO, once again).

Public works vs. formers/settlers- I like PW's better, but it is a matter of personal preference I think...

Military budget- great...way better to have units supported by a civ-wide military budget than the old unit/city relationship. Military alert status is also a very good addition to the genre.

UI- horrible, non-intuitive, etc, etc (note- I don't particularly like SMAC's either, but its not as bad as this. I prefer the good old civ2/windows style UI...menu's on top, city screen, etc, with the rest of the board for the MAP!). Map doesn't center on units correctly, battles take place out of your vision, pop-up windows don't tell you what a city just produced, badly done go-to lines that follow you halfway around the world waiting for you to misclick, etc. Lots of problems here.

Graphics- in general very good. Looks pretty crisp.

Fog of war- sucks, you can hardly tell what the terrain is under explored land if you don't have a unit watching over it. Enemy units seem to come and go at random and it is impossible to imagine what algorithm governs whether or not you see a unit comming/going.

Micromanagement- more than SMAC even with the queue templates (note: I don't personally mind MM, and never automate anything in any game if I can help it)

Speed, stability, etc.- heres the problem. Game is slow after about 1000 AD even with 64 mb, K6-2 300, full install, animations off, and permanent 1 gig vm setting. Crashes frequently for no apparent reason. Many people experience no crashes at all, but judging by the boards just as many get hammered with them. There is apparently no correlation between platforms that crash and those that don't. I have played for up to 6 hours with no problem, then had to reboot 3 times in 20 minutes next time I fired it up. Activision Tech Support is not even remotely helpful.

In the end, I think the game has some good inovations, and is really fun to play if you can fight past the UI, but I wouldn't buy it until about the 2nd patch comes out if I had to do it again. If you just have to get it now, get it at EB so you have a week to take it back if your system is one of the few (~50%) that it doesn't run fast/well on.

Pique

*(in a hurry to get lunch so forgive any/all above spelling errors, etc)

_____________________________________________

**(for this thread, I have to vote SMAC, but only because I can actually play it consistantly on my system. I'd much RATHER vote for CTP, as I really prefer an historical scenario than Sci-Fi)

Pique

[gameman]

I think it is dumb that everone is complaining about CTP's interface. It is supposed to be a somewhat complex game. I personnaly feel that that is a good thing. Being a complex game there are a lot of things that have to fit on this interface. And unless you want it to take up the whole screen I think they did a pretty good job. I haven't played SMAC yet so I am not going to judge that. I have been playing CTP for 3 days now and I think it is pretty good. I also think the interface is fine once you get other the fairly short learning curve.

[Jamie]

I was disapointed in SMAC. I waited and waited for it and then it came and the graphics looked depressing(Though the 3D terrain was nice) and the tech's never seemed real(To abstract). The custom units were nice but on the map it was hard to see what a unit was.
Now I have CTP and am even more depressed.
The interface is clunky and bugy. The tech tree is to fast at the end and to slow at the begining. The wonders are unbalanced and often you or the Comp's don't have time to build them before they are absolete especialy in the later stages of the game. The wonder movies are awfull(Unlike SMAC which had great Movies).
The truth is that the original civ game was the best game ever made and Civ2 was good only because it was not changed much from the original. I would have to say that SMAC is better than CTP but neither is as good as MGE.
So in closeing what we should be calling for is not a new game but an update of Civ.
But we wont get that now since the Civ team has left Microprose.

CIV FOREVER !

[Dim Cat]

CTP sucks big time, especially UI. Graphics is awesome, but you can't make a cool TBS game out of graphics alone. SMAC have some problems here and there, but is muuuuuuuch better. So my vote CTP 1, SMAC 10

[Questlp]

SMAC for sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pythagoras]

Oh yeah! Well I give SMAC Infinity! There end of thread, we win!

[Mind Elemental]

How can CTP be better when it's missing features like playing on pre-made maps and scenarios? Yes, I know Activision is releasing maps etc, but they should have put them in the initial release.

Not to say SMAC is better either...they're both great games, and I can't say which is better.

Both SMAC and CTP broke my heart.
*borders in SMAC were a great inovation
*but sadly the whole sci fi theme brought the game down
*what were activision thinking when they designed CTP's diplomacy?
Now I have to sit around and wait for activision to have another crack at it and make a game worthy of the title CIVILIZATION!

All said, CTP's got it over SMAC, history rules, space is boring.

[meowser]

Whoa! Lots of post. I think its just about that time for our favorite moderator/administrator to start a new poll.

[Pythagoras]

CTP = Civ1 + Unconventional Warfare.
SMAC = Civ2 + Much much more

oh yeah, check out my site-
http://members.xoom.com/pythagras/ModBin.html
PLEASE! I will love you forever if you do!

[Andrews]

This time it should work..

[This message has been edited by Andrews (edited April 09, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Andrews (edited April 09, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Andrews (edited April 09, 1999).]

[smartin]

I wanted to verify a suspicion that I have had since I bought CTP. I got out all of my Civ genre games and reinstalled them. I fired up Civnet and played. It was FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNN! Then, I fired up Civ2 and played. It was FUN! Then I played a scenario from one of the scenario packs (It was the Mars scenario). It was fun. Then SMAC came out. It was pretty fun to play for a while. But, now is pretty boring. Then CTP was released. It wasn't much fun to play at all--even in the beginning. It quickly became more tedious with every attempt to play it. Anyone spot a trend?

You know, SMAC has Sid's name on it, but it's Brian Reynolds who did the game, not Sid. Sid had very little to do with any of the Civ iterations after the first one. Civ2 is like taking Civ1 and putting Brian Reynolds stamp on it. SMAC should have been called 'Brian Reynold's Alpha Centauri'.
The hallmark of Sid's games is that they are FUN to play. Sid's Gettysberg is FUN. Railroad Tycoon is FUN.

The further Civ gets from Sid, the more tedious the game becomes. Brian Reynolds took the original FUN game and added his technical stamp but left enough of the game alone to keep it fun. Brian changed even more of the game for SMAC and it's a step down (fun-wise) from Civ2.

We need to get Sid back working on the Civ game and get him involved from day one (and in every facet of creating and balancing the gameplay) to create a true Civ3. Then, and maybe only then, will a Civ title match the FUN of the first game.

[Michiel de Boer]

CTP : 9
SMAC: 4

CTP : positive points : More civs, far better graphics, public works, trade routes, more elaborate wonders and units.

SMAC: negative points : Too few and always the same civilizations (where the yellow always get killed first), dark graphics, native life and landscape, confusing keyboard shortcuts, no doughnut worlds.

------------------

smartin is right. SMAC is frustrating. Interesting enough to play it, but menus, movement, diplomacy, terrain, unit graphics etc each have something kludgy about them that makes the whole experience frustrating even when doing well.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I just got my VISA bill. Over $600 spent at Best Buy last month. Mostly games.

On my 1-10 scale.

SMAC - 2.
CTP - 2.5 maybe 3.
Longbow 2 - oh baby! 10!!! (with voodoo card)
Falcon - have dont loaded it yet.

So, let me just say that I'll be playing CIV II MP for a while longer (till something better comes along - maybe a long while).

[jojo]

yeah, um SMAC not particularly replayable-- don't ask me why. Maybe I should disable those little vignettes that get posted once in a while.

While I prefer CTP, I have NOT played my last game of SMAC.

------------------
Your mileage may vary.

[Caroliner Rainbow]

I've been playing my 1st game of CTP for about a week now, and its the 1800's. This is on a small map. And i've been putting several hours into it a day. I greatly enjoy it, but damn is it ever slow! I think the interface is fine, i dont see what everyone's problem is with that. The diplomacy is weak, i've never had a conversation with a foreign dipolomat that made any sense at all. My intelligence will say that they really like me and i'll ask for a treaty, they'll insult me and say no everytime. I've never yet had anyone accept a treaty with me no matter how good i treat them or how badly they need my help. Other than the diplomacy it's an excellant game with a few minor flaws (such as units and wonders being obsoleted way to fast around the modern age) I'm waiting to see what scenario making will be like because thats a crucial point for me.
I like AC, the diplomacy is excellant, but it gets boring after awhile. Its like playing the same scenario over and over, no matter how good it is it will get old in a few games. I'm very dissapointed with AC's scenario building options, too much is unchangeable to really make a decent scenario that isn't practically the same as the original game, which is sad because because the scenario editor is pretty cool, but what good is it if the units are unchangeable? The AI has absolutely no sense for even the most rudimentary tactics also. Every game i've played the computer will have all the defenders walk out of a city leaving it unguarded at least once, usually several times a game.
So I'm gonna have to say that i'm enjoying CTP more, though its not perfect. AC is good but its just not holding my interest after a couple months because the setting is too fixed.