Civ3 or SMAX?

Darius · October 31, 2001, 13:00

Now that Civ3 is out, do you plan to keep playing SMAX?

I've never played any Civ games. I got interested in strategy games around the time SMAC came out. I still love SMAX, but I get the feeling I will have to switch to Civ3 to keep up with the times. What does everybody think?

T-hawk · October 31, 2001, 14:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Darius
Now that Civ3 is out, do you plan to keep playing SMAX?

I've never played any Civ games. I got interested in strategy games around the time SMAC came out. I still love SMAX, but I get the feeling I will have to switch to Civ3 to keep up with the times. What does everybody think?

Me, I played Civ 1 and 2 quite a lot. I have no interest in Civ 3 at the moment, and will keep playing SMAC (which I only started a few months ago) for quite a while yet. I'll get Civ 3 once the price comes down and the patches come out, but not now.

DavidByron · October 31, 2001, 14:56

I don't really understand what the difference is supposed to be in terms of game features (as opposed to changes in names and graphics and so on). They seem to have rejected the SMAC Socio-Economic model which is, I thought, one of the best add on features of SMAC.

I might be interested if there was a sophisticated 'governor' system for automating certain city functions and generally these games all need greatly improved methods for controlling large numbers of cities, search, grouping, multiple command issuing and so on... SMAC goes some way but not really far enough to be terribly useful. I highly doubt Civ3 is any better but I don't know.
---------------------

However I always thought I needed to investigate it in more depth -- I think a challenge whereby you have no control over your city production, or limited control only, and instead use governor and automation settings to do everything, would be worth a try.

At any rate it would certainly put you on a level playing ground with the AI, who obviously has to use governors all the time too.

Sprayber · October 31, 2001, 15:10

Well, unless Civ3 is vastly superior than Smax I'll probably stick with AC. I just don't know how I could get into the game if they didn't come up with some way to make the differents civs different from each other. It makes a difference to me if I land near Yang or Lal. But will it mean something if I start off next to the Vikings as opposed to the Sioux?

If it isn't any better than I'm not going to waste my money..

knowhow2 · October 31, 2001, 15:25

I played SMAC before I any tried Civ-games. So the boring gray-mass of civ won't lore me to civ3 or 4 or whatever. SMAC 2 !!!!

Waterbottle · October 31, 2001, 15:53

Just bought Civ3 last night and had a go at a few game openings.
It is an excellent game and I sense quite a bit of depth there.
I'll need to spend a lot more time with it in order to formulate a clear comparison between the two though.

My first impression however, is that it lacks some of the dynamism and tention that SMAC has. Althought the AI is Superb, the other leaders seem a bit wooden and one dimentional. Once again, take these initial observations with a grain of salt. As mentionned I have yet to get out of the ancient era...

I'll post a follow up comparison with a more detailed analysis when I've had the time to finish a couple of civ3 games.

Has anyone else had the chance to to begin forming an opinion?

Blake · October 31, 2001, 16:32

I'm already a Civ3 addict, and I havn't even got my copy of Civ3 yet (should get it in a week).

SMAX will be retired to some dank dusty corner of my HDD. Not to say I wont ever play it again, I probably will. But Civ3 looks to have a lot of improvments...

I'm still hoping for a SMAC2, though

Clear Skies · October 31, 2001, 17:14

We need an official SMAC 2 petition...

Purple · October 31, 2001, 18:28

Double post, see below. Apologies.

Purple · October 31, 2001, 18:29

Reading several reviews of Civ3 makes me eager to get my hands on it (I'm sitting on the front porch waiting for UPS), but I must say that despite some intriguing new features, I will miss some things that make SMAC/X special, like the terrain elevation effects and terraforming and the unit workshop.

As a Civ 1 & 2 veteran, I'm sure I'll be immersed in Civ3 for a long time, but when its novelty subsides a little, I'll probably still play an occasional SMAX game.

Where is that big brown delivery van, anyway?

Blunderdog · October 31, 2001, 19:09

I'm definitely going to be playing a lot of Civ 3, but it won't take the place of SMAC. SMAC's got great factions and social engineering that Civ can't touch. And multiplayer.

I started my first game of Civ 3 last night, and already I like the diplomatic options better than SMAC. Great horse trading!

Cybergod · October 31, 2001, 19:34

SMAC 2!
SMAC 2!
SMAC 2!!!

PS. NO MORE BUGS!

Comstr · October 31, 2001, 20:46

As a recent re-convert tio SMAX, I say...

WE NEED SMAC 2...THE RETURN

(STILL waiting for the LD CIVIII to arrive from EB.

But everything I've read says it's not as good as SMAX..I *like* to watch the movies!)

Flubber · October 31, 2001, 21:14

Since I am now in 7 MP games I guess I will be playing Smax for a good long while.

I will buy and play CIV3 (if the reviews here are reasonably favorable) once the worst bugs are patched and the price comes down. I am hoping for there to be a patched later edition which includes MP

.

Only after playing for a while will I make a choice and even then I might play both. heck I still play the occasional game of CIV2.

WhiteElephants · October 31, 2001, 21:15

I'm afraid that the lack of multiplayer in Civ 3 will make it lose its luster.

We shall see.

Sprayber · November 1, 2001, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I'm afraid that the lack of multiplayer in Civ 3 will make it lose its luster.

We shall see.

Yeah, thats what I think.

Drago Sinio · November 1, 2001, 01:33

Well, I have been playing CIV3 for the last two days, and I like it a lot. Much tougher AI than SMAC- by a lot. I like the way it sends units in "behind the lines" looking for weak targets, rather than just smashing an endless stream of units against the strongest target. ANd a lot of the changes from CIV2 seem to be designed to make it much harder for the Human to outpace the AI. You cant rush build a wonder, for example. And no caravans to stockpile.
However its apples and oranges from SMAC. I dont know yet which one is better, but they are so different from each other I dont think it matters. Both are great, and I expect I will continue to play both for a long time. As Yogi Berra once said, I feel very strongly both ways.

JZ Temple · November 1, 2001, 09:05

I've been playing C3 for a couple of days, and while the AI is tougher, that doesn't necessarily make it better. The game overall is more of a "Civ Lite" than a development of the Civ tradition. And it really suffers compared to SMAC/SMAX. There are no Wonder videos, no backstory, boring units... the AI opponents really don't feel different from one another... and the emphasis on strategic resources makes having a successful empire very much of a hit or miss proposition.

Also, on a chat on 10/30 the Firaxis folks noted that they are already working on a patch to fix the bugs the game shipped with, including ones they introduced at the last minute due to being in a rush. They expect to have a patch out by the end of November, so maybe I'll re-install the game by then, if I haven't returned it.

Oh, and I miss the Xenofungus!

Googlie · November 1, 2001, 20:32

I got addicted to CivII maybe four years ago, and even after the edvent of smac and smax, I still play the odd game of civ.

So needless to say I got Civ III yesterday, and played the first 100 turns or so before retiring well after midnight.

Diplomacy is much improved even over smac, which is light years ahead of the old civs. Specialist resources are neat. Small wonders (every civ can build them) make sense. I don't miss the movies. And the AI rocks. Knows how to ICS. Knows how to wage war reasonably sensibly.

And (although I didn't get close to the end game) I am looking forward to the one major difference between the civ games and the smac/x variety. That's how you have to involve your whole empire in the rush to space. Every city musyt be building something to contribute to the spaceship (and now there are ten components - five of them multi - instead of just 3 from before)

My biggest gripe about smac/x was how you could just buy victory - either in SP or even MP games by cashing the crawlers and spending the credits , to give:

Discover Threshold, build Voice that turn
Build Ascent next turn
Game over

What a lame enjoyment-destroying ending

No way can one do that now in Civ III (and it was virtually impossible to do in CivII (unless one had 46 cities, with 35 capable of building a structural, 8 a component and 3 a module all in the same turn, rush built - never happened to me)

But will I drop smac/x?

I'll certainly see through the fifteen or so PBEMs I'm in, but I don't see myself starting any more, or playing any smac/x SP games now that civIII is here.

And I anticipate a few all-nighters - something I never felt I wanted - or needed - ever to do with smac/x

That's my opinion

Googlie

DavidByron · November 1, 2001, 23:20

I've never played CIV2 or Call to Power. I did play a lot of CIV (one) at that time. Managed to get a space station up by 1AD. And a space station up with the one city game. (If you are unfamiliar with original CIV those are supposed to be impressive

)

I guess what I always suspected was that additional releases added nothing but better graphics and stuff.....

SMAC has the customisable units that you expect to get with space-based strategy games like MOO... do any of the new CIVs? I thought that was a nice touch although I was disappointed that air-crawlers didn't work!

Basil · November 2, 2001, 04:04

Well, seeing as I'd pretty much have to buy a new computer to play Civ III, I can safely say that I'm going to be sticking with SMAX.

Now, if it were SMAC 2 coming out, and it had the same requirements as Civ III,
that would be a reason to buy a new computer!

Hydro · November 2, 2001, 15:03

As much as I loved Civ 2, I find myself strangely ambivalent about Civ 3. I’ve read many of the reviews for Civ 3 and it sounds much the same as Civ 2 in its basics, and many of its new features (culture points, for instance) are interesting but I am curious if they really affect game play. Other features, like minor wonders, sound an awful lot like major city improvements that happen to affect and entire civ. As to animation, that is eye candy, and I can take it or leave it.

The improved interface and enhanced AI (maybe - the jury is still out) very likely make Civ 3 more technically challenging, and that is well and good. However, if Firaxis hasn’t improved the flavor of the game then I am not really interested. Cookie cutter leaders plagued Civ 2, and the AI played them all the same. Yawn. By comparison SMAC is engaging, and it evokes a visceral reaction from me even after over two years. Did Civ 2 do that? Nope. For me Civ 2 was a technical exercise. That is why it is gathering dust in my attic.

I expect that I’ll buy Civ 3, but only after the inevitable patches come out and after it has gone down in price a bit (and maybe into the bargain bin). I’ll continue to watch the reviews, which to this point have been mostly positive (but hardly overwhelming), and I’ll see if that piques my interest. In the meantime it’s SMAC for me, flaws and all.

Hydro

mark13 · November 3, 2001, 17:34

Civ3 seems like it's going to be a revolutionary SP experience. I'm not really a sci-fi fan, so that wasn't the main reason I bought SMAX - and I think Civ3 is going to be a vastly more engrossing SP experience, simply due to the quality of the AI.

What I won't do though, is stop playing SMAC MP. I stopped playing SP a long time ago....the AI is dreadful, and it simply doesn't interest me any more. But SMAC as a game is brilliant - still engrossing. I've had a vast amount of enjoyment playing MP the last year or so...and as long as there are people to play with, I'll play.

But Civ3's a whole new civ game, I suppose. Had it been Civ 2.1, I probably wouldn't have bothered - but it seems that due to the corruption issues, culture et al, we're going to need to come up with some new strategies. From what I've heard, Civ3 also has a vastly improved AI....and when MP comes out, that promises to be pretty special. If you want an indication of just how good the AI is, Vel hasn't beaten King level yet.

SMAC is a great game, no question. And while it suffers from a truly awful AI, and innumerate bugs, it is still well worth the money. However, Civ3 promises to be that and more - even if we're going to have to wait a while for MP.

And I concur with Googlie - I never really got the hankering to play 'one more turn' of SMAC in SP....well, ever. I can't explain why, but I never found SMAC SP that engrossing.

Anyway, I'm busy counting the days 'til Nov 16th

jones · November 3, 2001, 20:16

Well after 5 games,

W : 1 monarch, 2 emp.
L: 1 emp.
?: (probably L) 1 emp game that crashed and the autosaves won't load

I'm ready for SMAC2

Barry Brenesal · November 4, 2001, 18:57

Two very different games, IMO. In a nutshell:

Civ3 pluses:

* Best opponent AI yet.
* Much greater trade detail.
* Far better graphics.
* Better balanced.

SMAC pluses:

* Well-characterized opponents.
* Pithy comments with every tech advance.
* Fantastic AVIs.
* Unique system of technologies and concepts to learn.

I actually have concurrent games going in both. SMAC I can win at the highest level, but I'm as yet unable to hold my own on Regent level in Civ 3.

Drone #9 · November 6, 2001, 00:43

Both will be on my hard drive for a long time to come. Until SMAC2 is released anyway

.
I think having both CivIII and SMAC/AX you get the best of both worlds (pardon the pun). SMAC still rules in my book since I'm a sci-fi nut at heart. SMAC captured the whole hardcore sci-fi theme flawlessly. It is nice to play the much needed update such as Civ III though.
BTW, I've made a poll up over at the CivIII|General threads where you can vote for your favorite Civ game. Head on over and get heard!

Sikander · November 7, 2001, 08:48

I've spent the better part of my gaming hours in the last week playing Civ 3. I find myself really missing SMAC while playing. I guess the reason is that it's still the same game underneath. It's about as different from Civ 2 as Civ 2 was from Civ 1. It's incremental improvement in a game that I have already played too much.

In so many ways it is inferior to SMAC, graphically (well the units in SMAC mostly suck, but everything else I liked), it is inferior most definitely in it's interface (which really adds up over a few hours of play), the music is only slightly better, though I haven't had time to get sick of it yet. The AI seems better, and certainly plays better tactically. Diplomacy is better in Civ 3 I think than in SMAC, but part of that is better AI. Where Civ 3 really gets it's ass kicked is the game design. It doesn't seem to have any new concepts that are actually interesting in game terms. Sure the cultural border thing is perhaps more realistic, but it really holds none of the tension that an interesting choice would. It's not a choice, if you aren't ICSing (and there are more reasons than ever not to) you can't afford not to push your cultural border.

There are a hundred things about Civ 3 that just don't have any juice left after all the Civ 1 and the little Civ 2 I played. SMAC on the other hand is interesting because the game concepts are so dynamic. This was possible in part because it didn't have to kowtow to history being a sci-fi game, which Civ 3 doesn't have the luxury of. But Civ 3 is so familiar that I just loaded it and started playing. I spend as much time trying to learn the interface as the rules, it's that much unchanged from Civ 2.

One difference is the tech tree, which pretty much has the same techs, but they don't always follow all of the same lines, or have the exact same effects. I built the Great Library in an early game, and then beelined to Education (doh!), which made it obsolete. Unless Civ 3 improves a lot as I play a bit more it is going to get the same treatment as Civ 2, which is the closet treatment. If a friend wants to get into one of the games I will certainly recommend the latest one, they are improvements over one another, but they just aren't different enough to justify playing more than one of them, and for me it was Civ 1.

I am still very hopeful for MOO3, and my fingers are permanently crossed for MOM2 and of course SMAC2. Hell, even an upgrade for Colonization would be welcome.

moomin · November 7, 2001, 12:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry Brenesal
Two very different games, IMO. In a nutshell:

Civ3 pluses:

* Best opponent AI yet.
* Much greater trade detail.
* Far better graphics.
* Better balanced.

SMAC pluses:

* Well-characterized opponents.
* Pithy comments with every tech advance.
* Fantastic AVIs.
* Unique system of technologies and concepts to learn.

I actually have concurrent games going in both. SMAC I can win at the highest level, but I'm as yet unable to hold my own on Regent level in Civ 3.

Ok, I played Civ3 as much as I could the last four days - say 20 hours all in all. I've now booted up SMAX again. I won't play more Civ3 until the patch is out.

Here is my list:

Civ3 pluses:
* Graphics are neat.
* AI is more aggressive, and the tactics aren't atrocious.
* No cheap wonder buying.

SMAX pluses:
* SE Settings. God I miss those in Civ3!
* The factions have more to them than their unit color.
* Workshop.
* Nukes that work
* Overall feeling. Exterminating Yang is just so satisfying.

I'm not talking about the game-breaking bugs in Civ3 either; the air warfare bug and the money bug. Firaxis's probably fix them, although we all know how they didn't fix some galring SMAC ones. But for me at least it feels as if Civ3 is a step back from SMAX. Until they fix the worst bugs I certainly wont be spending any more time with Civ3.

Now, where's that scenario where I play fungboy on a continent entirey bereft of fungus starting between Yang and Miriam? Gotta try that one again. It'll have to do until Moo3, I guess.

Ned · November 13, 2001, 03:47

I don't like Civ III. I haven't finished the first game I played and I suspect I never will. I had the same reaction to Call To Power. Annoyed and bored beyond belief.

I suspect the Civ III AI is good because they took a lot out of the game. CIV III does seems to be an awful lot simpler than SMAC.

I also miss, really miss, a lot of the user interface features I have come to take for granted in SMAC. For example, the ability to sell all improvements of a type all at once, the ability to issue commands to all units of a type, and the ability to give group goto commands. In Civ III, one cannot even issue a goto for a unit to go to a city. The lack of these features really makes CIV a PIA.

Which about sums it up. CIV III is a real PIA from the user interface point of view.

Doom was a good first person shooter. However, Deus Ex took that genre to a new level. Having experienced Deus Ex, it would be hard to go back to a simple shooter such as Doom.

This is how I feel about Civ III in comparison to SMAC. SMAC is a lot more "game" than Civ III. It is simply hard to play a lesser game and enjoy it.

Ned

Googlie · November 13, 2001, 18:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Googlie

And I anticipate a few all-nighters - something I never felt I wanted - or needed - ever to do with smac/x

Googlie

Well, one is entitled to change one's opinion.

I never did finish that game, or any of the three or four others I started, and I never felt the need to stay up to play "just one more turn"

Why?

Boring, in a word.

Clunky interface that rivals CtP for inanety (?). Click on a city to open it and you wake the sleeping sentry instead. Double click again, and finally it opens. Do your stuff and exit and, oh yes, you have to set the awakened sentry to Fortify again.

Stupid white halo beneath the feet of the active unit - and if he's in desert you can't see it. What kind of stupidity is that?

Choice buttons that you have to hilite with a click and then hit enter (be a contortionist) or double click again - how's that for redundancy?

And slow. (I run a PII 700 with 128MB ram). Play with the max # civs on a huge map and you can go brew a coffee between turns by 1000 ad.

I did finish one game - an attempt at an OCC, but got hammered by the AI. I might try that again (only 1 city to get frustrated over) - but I think it'll go the way of CtP, CtP II, ToT and all the other sinks I've thrown my $50 in.

Never was a game more eagerly anticipated and so bitterly disappointing

G.