Name the #1 thing SMAC2 should have!

The diplomat · January 10, 2002, 20:03

If SMAC2 were ever made, what MAJOR change or new feature would you want to see!

For me it would probably be completely different graphics.
The 3-D map was interesting but I don't think it is the best way. I would go back to a flat map but do the visuals to make the landscape look alien and cool. The unit graphics should also be worked on to make them more distinguishable.

Small changes would include:
-stacked combat.
-reworking the tech tree to make it easier to understand. Non-scientific people should have an easier time grasping what the techs mean!
-adding an animated city view to give the player a better sense of the factions ideology. Each faction has a unique architecture, so let's see it glorious detail in a city view. Let's see people walking around. if your the University, your citizens could walk around with labcoats. If your the Spartans, your citizens could look like soldiers. It's just eye-candy but it would be nice.

vitamin j · January 10, 2002, 22:09

I'd buy it if was just a complete bugfix of SMAC.

I kind of like the graphics as they are, but an update would be nice. What do you mean by "stacked combat"? I think a re-worked combat resolution system would be cool... Maybe some way that incorporated each sides attack AND defense value at once, so a 6-3-1 unit attacking a 6-1-1 unit wouldn't have it quite so easy... I don't know what else. I know somewhere there must be a very large thread on this topic...

Lefty Scaevola · January 10, 2002, 22:20

Breast enhancement!

vitamin j · January 10, 2002, 23:39

Yxklyx · January 11, 2002, 00:53

Better AI!

RedFred · January 11, 2002, 02:01

Cash prizes for transcending.

Sikander · January 11, 2002, 03:45

I actually like SMAC's graphics except for those units! As a friend says, "What's with all those guys who look like they are mowing their lawns?"

SMAC is a brilliant game, and just a bug / play balance fix and some reworking of the graphics would be well worth the price of admission, especially if Fireaxis would buy back Civ 3 from me for half price or something.

If we are talking about a major reworking involving basic game concepts, then something should be done about the whole concept of this and previous Civ games regarding tactical and strategic play on the same map and time scale. This really destroys any sort of realism.

How many years does it take a modern ship to circumnavigate the globe? In a Civ game it is decades. Aircraft take years, and wars like WWII would take decades or even longer. The movement system is unrealistic for the stone age, and it doesn't age any better in the space age. I would like to see a game that either concentrates solely on the strategic elements, and removes player control of tactical and operational command, or one that scales down in order to simulate the battles and movements that take place on the sub-strategic scale.

I really feel for the game designers in regard to the AI problem. Consider the fact that I have seen a lot of very intelligent people take years to develop very sophisticated methods of play in SMAC via this forum. That is a testament to the many dynamic factors which could be manipulated in so many thousands of combinations. The AI really has no chance to compete in such a situation. You can significantly improve the AI by limiting the ability of the human player to come up with undreamed of combinations with which to thrash the AI, which is the approach that Civ 3 uses. Unfortunately that makes the game dull for many humans, especially those like myself who have already played a lot of Civ in previous versions, and now have been so spoiled by SMAC's rich environment.

I think at least temporarily the solution lies in two realms, though neither is eaasily done well. The first is multiplayer, which solves the entire problem while creating another, which is the slow pace of game development due to the necessary turnaround time. The other solution is the Europa Universalis factor. That is after you can thrash the AI playing Spain or Russia, you start to play other countries which are more and more difficult. Eventually you could play tiny non-Western countries, which have a hard time even hanging on in their own neighborhoods. The challenge is very scalable within the very same framework / rules set.

With multiplayer you want to design a game that has a good chance of starting the players out in more or less equivalent states, and you want a game system which can deliver a rich set of decisions and rewarding gameplay quickly, mainly so that the game itself can be wrapped up quickly enough to allow players to actually complete a few games. In a scalable challenge situation you will probably want to design some things in a completely opposite way. The game may well last a long time, though it should probably not last any longer than EU or SMAC does currently. Obviously there is no need for a "fair" start in this type of game, the challenge is to play the situation as it is.

aaglo · January 11, 2002, 06:33

1. Facelift (no, not the Alice in Chains album - actually that would be

).

2. More and more technical data - to confuse more and more players.

3. A bit simplified unit workshop

4. My name in the box

(as the evil faction leader if nothing else). But waitaminute... it was in SMACX... My name is Aki

, but the picture seems to be outdated.

5. Some really mysterious magical elements.

TresXF · January 11, 2002, 06:56

nothing - smac is perfect (imho)

good ai
loads of tech + facilities + units
extremely detailed
much philosophy
easy to customize
no hardware hunger
never crashes

i don't need more

bondetamp · January 11, 2002, 08:30

An in-game browser, so that I may browse apolyton without exiting the game.
Data-links that are accessible from outside the game, so that you can look up something in the heat of debate without starting SMAC first.
A secondary data-links that is updated whenever you want from an online encyclopedia updated by fans and developers alike.

Of course it would also be fun with some of the Civ3 thingies like culture ratings, special resources, global unit upkeep etc.

knowhow2 · January 11, 2002, 09:30

New Factions (although always running the risk of getting ridiculous ones).

Making all the battles more realistic with a different battle scene (optional) showing the different units in battle.

More tech (and more path to Transcend)

Not allowing MP participent before winning on Transcend level on SP.

MariOne · January 11, 2002, 09:34

B U G S !!!

aaglo · January 11, 2002, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by knowhow2
Making all the battles more realistic with a different battle scene (optional) showing the different units in battle.

This is good idea. How about the battle system from Master of magic (ok, who doesn't know about this game?). Units could be stacked, and all units in a square would take part in action. But this increases the "micromanagement". Imagine a battle taking some 30 minutes, when on SMAC the same batlle would take one minute. This feature could also be an option (like in MOO2).

Tizzy · January 11, 2002, 10:51

I like the idea of the city view - I liked that in Civ II and with the different architecture in SMAC it would be great

mrdynamic · January 11, 2002, 12:42

1. Adding the ability to use anywhere from 2-14 factions when starting a game instead of always 7.

2. Smarter AI, but would a game sell that advertises "Now even more difficult to win !!!"

3. Better editors for designing new maps, new factions, and a faction graphics editor.

Cybergod · January 11, 2002, 16:12

copying my thread... (from last year)

These are the things I'd suggest, in the top list:

1. BETTER AI! I am sick and tired of fighting the 2D personality of the stupid AI!
2. FIX THE DAMN BUGS!
3. Get more realistic and actually INTERESTING and ENJOYABLE factions. SMAC faction were brilliant and spot on, except maybe Firaxis belief in demonising Christianity (Miriam) and glorifying science (Zakharov)

4. Add on to the good storyline
5. Make it available for the player to select any number of faction (for example 5 to 21 or something !?!)

Ogie Oglethorpe · January 11, 2002, 18:17

Better space combat ability. Ability to actually colonize and defend nearby asteroid (forget what it's called).

Ability to better simulate underwater (i.e. sea colonies) inlcuding underwater speeders underwater mag tubes, etc. (is that a cross between Marine Boy and Speed Racer?)

Try to make the game truly 3D. Sky, surface, underground and undersea.

And of course the ever popular answer Better AI.

Ohhhh and lots and lots of bugs, b/c the forums just don't have enuff people saying this game stinks b/c of xyz bug

.

Og

k.k.fly · January 11, 2002, 20:38

enhance cruise missiles! they should also kill population and/or base facilities.

and bio-cruise-missiles.

wgabrie · January 11, 2002, 22:13

* Definitly the 3-D city view.

* I also think the faction leaders should be redone in 3-D and change facial expretions depending on their mood a la Civ 3.

* Time waster, but have more SP and movies.

* Add some new socal enginering choices and/or have social choices that don't disagree with but don't run well with a faction ideology have a differant effect on the tardet faction then normal. (Believers running Democracy for example would be given double penaltys)

That's all I can think of besides the bugs.

Darsnan · January 12, 2002, 00:27

How about minefields: every known hostile border on Earth has them, so why not be able to have the formers/ military units plant them (i.e. the equivalent of 1 or 2 arty barrages when invading a minefield square, +/- terrain and sensors)!?!

Also, what about submarines? I've been at a point in a number of games where a seacraft with enhanced stealth and attack capabilites would have come in REAL handy (not that I'm admitting I was losing the games, or anything....) destroying enemy blockades, or harassing enemy shipping, etc.
Finally, why does it take so long to get tanks? I would think that with the fungus plagued Planet, a unit capable of moving 3 squares a turn would be much lower on the tech chart (i.e. discovered much more quickly): we are a species that supposedly adapts quickly to its environs, yes?

TresXF · January 12, 2002, 02:15

why are ppl complaining about the ai of smac?
i think this is futile: it is a fact that the age of true artificial intelligence, the existence of a real opponent for humans, is still years away.
it is also fact that the ai of smac is pretty good. compare it with other games. most tbs/rts/fps/... games are heavy scripted to disguise their stupidity, are using hardcoded lines to match the human. you should be happy with smac's 'free' acting ai.

btw, the original factions of smac/x are somewhat simple designed. try to use some good custom factions to have a challenging match. i hope to get my star trek ds9 mod (english version) done asap - maybe this would be a challenge for you.

@ darsnan: isn't there a submarine enhancement in smac already (manual unit construction)

Mr. President · January 12, 2002, 04:18

I actually find the game quite challenging and fulfilling, so there's not a lot I'd change.

RobN · January 12, 2002, 06:05

Improved AI of course.

knowhow2 · January 12, 2002, 10:57

If the AI gets much more improved I would be scared at night when the box starts getting wild by itself

Blacken · January 12, 2002, 13:10

I have to say that SMAC doesn't really need better AI - at least not for me...

I can barely keep pace with it on Transcend, thankyouverymuch.

Submarines: Yes please.
More factions: Yes please.
No fungal towers: YES PLEASE.
Tech tree stuff: Widen it a bit, make tanks weaker but come a little earlier, and weaken gravships a bit.

My $0.02

Sandman · January 12, 2002, 15:52

My ideas:

Flexible base radii.

A richer environment; for example, why not have deciduous forests at low altitudes and conifers at high altitudes?

Multiple planets in the Alpha Centauri system, and you can choose which one you want to colonise; should you go for Planet with it's rich but dangerous biosphere or that dusty Mars-like planet?

You start the game with a presence in space, a communications satellite perhaps.

Railways should be linked to a low-level tech, after all, we've got them here on Earth.

Factions which are not set in stone; if need be, you can change their bonuses and beliefs.

BonehoardTaffer · January 12, 2002, 16:25

Each box should come with an action figure of one of the faction leaders.

bondetamp · January 12, 2002, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by BonehoardTaffer
Each box should come with an action figure of one of the faction leaders.

That would rock!

wgabrie · January 12, 2002, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by BonehoardTaffer
Each box should come with an action figure of one of the faction leaders.

Why stop there? Add in a Faction Logo sticker as well.

Darsnan · January 12, 2002, 18:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Factions which are not set in stone; if need be, you can change their bonuses and beliefs.

This would go great with the action figures, as then you could cross dress the action figures to represent the changed beliefs/ values: imagine a Green Chairman Yang wearing Lady Deidre's dress!

Hmmm, well, maybe not, now that I picture it....

Seriously though, one other item that I thought of would be for stacked units: when attacked, the selected defender of the stack gets a defensive bonus from all of the other units in the stack (which is more synonymous with real combat, where adjacent units will lend assisting counterfire/ support to the unit under attack). This would also apply for selected stacked attacking units.