The Best Civ

[Mentat]

The thing that looked most promising to me about SMAC (over C:CTP that is) is the amount of realism it promises to add to the future. It looks as though they put a lot of thought into what future technologies will exist, and generally how things will be in the future. Things don't seem quite as good in the realism department for C:CTP with all the strange new units and such, but I could be (and hope I am) wrong.

Off the subject: I have a nephew named Brian Reynolds. Pretty weird, eh?

[LT John]

Wow- it's cool to see Brian Reynolds stopping by.

He's right- nobody can claim to have a better game yet. The judgment will have to wait until the final games come out.

The cool thing is that both AC and CTP offer enough differences in design that players can get both and have a different experience with each one. I know that everyone on the CTP team wants to get their hands on SMAC as soon as it comes out. Want to arrange a mass game swap, Brian?

For Draco- we'll have terraforming units, but they won't be able to alter weather patterns.

For Mentat- The units that you have seen (ecoterrorist, park ranger, etc) are some of the more radical future units. The designers did quite a bit of research to make sure that most of the future technologies of CTP are plausible or drawn from popular scifi. Of course, there is a lot that we haven't revealed yet (you're probably getting tired of me repeating myself here...)

[St Leo]

So you pretty much go from the beginning of Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey", through "2010: A Second Odyssey", "2067: A Third Odyssey" until "3001: The Final Odyssey".

While you are at it, you also start going through "Red Mars", "Green Mars", and "Blue Mars" trilogy.

Meanwhile your society develops into someting reminiscent of Asimov's "Caves of Steel".

Like we say in the trade, Cool Mon!!

Putting the ideas of "3001: The Final Odyssey" in civilization?
A dream come true...

Markos, Apolyton CS

[War]

Thinking that a game would suck because of how one unit looks seems pretty idiotic to me... Anyway, I'm looking forward to C:CtP the most simply because I've heard enough about it to lay to rest some of my worries about civ-spinoffs (namely problems with civ2). I've heard very little about the actual game mechanics of SMAC, so I have no idea what to expect. And the so called plot doesn't interest me one bit. I mean, I guess it's sorta nice to hear it once if it's a good story. But the novelty wears off soon. And the actual gameplay would have to deliver. But it's Sid's baby, so I have some faith. If there's any developer that knows the importance of gameplay, I figure it would be Sid.

As for microprose' civ2 multiplayer edition, well it's way too late now. I'm not even gonna bother with this one. As for ToT, I'm not excited about it at all. I have no faith in microprose any more especially after that failed stint with magic the gathering series. I'll most likely just ignore all their stuff from now on. Unless they get rave reviews from everyone, including my online friends.

[scipio]

I don't remember who posted the messege about civ CTP lacking a good storyline, but I think that they are way off. The part that I enjoyed the most about civ and civ2 was the fact that i started with a tribe of nomads and the future was mine to shape. It is the ability to be a part of history, to shape the modern world, to watch how a descision made in 2000 bc make an impact 4000 years later that makes the civ series my all time favorite. I remember playing civ(the original) and finishing a game seven hours later, not even realizing that time had passed. If civ ctp can do that, it will be the game of choice for all the ci players that realize what made the first two so great.

[St Leo]

Several of the SMAC previews are quite detailed in the department of game mechanics. They promise such features as territorial ownership and elevations.

[Depp]

Hey, i wanna ask all of u a question?
Have u played CivNet? Of Course u have...

So what i wanna know is:
Is there gonna be a balanced multiplayer game so taking over the world before 1000 AD is the best tactics? In CivNet expansion and attacking is the only way to win...

And will there be some kind of mechanism that prevents a BC empire to grow to large? I mean domestic problems prevented all big empires to expand to much... The lands far from the empires heart feel nothing for the empire itself....

Hope such things will be corrected to provide greater realism and greater gameplay...

[Mentat]

Don't forget that having a huge empire in the civ games did have a negative effect: the farther a city was from the capital, the more corruption the city had. This was remedied later in the game with courthouses, government switches, etc., that brought down the corruption rate significantly. Though, there were no limits on the actual size of your empire (and I don't think such a limit would be all that fun, especially if it were date based), although, I have never played Civ net. Well, I better stop now, since this doesn't have much relevance in this thread.

[Depp]

Hey, corruption plays no part in the game in the erarly stages since a warloving people always get science faster from huts and raided towns so just get the wheel and slaughter free...
Im not interested in a game where u can't build the perfect empire with great cities and so forth... Just attacking everybody and building lots of cities is something that is fun once, and then u get sick of the game!

By the way... More chances to play a real alliance like cooperative play!!!!

[Aspen]

Well here's what I think. I would rather purchase CTP than AC. for several reasons:

1) the whole purpose of civ and why I love it so much is to start from scratch and build a small country that is number 1 in science and in the future takes over the world. I usually build 9 cities max. I depend on science mostly, and peace wonders.

oh yeah this brings me to a question: Will there be wonders like Great Wall and United Nations like in civII ?

2) I don't like games like AC since most probably they are short term, 100 years or something, and I am already used to Earth terrain.

3) I am happy that CTP aren't just using our addiction to civ to make money, this is proved by the fact that they are attempting to evolve the game with their own personal touch, such examples as eco-terrorists, and so on. One thing though I don't like the title 'Park Ranger' so much... I would prefer another name...it's a bit cheesey don't you think?

[SeanD]

"PARK RANGER" MUST GO! I have some ideas for cooler names but I'm holding out for a competition so maybe I can win a signed copy of the game.
Seriously, just that name could stigmatize the whole game - people who don't know anything much about it will just say "CtP? that's that game with the Park Ranger and Yogi Bear and stuff? Not for me."

[St Leo]

ACtually SMAC is a long game.

[Aspen]

After careful browsing threw the SMAC sight... I've changed my mind I am now officially in a "RUT". I like both games EVEN TOT, well I hope that I will be able to buy all three...maybe even MGE...BUT that is a dream at most I could buy two...well I will in the coming days...

[Aco]

My *only* goals in playing Civ2 are: building large empires (i.e. many cities and population), the less combat needed the better. Now I know the latter is not really possible in Civ2, because you would be annihilated by the other (computer)civs, but one can only try ().

So in my opinion I think that Civ:CTP will be my best bet. That is if the producers (Lt John?) will allow for an endless game...

[SeanD]

Aco, you really don't need to worry about combat. I played a challenge game where I build *no* military units or spies/diplomats. I just gave the AI's what they wanted until I got the UN, then I ignored them. I lost 3-4 cities during the game, and got to AC first, no problem.

[Mentat]

SeanD, what difficulty level was that?

[SeanD]

Deity, large, raging hordes. I started again a couple of times so I could get Wonders I wanted.

[TNapoleon]

Yes, they are right. CTP looks promising. (Believe me, I don´t know when it´s going to arrive here).