It's not whiners vs. fanboys it's Sid fans vs. Brian fans

[korn469]

there are two civ camps the civ1 keep it simple and elegent camp and the the civ2/SMAC we like our bells and whistles camp

so i guess the argument is what makes good game play? Sid and Brian took two different points of veiw on this, more is better, and less is more

personally i am in the brian camp i wanted SMAC ++ not Civ1+++
so can people point out the specific instances of design decisions being made by each camp that increased your enjoyment of the game?

i will give two examples
C2SX
Coordinating attack in the diplomacy menu
Plotting with client states or allies to tilt the balance of power in my favor is sorely missed...having machinations going on in the diplomacy meny made the game for me
C13
Strategic Resources
controlling vital hotspots around the globe to feed my warmachine gives me a sense of purpose and can be sources of minor victories spread throughout the game

[Moraelin]

Personally I never even knew Brian existed until recently. And to be honest, I only knew Sid Meier's name because he put that name on every single game box.

But basically, yeah, you've nailed the problem right on. For me more IS better. Well, as long as that "more" translates into more stuff to do in the game, anyway. Simply more mindless clicking isn't better. I.e., simplifying the interface so the same things are possible to do easier is OK, but turning the same game into a simplistic thing isn't.

(If I were to nominate a "THE Greatest Game Ever", it would be Fallout 2... you guessed, on account of sheer quantity of stuff to do. Every single skill was used for something, every single stat was used for something, and the amout of optional side-quests was nothing short of impressive. After several hunders of hours of playing the game with various characters, I still keep hearing about stuff that I've missed completely.)

But from the empire building genre alone, my "finest hour" nominations would be:

1) Colonization's interaction with the native tribes. Forget the simplified "barbarian" screw-up from Civ 3. The native americans from Colonization were The Real Thing. You could trade with them, negotiate with them, send them missionaries, have them train your people, and/or give them guns and horses and turn them into a formidable fighting machine to slow down your opponents. Well, _almost_ formidable, but it beat sending my own men to war. They'd also have their own personality, interests, land, and worries.

2) Colonization's specializations. Not just people working in a certain square, but people specialized to do a job better. Miners, tobacconists, hunters, etc.

3) Colonization's customizing your own civilization over time. As your empire grew, you could choose in which direction you want it to evolve. You could become friendlier towards the natives, for example, so they'd be less hostile. Or you could become more commercial instead and make more money. Or some other things. Basically instead of just starting with some civ traits like Industrious, Commercial, Expansionis, whatever, you could evolve in one or more of those directions as your empire grew.

4) Colonization's fine tuning your towns. Not just build special buildings, but also upgrade existing ones, and make use of your population to give certain of them a boost. E.g., simply having a church did give you some religion for your town, but you could also move a whole unit of population to do religious work, giving the thing a big boost. E.g., simply having a newspaper gave your citizens some desire for freedom, but you could assign a unit of population to boost it into a mighty propaganda machine. Sort of like Civ 3's entertainers, scientists and taxmen, but with a lot more options.

[Capt Dizle]

from a gameplay point of view Civ went backwards instead of forwards.

This seems the norm in computer games these days. With each new game we get new art, new graphics, but gameplay is still on a very simple level.

We might find more enjoyment in test based games. Lets pray for a revival of good text based games wherein our brains rather than our patience would be tested.

[WarKing]

With all the bugs and minor haranging about this or that mis-understood or ill-implemented game change, I still believe Civ3 is an improvement. I also firmly believe in increasing game play diversity, adding challenge while not unnecessarily increasing complexity.

Basic Improvements
Civ1 Civ3
Shield Production management->Resource, Economic, and Diplomacy Management, and Cultural Management

Did this really change the game...
That's an enormous debate in itself, to me, however, these new facits made the game more entertaining, I could further diversify each game. In Civ1 every game was the same, expand and conquer! In Civ3, thanks mostly to corruption and an improved AI, you aren't likely to succeed blood-lusting your way relentlessly through the game. You are almost forced to "stop and smell the roses."

Civ3 could have been better certainly, but it's enough of an improvement to pacify my needs for the moment.

Give me more, but don't make me do illogical menu processes to make it work.

GUI makes the difference.

[yin26]

I was waiting for somebody to put it this way ... glad it was you, Korn.

[Grim Legacy]

[Dev]

SMAC good, Civ3 bad~


/dev

[ColdFever]

A spot has been touched in this thread. Many central improvements of SMAC are painfully missing in Civ3, for example a true 3D-planet, units with design possibilities, cultural preferences, detailed regime administration, detailed terraforming and ABOVE ALL: the perception of human values (moral, ethics) besides the pure greed for power.

So what I am personally really missing most from SMAC in Civ3 is a "human" counterpart. If diplomacy just boils down to a "give me the most for it" something is definitely missing. Without cultural, scientific and social values diplomacy degenerates to salesmen talk. To achieve a "human touch" you need not only absolute nicely rendered human pictures, but human values as well. Without human values apart from "more power is better" you end in playing "Civ-Chess": a very interesting and addictive placement of your units (at least for "aggressive" players), but lacking a kind of "Soul" (at least for pacifistic players like me).

And perhaps because of this SMAC lovers are complaining that Civ games are not feeling so interesting anymore - IMHO this is because a central element is missing - to have "communities" around the globe based on cultural, scientific and social values. In SMAC some leaders had a sympathy/antipathy for each other that lead sometimes to "communities" (of course only on a humble level, but it was noticeable) and THIS is what building a "global civilization" finally is all about (at least personally for me).

IMHO it is a pity that so much of the affectionately designed "human stuff" from Brian has been dumped for an expanded (borders, culture, trade) Civ2-modell that is finally based on pure power. And lets be honest: the "cultural" influence in Civ3 is only a representation of another form of power - there is no kind of "affection" between congenial leaders or resentment between different philosophies.

Of course it would be possible to implement "human values" on top of Civ3. For example you could design different religions to chose from (as a counterpart to the planet-lovers, science worshippers or monemakers in SMAC). But I doubt the dev team would have the capacity to do it (and probably most players are fully content with Civ3 anyway).

However I personally hope that Civ4 will include human values like SMAC again. Until then I enjoy both SMAC (for the human spirit) and Civ3 (as a kind of Civ-Chess). Yes, I really like Civ3 and do NOT regret to have bought it. But I still love SMAC, I just can't help it.

Best regards
Kai Fiebach, Germany

[Grumbold]

I think Civ 3 proves that you can get a significantly *better* AI if you dumb down many rules which were far more challenging for the AI than the player(s) to process. However in doing so you risk losing the interest of the players who want lots of variety, not just a tried and tested route to victory, repeat as required for 1000 turns every game. Civ 3 provides a lot of different ways to win but unfortunately I don't find myself playing in lots of different ways to achieve them.

Now if only another company would have the guts to try and produce a Civ clone with their own ambitious ideas added to the mix....like maybe multiplayer and a scripting language out of the box without breaking the basic one more turn feeling.

[Moraelin]

I think you have a very good point there, Grumbold. It's always easier to dumb down a game's rules to the point where even a dumb AI stands a chance.

E.g., see the dumbing down of combat, so even someone who never upgrades units and is utterly unable to secure resources by trade, still has a chance. (I.e., the AI.) E.g., see the corruption run amok, so in the last half of the game, you're not really fighting the AI, you're really fighting your own empire which became artificially inefficient. E.g., see the turn caps for research, because the AI will rather keep 10 obsolete units per city for pointless wars and bleed all its money on unit upkeep, instead of researching.

Unfortunately, while this does add some challenge to the game, it also isn't much fun. E.g., why bother conquering, if all you'll get are some cities that never produce anything? You'll always get 1 coin and 1 shield, but since you have to build at least a temple to keep them from deffecting, as well as keep some units inside, it means you'll LOSE money from having conquered it.

Also, the fact that the AI only uses its advantage for one thing ever (war), combined with the severe lack of options in the first place, means in the end there'll always be one single way to play the game.

[Venger]

I've also seen the Sid/Brian pattern, although I think Pirates is pure genius (don't think Brian was involved).

First...yeah yeah Sid, we know, you design games, if the game is so great, it'll stand without your freaking name. This is only slightly less annoying than Peter Norton's ugly mug on every Norton product...

Second - it seems the best parts of Civ2 and SMAC were completely excluded from Civ3. Just how bitter were they after Brian left?

Alas, the proof in the pudding is coming...

Venger

[Arrian]

Ahh, Pirates! What a game. A game, I might add, that I still play on occasion... bugs and all. EGA graphics? I could care less That little game very well might have turned me into the computer game addict that I am today. This, despite the C-64's horrible disk drive issues.

Oh, yeah, the topic. Very concisely put. Sid v. Brian. Personally, I do miss some of the things that fall under the "Brian" heading. At the same time, Civ III is fun for me. I don't think Firaxis is done patching, but I think everyone knows deep down that many of those beloved CIV II/SMAC features are not coming back (firepower, for instance).

-Arrian

[korn469]

it not as simple as civ3 bad SMAC good

because i really think that the civ3 team thought that there was excess baggage and tried to streamline the game, they may have streamlined it too much, and made the choices too simple

but i think that both approaches to the civ series has merit, but a better alternative would try to come up with a hybrid approach of balancing a simple elegant game with a wealth of options and strategies

[Ixander]

I think Civ3 is a strange beast. When I played it for the first time it sorta felt like a 'SMAC Disney' mod. It was like SMAC but with less options, pretty graphics and remapped names for units and wonders. I really missed the SMAC faction personalities, the Civ3 equivalents made no sense at all: erratic and no sense for reason or even plain commerce... just stupid bots without even a glimpse of artificial personality.

That was the first impression. After playing it for a couple of days I found there was more to Civ3 than meets the eye and I came to appreciate it a bit more, but I found that randomness had replaced the best part of strategy. And the computer civs still made no sense. I missed the philosophical touch of SMAC.
The oddest thing however was that I didn't feel like playing a game, it felt like this game was playing me. My actions were being directed by an utterly stupid computer game. A pascifist civ would be at the mercy of the random generator and the only safe alternative was to play the role of the dominant aggressor.

One and a half week later I am bored like hell and I stopped playing the game. My options are too few: to be 'played' by the computer (pascifist civ driven by randomness) or to be played by the designer (superpower aggressor civ).

A multi-player feature might have broken this dilemma of options but... Ah what the heck, win some loose some. I'm not going to have sleepless nights over it, but the next Firaxis/Sid thingy will be 'try before I buy'. Cheers guys. Enjoy or don't or semi-enjoy... whatever!

[WarKing]

SMAC...

SMAC was easier, but maybe more fun than Civ3...but Civ3 is more addicting...so doesn't that mean Civ3 is better????

Can a game be truly fun and addictive at the same time?

Anyway, you don't have to be an aggressor all the time, just in the ancient age...but maybe that's philosophical...

I hate the corruption too...but it makes sense.

On the other hand is the game becoming too realistic to be enjoyable?

Oh well, Baldurs Gate Dark Alliance is quickly restoring my sanity.

Have fun guys!

[Be'lial]

Hmm, maybe its just me but these forums seem to be degeneratin into more SMAC forums...

I personally didn't want Civ 3 to be SMAC 2.

Why?

a) The AI in SMAC is dreadful. Its as bad as the CTP2 AI - It was ridiculously easy to beat at the hardest difficulty level, simply because the computer couldn't use any of the advanced features that the player had available.
(And I'm not a Civ genius, can only play Civ 3 on Monarch level)

b) Terraforming - yes, Civ 3 gets dull later on, and I end up switching all my workers onto automated routines, but its nothing compared to the endless terraforming of SMAC.
It took far longer, the graphics were *dreadful*(red, red, and more red), and in the end you end with a planet covered in forests. Hmm.

c) Combat - In all the games I've played of Civ 3, I've only once had a tank loose to a spearman. Every other time, massive combined armies pulverise the defenders with no problems...
Compare that to the SMAC ability of taking 2 aircraft and taking every city on a continent in a couple of turns - combat in SMAC was pointless, given that the human player could always design much better units than the computer and then run them over using them.

d) Storyline - I enjoyed SMAC's storyline, and more personal feel - but thats because its a different game. Civ never had this type of interface, because its much grander in scale - I personally would never want this type of interaction in Civ, because it would lessen the entire concept of a 6000 year old civilisation...

e) Patches - how many did SMAC and SMAX end up with? I remember installing at least 2, both fairly vital to the game...

f) More combat - in SMAC, the AI was useless at making war wamongst themselves. Yes, you could manipulae war amongst all the nations, in a sneaky underhand way - but all it would do would be to take the heat off you slightly. In Civ 3, when I start making military alliances with people, the effects are immediate - the AI is mean!
(Especially Elizabeth 1. I've seen her use forces of more than 80 tanks to take just one city... )

On the plus side, there were several ideas that would have been better implemented in Civ3 :

1) Government Types - I much prefer the pick and mix approach of SMAC, even if it was open to abuse by human players. Civ 3 currently can't represent most Governments in history, due to only having 5 base models...

2) Wonders - Something no one else has mentioned, but SMAC's wonders were powerful all through the game, and even the ones you obtained right near the end of the tech tree were immensely useful. Compare that to Civ 3, where the no. of wonders in the later ages is tiny, and most are completely pointless anyway...

3) UN Victory - in agreement with everyone else, the current model is ridiculous. Unlike everyone else, I *always* win when I hold a UN vote, no matter what else I've done. I've even had AI's that hate me vote for me....
(Mind you, in every game I ever played the AI's went after each other with a bloodlust that amazed me...)

[Steve Clark]

IMO, SMAC was no more than a glorified Civ2 scenario. esp. with its narrowly defined factions. Introducing more of a SMAC-like human-quality AI into a Civ game would only decrease its replayability. Why replay a game when you know what an AI civ will or will not do or act? This would be no different than playing as the Allies against the Axis in a WW2 scenario over and over again and seeing the same AI tactics from the Axis. That was why a majority of those here that were in this forum back in 2000 railed against Civ-specific attributes. What they implemented in Civ3, I think, is a good balance. Going towards a more predictable AI is the wrong direction, imo.

Do that in a scenario where it belongs, not in the regular game.

[scientist]

I have news for all of you. Sid Meier has left the building.

Brian Reynolds was the true driving force behind Civ II and SMAC. I believe Civil War was more of a collaboration between the two of them, but I tend to believe that the fact that Brian's face was on the "battle manual" suggests more of his spirit in the game than Sid's.

I'm not putting Sid down. Pirates, the first Civilization, Colonization, Railroad Tycoon: These are classics. I just think that Sid has chosen to trade in on his fame and take it ieasy and let others do the work. It's sort of Like those "Tom Clancy" books you see that are written by other people. I'm sure Mr. Clancy has final editorial review, and provided the original inspiration, but it is ultimately a derivative work by someone else. the "Sid Meier" name helps sell software, but Sid probably was about as involved in the day to day development of Civ III as he was in CtP.

Civ III is Jeff Morris', Jeff Briggs' and Soren Johnson's game. Sid's name only appears in the credits as a designer of the original Civ.

A very telling proof of Sid's noninvolvement is the interviews with Sid in print. Here is a man who used to love to discuss the intricacies of game design putting forth marketing-friendly inanities. I imagine that in some of the interviews, Mr Meier had a publicity flak write and e-mail back the interviewer's answers.

I believe that Civ III has some real strengths, but the the submersion of Briggs's and Sorenson's spirit under the weight of Mr. Meier's heavy, discarded mantle probably stifled and true innovation.

Let's face it: Civ III is a hack job. A workman-like, enjoyable one, but a hack job nonetheless.

[Moraelin]

Be'lial, I think noone wants the bad parts of SMAC copied verbatim, too. E.g., noone said that Civ 3 should have been all shades of red. I'm sure that it a Civ 3 with the SMAC intricacies would still have had green grasslands and blue oceans.

As for the AI, I'm not even sure it's THAT much of an improvement in and by itself. As someone said already, Civ 3 is just proof that you can dumb the rules down to give the AI a chance. I've already posted in several places the hideously long list of stuff that the Civ 3 AI does awfully wrong, so I won't repeat it here. Most of the challenge in going for a conquest game is from the weird game model, corruption and combat being just two of the issues, than actually from the AI.

As for the patches, Civ 3 has already had one patch, and it looks like it put in worse bugs than it has solved. I'd expect a second, too. I wouldn't be that surprised if they go over the 3 patches that I think SMAC had.

Scientist, actually I've been reading somewhere that Colonization too, has been at least partially Brian's game. Which would explain the richness of options, choices and possibilities. Among other things, Colonization pioneered the civ traits long before SMAC.

But again, until recently I never even knew who the heck is he. (Serves him right for not puting his name on the box in big letters, too) So I could be wrong. It's just what I've read.

Steve Clark, I think you're the first one I hear saying that making a game more complex makes it less replayable. I seem to remember having loads of fun replaying SMAC. IMHO that predictability could have easily been solved. For example, a cheap way could be to just throw in twice the civilizations. Then it would be rather unpredictable which of them you'll get in a game.

[Moraelin]

Be'lial, I think noone wants the bad parts of SMAC copied verbatim, too. E.g., noone said that Civ 3 should have been all shades of red. I'm sure that it a Civ 3 with the SMAC intricacies would still have had green grasslands and blue oceans.

As for the AI, I'm not even sure it's THAT much of an improvement in and by itself. As someone said already, Civ 3 is just proof that you can dumb the rules down to give the AI a chance. I've already posted in several places the hideously long list of stuff that the Civ 3 AI does awfully wrong, so I won't repeat it here. Most of the challenge in going for a conquest game is from the weird game model, corruption and combat being just two of the issues, than actually from the AI.

As for the patches, Civ 3 has already had one patch, and it looks like it put in worse bugs than it has solved. I'd expect a second, too. I wouldn't be that surprised if they go over the 3 patches that I think SMAC had.

Scientist, actually I've been reading somewhere that Colonization too, has been at least partially Brian's game. Which would explain the richness of options, choices and possibilities. Among other things, Colonization pioneered the civ traits long before SMAC.

But again, until recently I never even knew who the heck is he. (Serves him right for not puting his name on the box in big letters, too) So I could be wrong. It's just what I've read.

Steve Clark, I think you're the first one I hear saying that making a game more complex makes it less replayable. I seem to remember having loads of fun replaying SMAC. IMHO that predictability could have easily been solved. For example, a cheap way could be to just throw in twice the civilizations. Then it would be rather unpredictable which of them you'll get in a game. E.g., already with the number of opponents in Civ 3, when I'm playing against 7 people out of 15 possible, not once I've had the exact same 7 in two games.

[Redstar]

I love Sid Meier games because of games like railroad tycoon, civilization.

I absolutely loved microprose. I bought almost all of their games.

I bought civ2 cause it said Sid Meier's... (so that marketing worked)

anyways, i have issues with civ3. I also have the patience to wait now that those issues have been expressed by many-fold.


So there are not just 2 camps. I'm betting the camp i'm in is the real majority too. )

The camp that wants a great game no matter who is behind it.
(well except maybe one from osama)

[Blisterz]

Colonization! Don't get me wrong I love Civ3, buts its going to take a hell of a game to take Colonization's top spot in my books. So I guess that means I am in the Brian camp. Cool that you pointed it out this way, never really thought like that.

[Ozymandous]

Hmm, interesting thread.

I am curious about one thing:

How many people who bash Civ3 liked Civ2 more than SMAC/SMAX?

The reason I ask is that after following the majority of the people who don't like Civ3 around I eventually discover that they loved SMAC(X).

I personally didn't like SMAC(X). The game was *too* red and most of the scientific discoveries were too fictional (this coming from a Sci-Fi/Fantasy nerd).

The game was needlessly complex. Unless you played SMAC(X) multi-player (and even if you did) the game was too predictable in that everyone did the exact same things most of the time (air-units mainly with a few planet-busters thrown in).

Now I LOVED Civ1 (at least till MOO1 came out then I played it for longer than I did Civ1), but Civ2 to me was a simple rehash of the first game with better graphics and a few game balance tweaks.

What do I like about Civ3?
-Resources.
-Diplomacy where you can actually DO stuff.
-Civ specific traits and units.
-Bombard function.
-Culture and it's effects (borders, cities swapping control).
-Vastly improved AI which doesn't all gang up on the Human player constantly.

What do I not like about Civ3?
-No peaceful great leaders.
-Less units & improvements to build (a lot of time spent on wealth).
-You MUST fight at times (at least it seems so) even if you're playing a peaceful game.
-No stack movement.
-No Terraforming (although this is realistic, which is good.)

What did I like about SMAC?
-Ability to build custom units, although this could be abused and/or tedious.
-Storyline (you expected less from a confessed Sci-Fi lover?)
-Wonders
-Ability to design governments.
-Lots of fun things to build, units and improvements.
-Floating cities.

What did I not like about SMAC?
-Ability to build custom units (was a pain in the butt to have to reconfigure each unit every time a new discovery was made).
-Hard-coded AI "personalities". They never adapted or evolved, extremely predictable.
-Ability to design governments. Too clunky for the AI to use well.
-Fungus.
-Terraforming land. If you didn't get those domes built before someone lowered your land you were screwed.
-Too MANY things you *had* to build.
-Not enough new land. There was always a "Garland Crater" each game, for example, not as much diversity or randomness in the game.

There is my short list. I liked CIv1, thought Civ2 was a copy of the original and thought SMAC, while good in concept, was lacking in AI and overall strategy, as you were forced to get certain tech's or path's or else you were toast.

All 4 games are good, just come appeal to different people. I do wish that the SMAC(X) folks would realize this is NOT nor will it be SMAC(X)2, and eithe rtake the game back or deal with it however.

Oh well.

[old dog]

I was reading through all this and getting ready to respond, until I read Ozymandous's statement and realized he'd pretty much stated my reaction.

I really think that a lot of unhappy people were looking for SMAC 2, not Civ 3, and, for the many reasons given by Ozymandous and Steve Clark, I was looking for Civ 3.

Personally, I love the resource aspect of the game and would only like to see still more of that. (I can imagine a system where HOW MUCH of a resource you controlled impacted the cost of building different things, with zero resource meaning prohibitively high costs.)

The game has its imperfections to be sure (starting with scenerio creation) but I sure wouldn't like it better if it were more like SMAC!

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Moraelin
3) Colonization's customizing your own civilization over time. As your empire grew, you could choose in which direction you want it to evolve. You could become friendlier towards the natives, for example, so they'd be less hostile. Or you could become more commercial instead and make more money. Or some other things. Basically instead of just starting with some civ traits like Industrious, Commercial, Expansionis, whatever, you could evolve in one or more of those directions as your empire grew.

The powers in Colonizations had different abilities.

I can't take position, as I like both Sid's and Brian's games (especially Civ1 from Sid, and Colonization from Brian)

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by korn469
there are two civ camps the civ1 keep it simple and elegent camp and the the civ2/SMAC we like our bells and whistles camp

Korn, this is an interesting thought, but I disagree. I have finally come to the conclusion that CivIII is the worst of both worlds. To be elegant it would have to be very finely balanced and extremely well polished. It isn´t, and will never be, because some of the basic concepts (Forced Labour Super Economy/Undead Fast Units) are so bad they can´t be repaired.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by scientist
I'm not putting Sid down. Pirates, the first Civilization, Colonization, Railroad Tycoon: These are classics.

Of course. But Sid Meier´s creative genius has run dry, and the other current Firaxians never had one in the first place.

Which means, I have absolutely no hopes for CivIV; at least not if it´s made by Firaxis.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Gramphos
The powers in Colonizations had different abilities.

Well, ok, you DID start with some unique ability, but you could build from there in whatever direction your liked. Sure, you'd keep that initial ability on top of everything, but for example you could make your Spanish more native-friendly too (which initially was only France), or you could make them even more militaristic than they start, or you could build their trade abilities to rival the Dutch.

I've said this before, but I would have liked the cultural values of my people to evolve in Civ 3 too. Either by giving me some control over it, or just by noticing what I do the most. Like if I fight lots, my people would become more militaristic minded, if I build lots of libraries they'd start valuing science more, while if I build lots of temples they might start thinking more about the afterlife.

Off topic: I've reinstalled Colonization today. Butt-ugly low res graphics, by today's standards, and my SB Audigy no longer emulates the old Sound Blaster in DOS, so I don't have sound either. But looks like it's still a great game nevertheless. I have a feeling that I'll be wasting too many days with it again.

[korn469]

Is Civ3's greatest flaw also one of its greatest strengths? did making game design choices simple enough for the AI ruin the fun? if that is not it then what is civ3's greatest design flaw? this reminds me of be careful what you ask for you just might get it

everyone wished and wished for an ai that wouldn't get its a$$ handed to to it every single game, and here it is...except now we are all complaining because the game becomes tedius and that there aren't enough choices to make

hehe i think even if brian had of stayed and added in a ton of new features that everyone would have complained because the AI was so overwhelmed by decisions that it couldn't do anything at all...so either way people were going to be unhappy

and this is to all of the civers who despise the SciFi aspect to SMAC, that is just a facade, the game is really just a/d/m etc. anyways (at least to me) then i say i wish for SMAC 2, i don't mean the setting i mean the options, and i don't mean a rehash, i mean going above and beyond the game in every category

civ3 takes two steps forward and one step back, and i just wish it had taken four steps forward and no steps back

[Special_Olympic]

I've never liked a sid game before Civ3, but he must have a really big ego to put his name on everything like that.

Thr graphics are so bad in civ2 I can't stand to play it.