Help me decide! EU or SMAC??

[Ilkuul]

Help, I need advice, folks! With a birthday coming up, I can afford ONE new computer game. I'm a long-standing Civ fan (Civ1 and Civ2, not CtP); but have never played SMAC.

At the same time I'm reading very positive reports of Europa Universalis on this forum, and elsewhere.

What would you advise? Which game would be (a) easier to get into? (b) better preparation for Civ3? and (c) more exciting/fulfilling to play?

(Of course I'm also posting this topic on the AC forum !)

[Kyle]

If you plan on getting both games eventually, I'd say get EU. I find it to be a more rewarding game to play.


That's not to say SMAC isn't good, in fact, it's a great game. Civ3 will be more like SMAC and is probably easier to get a hang of earlier on.

But with Civ 3 coming out sooner or later, why would you want a game that is like it? I'd want something different. That's why EU is so great, it provides the depth and enjoyment of a Civ type game, but it's almost completely different experiance.

[Ilkuul]

Thanks, Kyle, I appreciate your thoughts. But the big question is, WHERE ARE THE REST OF YOU? I see quite a few topics on this forum, but only one response to my question, while in the same time there have been 6 responses to the same question on the AC-General forum!

Does this say anything about how highly you guys value EU??

[Zkribbler]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-22-2001 07:10 PM Does this say anything about how highly you guys value EU??

No, it says I've been out of town.

SMAC is more Civ'ian, but I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would. For me, it seemed to much like just another scenario of Civ II.

I'm enjoying EU far more because it's a fresh new idea.

[Depp]

Well, I have had tons of fun with both games, but EU seems to last longer. Im still always eager to play it, and I have had it for a long time now, since it was released in sweden.
But in the long run you should definatly get both, they are great games. SMAC on hotseat is really fun

[Jeje2]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-21-2001 06:56 PM Help, I need advice, folks! With a birthday coming up, I can afford ONE new computer game. I'm a long-standing Civ fan (Civ1 and Civ2, not CtP); but have never played SMAC. At the same time I'm reading very positive reports of Europa Universalis on this forum, and elsewhere. What would you advise? Which game would be (a) easier to get into? (b) better preparation for Civ3? and (c) more exciting/fulfilling to play? (Of course I'm also posting this topic on the AC forum !)

a) SMAC it is like Civ.
I've never played a game as hard to learn as EU was for me. It was very hard to learn the basics

b) SMAC I would say - It's a Sid game

c) The difficult one...
I have palyed two games of EU Grand Champion (GC) sofar and they have been OK, not great but OK. I will though test soon IGC (Improved Grand Champion), it's a patch by players, and rumors tell it will make the game more fun and challenging. At the momement with my little EU gaming i would suggest the Planetary Pack (SMAC+SMACX)

But I hope IGC will supprice me positively.

Hope this helps a little in your decisionmaking...

[Allemand]

I didn't like SMAC very much. It's a fantasy (or Sci-fi if you prefer) version of Civ and the graphics turned me off, too. EU is more realistic, probably has more to offer. But if you're a diehard Civ fan, I can understand the attraction to SMAC, just didn't happen to me.

In EU, the IGC is not greatly different than the GC. You might call it a variation, but don't expect miracles. However, it's easier to setup and play a minor, and if you like Russia then you'll have more fun in the IGC. Austria has a nice variant, too. France, on the other hand, has a tougher time in the IGC.

[Ilkuul]

Many thanks, folks, for your replies. I appreciate the feedback from people who've actually played the game.

In the meantime I've had some interesting replies on the AC-General forum, that I thought you might like to respond to! How about this one, from Sindai:

quote: -The game [EU] 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, where in 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....

Any comments??

Mark13 had this to say:

quote: ...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.... ...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.

I have to say I found these two responses causing me to lean much more towards SMAC. Anyone care to convince me otherwise?? This is your last chance...!

[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 23, 2001).]

[Allemand]

I like EU better, but it's your choice. However, it's stupid to try to pit one forum against another; the players are all biased.

Buy SMAC if you like.

[Ilkuul]

No, no, don't get me wrong - those last comments were meant to be funny . Warped sense of humour, perhaps (British). Let me say again, as I have already a couple of times, that I really do appreciate the replies I've received on this forum; and if I could afford it, I'd love to get both games!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like EU (and you wouldn't find a greater SMAC partisan on the OLD Firaxis boards). I just love history and historical battles. EU shows you it's HARD to conquer the world, and you have to be nice to some people and have allies.. Great game.

[Jeje2]

Replys to the comments form AC forum:

First Sindai:

quote: The game [EU] 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.

Yup, certain things happen, like it or not. Now it is more challenging to play Bohemia than France.

quote: 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.

It is CRAP. That what makes it even harder to learn the game.

quote: 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.

And the problem is?
Historically correct is that troops have attriation. Troops move slowly. (Well in Smac it takes a year ) Castles were strong - and they still provided relatively good cover at this time. And now I don't need to have troops in every province - instead I can assemble a big enbough army nearby to kick any enemies that come to my province. I have time to move them before my castle is occupied.

Badboy rating increases with war's - this a problem?
EU isn't just a game about war, neither is SMAC. There are other aspects as well.

quote: 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.

And in Civ how many times haven't I cursed out loud when I temporarily lose a city? Of course you have gain it in peacenegotiations. And as longs as a country have troops they might belive in rescue and say no to annexation. Wouldn't you?

quote: 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.

This is a problem? I think it's good strategy.

quote: Technology research is somewhat simplified compared to SMAC, where in 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".

True, and this is something I also would like to see. I have a feeling that research doesn't affect your armies through the game. OK, you get better castles etc., but army is the same. (Note: Other countries do research also and so the techgap isn't big ever)

quote: 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....

And this would be the games fault?
You just have to chose - two games, both with ups and downs and different choices in development.


Mark13 has some good points - that I don't see any need to comment them.

One more thing is that a EU Grand Campaign take much longer than a game of SMAC. (In playinghours I mean.) IMHO EU GC takes too long.

And I do recommend at the moment SMAC Planetary Pack, just don't think that EU would be a bad game - It isn't. It just needs a little more fixing around the corners... and a new much better manual.

[Ilkuul]

Thanks, Jeje, for your responses - again, they help me to get a better picture of the two games. I am actually quite interested in history, and what I've read here does make it sound as tho' EU is pretty accurate about things like armies suffering attrition, etc. So maybe I'll begin with SMAC/X, and try and get EU for Christmas - perhaps by then they'll have corrected some of the bugs and brought out a better manual!

[Quercus]

I've bought two games in the past year - SMAC and EU. They're both excellent, but very different. All the comments about relative pace and tech trees are right, as well as the uselessness of the EU manual. (However, if you're a bit of a history nerd ( ), parts of the EU manual are quite interesting). The games also share the feature of being rampantly buggy, but EU wins hands down, being on patch 1.08 (which incidentally doesn't work with the UK 1.07 EU CD).

My suggestion - buy both. The SMAX Planetary Pack cost me ten quid in the reduced section: buy that first, wait a few months and then when EU has gone the same way, buy that. And kiss your social life goodbye.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Quercus on 04-25-2001 04:47 PM My suggestion - buy both. The SMAX Planetary Pack cost me ten quid in the reduced section...

...of? Softwarefirst? EB?

Thanks for your comments, Quercus - it helps to hear from someone who's had experience of both games here in the UK. I may need to get back to you if I have problems with patches, etc.!

[Ramo]

Definitely EU. EU is so much richer than SMAC...

[weird god]

i bought both and enjoyed both - however i prefer EU because of it´s historic background. if you already got civ2-multiplayer there´s no need for SMAC anyway - it´s the best of all and just to similar to AC.

[Khan Singh]

I love the map in EU, and the history. But I think the designers really needed to decide what was fun and what wasn't.

In the first place, this game is a micromanagement nightmare. A lot of people thought SMAC had too much micromanagement ( I didn't). But EU is ten times worse. You have to control the complete economy, army, navy, colonial office, religion, trade and diplomacy of a European nation and it's worldwide empire. In real time. It is just too much work and too little fun.

The really annoying thing is that half this work could easily have been eliminated with no real loss to gameplay and a huge gain in play speed and enjoyability. Provincial management should have been eliminated completely. Most of it is repetative and by the numbers anyway. Trade could have been streamlined by 90%. Warfare should have been made either simpler or more complex; as it stands your armies are extremely hard to merge or coordinate, but combat is also simplistic and dull. You either have to make combat inherently complex and interesting or make it simple and quick. Complex and boring just doesn't work.

Secondly the interface, while functional, is no more than that.

And finally, the production values are just plain bad. I don't demand first rate sound from a strategy game. Generally I turn the sound off completely. But unfortunately you need the sound in EU to tell when your troops are in battle. And the sounds are so bad they are almost unbearable. The combat sound makes me think of somebody ringing a dinner bell---continuously for a full minute. And they ring it 3 minutes out of every 10 minutes of play time in some scenarios. Arghhhh!

SMAC is much better game all in all than EU. It is actually playable, for one thing. And the interface, sounds and graphics are all better. While it lacks the historical interest of EU, it has interesting and thought provoking factions and ideas. Its scope is large enough to be epic, but not so large as to be unmanageable. It is the culmination of the Empire genre of games and is a classic.

I like the immensely informative map in EU, and the setting is interesting. But the game just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. The detail is incredible and the strategy is epic, subtle and intelligent. But the whole mess is inaccessible and, frankly, tedious.

[Allemand]

How long have you played?

[Vitmore The Great]

I bought EU a few days ago, and must say that I love it! I am a history fanatic, and am impressed with its historical depth. True, the interface could have been more streamlined, and the manual could have been better (a table of contents or index would have been nice), but for its shortcomings, once you get into the game and get adjusted to the nuances of the game, it becomes a smooth ride of historical love. I was just playing Prussia during the Seven Years War, and must say that I kicked ass and annexed Poland! Yeah! There are still some tings I have to understand, but I guess the self discovery of how the game works is part of the charm. Worth the bones.

Vitmore

------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me

[Keygen]

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul on 04-21-2001 06:56 PM Which game would be (a) easier to get into? (b) better preparation for Civ3? and (c) more exciting/fulfilling to play?

a) For a Civ player I would say SMAC. For someone who haven't played any civ type game I would say SMAC is more difficult to learn to play good and EU to understand how some basic features work!

b) Defenetelly SMAC. EU is completely different than any Civ type game. Not relative to Civ III.

c) Both! It's just that in my opinion that SMAC has more resistance in time than EU. EU doesn't have the depth of SMAC thereby it will probably keep you busy for less time than SMAC.


SMAC's graphics are not good though. They are quite boring and they have kept some Civ/CTP players from keep playing it. If graphics are not a first priority then SMAC would be great.
EU has superior graphics but its interface is quite bad designed and it has not in anyway the depth and complexity of SMAC. Its strategy is less managable but it's still good.

Two thinks that I can't use to it yet in EU and on the negative things:
1) The technology model it uses. One of the most deficient I have ever seen. Not even close to the Civ model.
2) The way you accually poses a territory. As much as army you have there you don't own it! You have to send colonists or merchants but in many times is hell to make a successful colonization. You might have dozen of army there but keep failing on any colinization attemp for a very long period.

In few words, EU is different, good but won't probably keep you for too long in interest. SMAC is good, nice strategy but a bit old. When the Civ III comes out you will certainly drop it .

[Imran Siddiqui]

I must just respond to Khan Singh, because I disagree with just about everything he said!

quote: I love the map in EU, and the history. But I think the designers really needed to decide what was fun and what wasn't.

They did... the game rocks

quote: In the first place, this game is a micromanagement nightmare. A lot of people thought SMAC had too much micromanagement ( I didn't). But EU is ten times worse. You have to control the complete economy, army, navy, colonial office, religion, trade and diplomacy of a European nation and it's worldwide empire. In real time. It is just too much work and too little fun.

NO, see, the micromanagement IS the fun part! And if you feel overwhelmed there is a pause button, USE IT!

quote: Provincial management should have been eliminated completely. Most of it is repetative and by the numbers anyway. Trade could have been streamlined by 90%. Warfare should have been made either simpler or more complex; as it stands your armies are extremely hard to merge or coordinate, but combat is also simplistic and dull. You either have to make combat inherently complex and interesting or make it simple and quick. Complex and boring just doesn't work.

Are you smoking something? Provincial management removed?! That IS the game! And combat should be simplistic, you aren't a general, but you give them goals where to go. Combat is a means to an end, gaining territory (War is Diplomacy by other means - Clausewitz). The combat is meant to be simple and the game isn't really a war game, so it works very well.

quote: Secondly the interface, while functional, is no more than that.

Ok, fine. But that does make it better than most games, no?

quote: And finally, the production values are just plain bad. I don't demand first rate sound from a strategy game. Generally I turn the sound off completely. But unfortunately you need the sound in EU to tell when your troops are in battle. And the sounds are so bad they are almost unbearable. The combat sound makes me think of somebody ringing a dinner bell---continuously for a full minute. And they ring it 3 minutes out of every 10 minutes of play time in some scenarios. Arghhhh!

Uh... why do you need sound to tell if your troops are in battle. If you need the sound for that, you haven't been playing long enough. After a Declaration of War, I keep vigilant eye on my armies. You should too.

quote: I like the immensely informative map in EU, and the setting is interesting. But the game just doesn't work as far as I'm concerned. The detail is incredible and the strategy is epic, subtle and intelligent. But the whole mess is inaccessible and, frankly, tedious.

Totally disagree. EU is complex and while it has a large learning curve, it is heavenly afterwards.

[Leonidas]

I've played both games.

I would say to get the SMAC Planetary Pack first - it has all 14 factions plus the manual and strategy guide and is fully patched. It's one heck of a deal. Plus there is a ton of user scenarios/factions that you can add to the game. The diplomacy is outstanding. The story and graphics are well done.

I'm not sure why people think the graphics in SMAC aren't well done - I think they are - it is after all a TB game; not a RT strategy game.

Then, 6 months from now when they have properly patched/fixed EU, and the price comes down, or they put out an EU Gold edition, then get that game. EU is very well done, but some things could have been implemented a bit better. The interface is a bit clunky; it takes up a good portion of the screen. I've had the game crash on me several times - never had that problem with any other game (and this after a ton of patches). When I load the game it just feels unstable - like there's an old car under that new coat of paint. I just wish they had used a better interface - it feels like the game was made several years ago... click, click, click...

SMAC is a polished game; EU still needs a bit of work.

Both games are very enjoyable - but I would suggest SMAC - Sid's games rule

------------------
Go tell the Spartans, passerby:
That here, obedient to their laws, we lie.
[This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited May 04, 2001).]

[Keygen]

quote: Originally posted by Leonidas on 05-04-2001 09:46 AM I'm not sure why people think the graphics in SMAC aren't well done - I think they are - it is after all a TB game; not a RT strategy game.

They are quite dark, the technologies are represented with very simple and poor graphics, the city improvements and the secret project the same and if you switch to higher resolutions, e.g. 1024x768 then the graphics on the map (terren, units) get worse.
Well, they are not completely throwaway but Call To Power has better. And I must say that the most people that don't like SMAC graphics are those playing CTP .

[Ilkuul]

Just to let you all know -- I did end up getting EU as a birthday gift! And let me say at once that I'm absolutely dazzled by EU!! It's a really GREAT game, I've been playing it in every available moment ever since I got it. I wouldn't yet go so far as to say that it outshines Civ, but it comes a VERY close second for me. The richness and depth of the diplomacy, trade and exploration models definitely put Civ2 in the shade. I can only hope Civ3 does half as well in those areas...

The main problem for me so far with EU is that it's far too prone to crash on my machine. I've installed the latest patch (1.08), but that hasn't significantly improved the crash-rate. Most frustrating of all is that I haven't been able to save my first GC game beyond 1611! Any attempt to save in 1612 causes an immediate crash to desktop with an incomplete/corrupt save file. Can only hope the upcoming patch 1.09 puts this right!

[Usually Insane]

is there a demo or something so you can test the game before purchasing it?

[FunkyGhost]

One thing you should consider before buying SMAC is the color problem. I am quite sure, that I would have liked the game, but I tried the demo and (since I have a green/red weakness) was not able to distinguish between the tiles in a comfortable way, i.e. I could not find good locations for my bases, ...
So I am not able to play this game at all in a reasonable way. I know there is a color patch, but one told me, that it destroys the atmosphere of the game (and for my part, atmosphere is a very important aspect of every game). Unfortunately I never saw some screen shots. If anyone has some, I would be happy to take a look at them. There are lots of people with this color weakness, so try the demo before you buy!

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Ilkuul
Just to let you all know -- I did end up getting EU as a birthday gift!

LOL!
So lot's of trouble solved in one lucky strike.

And let me say at once that I'm absolutely dazzled by EU!! It's a really GREAT game, I've been playing it in every available moment ever since I got it. I wouldn't yet go so far as to say that it outshines Civ, but it comes a VERY close second for me. The richness and depth of the diplomacy, trade and exploration models definitely put Civ2 in the shade. I can only hope Civ3 does half as well in those areas...

Yup, pretty much my opinions too...
I'm glad that you like the game.

The main problem for me so far with EU is that it's far too prone to crash on my machine. I've installed the latest patch (1.08), but that hasn't significantly improved the crash-rate. Most frustrating of all is that I haven't been able to save my first GC game beyond 1611! Any attempt to save in 1612 causes an immediate crash to desktop with an incomplete/corrupt save file. Can only hope the upcoming patch 1.09 puts this right!

OK, one question is that is your hard-drive full?
(I know it's a silly question, but ...)


Well, now that you have both games and have an own opinion. Which game would you suggest to buy, if one were only able to buy one game? (SMAC or EU)

[ak]

I've played Civ2, SMAC, CTP2 and EU. And the winner is ... EU. I like the historical aspect. I can actually learn while I waste time. The balance is well done also. And the simplified - enough is enough - tech tree. No more Tanks vs Chariots.

[Zorro's Z]

I'd go for SMAC. EU is kinda too complicated for me...