Is Alpha Centauri better than Civ 3?

Windwalker · February 27, 2002, 17:37

I am asking the question because I keep hearing people talk about how such and such a feature was in SMAC but not in Civ III... It seems as if the gameplay in Alpha Centauri is more developed, from what y'all are saying... So, purely in terms of gameplay (no historical or realism considerations), is Alpha Centauri better than Civ III? Professional reviews have given the edge to Civ III, but I think a lot of reviewers would feel pressured to give Civ III a great score, no matter what they think of it...

So what do you think? AC > Civ III?

- Windwalker

Patashu · February 27, 2002, 17:41

for a start, you could have done a poll...

Rhuarc · February 27, 2002, 18:11

why does it matter if he did a poll or not?!?!?!

Anyway, In my opinion as far as gameplay goes I think that Civ3 is better. I know there are some features missing, but I just like the feel of civ3 better. I know there are a lot of people that disagree greatly, but this is my opinion!!

Harovan · February 27, 2002, 18:16

I like SMAC, but overall think, Civ3 is better. In SMAC, I especially like the diplomacy, and the unit workshop. This one probably can't be implemented in Civ3. And the "fun" factor is greater in SMAC, but that is highly subjective. In general, I prefer Civ3.

The Andy-Man · February 27, 2002, 18:55

i luved SMAC.

but the fungus was soetimes a lil annoying, but different. and sometimes there were to many units that seemed the same.

but SMAC is WAY better then Civ3, even had bombardmet. if only it had the new take on air units

and was set on earh. Civ2 SMAC edition.

BustaMike · February 27, 2002, 19:03

SMAC is a million times better.

Yook · February 27, 2002, 19:05

*de-lurks*

I stopped playing Civ3 a couple days after the latest patch came out. Hadn't really played it since a few days after the last patch came out. I like it well enough, but I just wasn't having any /fun/ playing it.

I recently re-installed SMAC, and I have been having a blast. Not sure why, but it's just fun. And the atmosphere is great, with all the incidental quotations and the wonder movies (which /did/ get tired after three games or so, but for those three games I was making wonders just to see the movie).

Anywho, for me, SMAC is more fun. I don't know which is a better game. I don't necessarily /want/ to work real hard to enjoy a TBS, and I don't necessarily enjoy having to carefully plan out a war and organize a combined-arms army, etc. I just want to run out there with some units and play a bit. *shrug*

Though, in small doses, Civ3 has proven to be excellent fun. Just not lately, and most definitely not in a whole game context.

*re-lurks*

-Yook

elfstorm · February 27, 2002, 19:24

I like SMAC.

Civ3 is very good but it just seems a bit... rushed.

Hopefully when (if?) Fireaxis do a major new expansion pack they'll include some of the stuff SMAC had.
Especially the world council thing, which was great.
And better diplomacy.
Civ3's sucks.

Method · February 27, 2002, 19:34

i do kinda prefer SMAC to civ, because of many features in it namely social engineering and unit workshop made it so different from civ though i understand how they couldn't really be adapted to civ. unit workshop wouldn't really work, the game being about history and everything, but social engineering could have maybe been adapted. in the end i bought civ3 because i wanted to play the game on EARTH again with GREEN land and light blue water and because it seemed to be a decent game. and really it is with resources and culture and all that but still i miss many features from SMAC. The main problem with Civ2 was that all the civs were the same but civ3 has sortof fixed that problem. SMAC factions still have more personality though.

Persepolis · February 27, 2002, 20:21

I prefer SMAC, or Alien Crossfire, but playing without aliens.

February 27, 2002, 20:58

As currently implemented: SMAC>CIV3

Future patching/updating could of course change this.

Windwalker · February 27, 2002, 21:26

I have a question for all of you SMAC lovers... For those who didn't post why, can you please explain why you like SMAC over Civ III?

Also, how does the AI compare between the two games?

SMAC dominates in the features department, no?

Is SMAC challenging without the AI cheating (or is it about equal to CIv III in that respect, in that AI cheats in order to be competitive)?

Is SMAC more replayable than Civ III? For this, strategic depth of options would probably be the main consideration...

Is SMAC more fun than Civ III? People who've posted so far seem to think so...

If that is the case, what are all of you doing playing Civ III instead of SMAC? Or are most of you playing SMAC as well currently?

Thanks for the responses...
- Windwalker

ixnay · February 27, 2002, 21:52

I think SMAC is a great game, and I also think that even with its problems, CivIII is a good game. I'm playing civ right now, though, as I managed to completely overdose on SMAC last summer (i tend to do that with games) and since I got civ3, I've just been playing that. I have no doubt, though, that if I were to start up a game of SMAC, I'd be hooked again...

BustaMike · February 27, 2002, 22:04

There are a bunch of reasons I liked SMAC better...

1. More personality - Morgan and Yang were great. The quotes with tech were cool. Some of the wonder movies were hilarious, namely the longevity vaccine.

2. WAAAAY more flexibility in playing style. Builder, hybrid, borg, etc. were all very viable options and you could succeed no matter how you played if you used that strategy correctly. Civ 3 seems to force you to play one way or get your ass handed to you from the AI.

3. Unit workshop and social eng were cool, but I guess you can't really have those in civ3.

4. MULTIPLAYER!!!!!!!!!!

5. Combat seemed much more fair. In civ3 I seem to lose battles I should never lose and that stupid random number seed (if it is really random) can't be changed by reloading. This should at least be an option like it was in SMAC with ironman.

6. Bull**** AI favoritism - I admit the AI is way smarter in Civ3, but in civ all the AI's seem to team up against you from the beginning, not to mention the AI's hatred for the human player screws other features of the game. The trading of resources and luxuries is a really cool idea, but as I've seen posted numerous times the AI will only be happy with a trade along the lines of "my saltpeter and iron and money for your gems". That's a terrible deal but the AI won't accept any other. On the other hand the AI opponents will make very generous deals with each other. IMO, this is a bunch of crap and really ruins the game for me anyway. There are 2 solutions for this, make the AI a little nicer (or at least certain civs) and/or release multiplayer. At least I could make a fair trade with another person.

Tarquelne · February 27, 2002, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Windwalker
Also, how does the AI compare between the two games?

Civ3's is better, overall. The game is simpler in many ways, so the AI doesn't have to work _nearly_ as hard in Civ3.

Quote:

SMAC dominates in the features department, no?

Right. The only biggie that SMAC doesn't have but Civ3 does is Strategic and Luxury Resources. SMAC has a number of nifity things Civ3 doesn't. (Unfortunatly, "An AI that can't cope with all the options" is one of them. SMAC also has multi player.

Quote:

Is SMAC challenging without the AI cheating (or is it about equal to CIv III in that respect, in that AI cheats in order to be competitive)?

No! Nor, of course, is Civ3. Yes, they both "cheat."

Quote:

Is SMAC more replayable than Civ III? For this, strategic depth of options would probably be the main consideration...

Maybe. SMAC has more "stuff" (techs, improvements, etc.) to explore. I found myself getting bored with it reletively quickly, though, because I didn't think the AI was up to snuff. (Like MoM, if you've played it.) If I was more interested in SMAC multiplayer I might have played it far longer.

There was a big discussion on the "strategic depth" recently. What I got out of it was that civ3's "strategic diversity" isn't as great - you can't pursue "vastly different" strategies from game to game. Civ3 seems to have more "tactical depth", though (the details matter more - mostly because the AI is better). And the pursuit of Strategic and Luxury Resources adds a layer of strategic thinking that SMAC lacks. Hmm.... SMAC had more diplomatic options, and they were interesting... but I like "diplomacy" in Civ3 more because the AI is so much better at the trading-game. It's pretty ruthless.

In Civ3 your "grand" strategy is going to generally be the same from game to game. The "depth" is in executing that strategy against an AI that isn't as clueless as most AIs. In SMAC you can select a number of strategies.... but (after some practice) it's more a matter of simply deciding "How do I want to win?" rather than figuring out "How can I win?" Against another human, though, SMAC is considerably more interesting.

Quote:

Is SMAC more fun than Civ III? People who've posted so far seem to think so...

If you like Civ3 (or 2, or 1) at all its certainly worth trying. Hmm.... I think the _only_ let down for me was the AI. Up untill I didn't find the AI challenging I had a wonderful time. Multiplayer lasted a little longer, but I have other games I'd rather play with other people.

"As currently implemented: SMAC>CIV3

Future patching/updating could of course change this."

I think that's a good point - Civ3 has some problems, but I don't think there are any big flaws in the system - the flaws are with the values assigned to various things, the "balance." Patches (or your own use of the editor) can make the game much, much better.

Another point I that I think should be mentioned is that there's a difference in the basic design philosophies between Civ2/SMAC and Civ3. Civ2 was "Civ1 plus more stuff." SMAC also has lots and lots of toys - not just interesting features but many techs, units, improvements, etc. etc. Civ3 has fewer everything (the notable exeption being the addition of Strategic/Luxury Resources). I'm satisfied because the AI makes decent use of what the game does have.

So, if you really want a better-than-average strategy game challenge, then Civ3 is the way to go. Or if you want a simpler, more "streamlined" game, Civ3 is the way to go (just don't play it on a very high difficulty level.) If you want a explore a complex game with a not-totally-clueless AI, then SMAC is the way to go. The fun you get out of seeing all the techs, learning how to win, designing units, etc, etc. will be well worth the purchace price.

I think most people fit into the second and third "types" (want a simple game, or want to explore). I'd recommend SMAC over Civ3 to most of the people I know. Civ3 is a game I've been playing a great deal since it came out, and will probably occasionally go back to for years to come because of it's challenge. I played SMAC A GREAT DEAL - I don't know how many classes I skipped - for awhile, but havn't played it since.

My advice: Only buy games when the price is low enough that you can afford several and won't feel bad about tossing (or reselling) the ones you don't especially like. Most people should find Civ3 and SMAC both worth playing.

One more thing: I firmly belive many (if not most) of the most vehament Civ3-detractors (or DiC's, if you will) dislike the game because of that different design philosophy. Civ3 is a worthy _alternative_ to Civ2 or SMAC, it isn't really the successor to either one.

To get back to your first post:

Quote:

So, purely in terms of gameplay (no historical or realism considerations), is Alpha Centauri better than Civ III?

I think Civ3's gameplay is better - but how, exactly, do you define "gameplay"? For me a good AI is extremely important to "good gameplay." When I buy a game and then don't play it much the reason is almost always poor AI. Hmmm.... I'll go ahead and call SMAC's AI "poor" - in that once a human has really learned the game the AI doesn't have a decent chance of winning. However, I had more than $50 worth of fun "really learning" SMAC.

Quote:

Professional reviews have given the edge to Civ III, but I think a lot of reviewers would feel pressured to give Civ III a great score, no matter what they think of it...

I doubt if reviewers felt "pressured." I can imagine many being intimidated by the title though, and thinking "If I don't seem to loooove the game people will think there's something wrong with me."

I would say that it got so many good reviews because experienced reviewers were able to get past Civ3's lack of features (compared to SMAC or Civ2) and see through to the excellent game play offered by the improved AI and the interesting new features actually supported by the AI (Resrouces, and trading.). I _would_ say that, but I think a high level of reviwer perspicacity explains only a very few of the favorable reviews...

Tarquelne · February 27, 2002, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by BustaMike
6. Bull**** AI favoritism - I admit the AI is way smarter in Civ3, but in civ all the AI's seem to team up against you from the beginning, not to mention the AI's hatred for the human player screws other features of the game. The trading of resources and luxuries is a really cool idea, but as I've seen posted numerous times the AI will only be happy with a trade along the lines of "my saltpeter and iron and money for your gems". That's a terrible deal but the AI won't accept any other. On the other hand the AI opponents will make very generous deals with each other. IMO, this is a bunch of crap and really ruins the game for me anyway. There are 2 solutions for this, make the AI a little nicer (or at least certain civs) and/or release multiplayer. At least I could make a fair trade with another person.

Is that really true? Everything I've seen from the trading AI could just as easily be explained by the AI being aware of what you can afford - either in money/resources (if you're better off than the AI civ), or in the price you'd pay in not getting ahold of what the AI is offering (if you're doing considerably worse than the AI.)

I've often traded 1 of my resources for 2 AI resources. Hey! Come to think of it, my 1 resource (tech, strategic or luxury) for an AI resource + money/turn is by far the most common trade I make... and I'm playing on Emperor and Deity level.

Does the AI make "fair" deals? One for one, everyone pays the same price? No way.... but that's exactly the way I behave in trading games. (And I usually win, too.)

The AI is certainly very, very _willing_ to trade. If they're all trading every other turn and you're not then _of course_ it's going to seem like they're "favoring" each other. You just have to jump in there and trade as much as they do.

I've also never seen the AI's all team up against me before I'd expect human players to do the same.

0bsidi0n · February 27, 2002, 23:37

Although I agree SMAC had better gameplay, being set in the future allowed it's features to work. The unit workshop was a blast, but set in a past tense, it doesnt really make sense for to equip a horse chasis with a machine gun. Things like this would have made it fun (for me at least), but to much of a risk for a major label like civ. And in reality all these combinations were tried, resulting in the existing units. My favourite stuff was the social engineering, which I think could be modified to Civ, but still IMHO would not be recieved well. In the real world no government would spend tax dollars investigating philosophies; SMAC could do that, because it was SMAC. And in the aggressive world of Civ, you'd end up with communist fascists or something; doesn't make sense, but works damn well! I'm not defending Firaxis at all, I think they really dumbed down civ from SMAC, and maybe they should have taken more of a risk and thrown in stuff like that.

Sorry about the length. I'm passionate on this topic. And I hope I get some feedback- I'd really like it if somehow Social Engineering could be adapted to CIV. Alright, I'm done.

BustaMike · February 27, 2002, 23:59

Tarquelne, here is an example of offered AI trade with me in a recent game. I was Roman, AI was German. All things were basically equal, army, tech, land, pop, culture, etc. It was early so both of us had recently discovered map making so I decided to try and trade maps. We were sharing a continent, Germany on the north and me on the south. You would think map for map would be fair, hell even map + something might be fair, but the only way the AI would trade was map for map + 2 techs + 150 gold. That is ridiculous and there was nothing to warrant it. We had good relations and had never been hostile ever. The comps attitude was even good.

Please keep in mind I playing 1.17f, I have a feeling they made the comp more of a **** in the latest patch.

Windwalker · February 28, 2002, 01:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne

In Civ3 your "grand" strategy is going to generally be the same from game to game. The "depth" is in executing that strategy against an AI that isn't as clueless as most AIs. In SMAC you can select a number of strategies.... but (after some practice) it's more a matter of simply deciding "How do I want to win?" rather than figuring out "How can I win?" Against another human, though, SMAC is considerably more interesting.

Hey Tarquelne, thanks for the great response! Just curious, why did you not find the Multiplayer aspect of SMAC as enjoyable as "other games"? I would assume that with MP, the only flaw to SMAC (the AI) would be compensated for, and you would thus have an outstanding game... Is the MP in SMAC generally consisting of lame tactics or lame players? Or is it that you just don't like playing turn-based multiplayer games?

- Windwalker

John Paul Jones · February 28, 2002, 04:03

As it stands SMAC/X > CIV3

I really don't see why Firaxis did not use more of the Alpha Centauri engine. To those who cannot imagine a design workshop in a Civ environment - no horse drawn settlers (0/0/2) with scout ability (can see up to 2 squares away) for you then. A lot of the design workshop features could have been implemented & a few more invented to fill in those ones that were too technologically advanced for the Civ-era. It's seems to be successful in the civ spin-off Manifest Destiny iirc.

The map is a pseudo - 3d isometric view in SMAC with 3d units. The map in civ is flat isometric - but with better line of sight to and from mountains and hills.
(IMHO CIV 3 should have been Civ-3D, when I zoom right out I wanna see a spinning globe - but that's a whole other topic.)

Advanced diplomacy and particularly the council are sorely missed, think of all the resolutions that could be debated at a continental/bloc/global meeting:

Slavery, City-Razing, Piracy, Pollution, and Strategic Arms Limitation, who get to host the next Olympic games

(ok this one is a bit far out)

I like the cultural borders concept in CIV3. With the factional borders in SMAC, which extended up to seven squares from all bases regardless of infrastructure, it was a lot easier to control the AI when it decided to send out a lot of Colony Pods - which it didn't do very often. Thumbs up to Civ3 on this one.
When you’re asked to withdraw units in SMAC - they go right back to your Bases (or Cities). In CIV3 they will go to the nearest nomansland - a definite improvement with the use of borders here.

There is something about the SMAC series that seems more polished though (even if the AI wasn't comprehensively perfect), and while both environments are equally immerse and addictive only time will tell which game goes on to be the most popular. Having said this, I am willing to bet the CIV3 multiplayer edition in whatever form it is released will go on to win this.

Mizaq · February 28, 2002, 04:07

I liked smac so much because there was flavor to the game. the wonder movies, stories with each tech, quotes, the game dialogue with planet as you got further into the game. the social engineering as well. ****, i've been playing civ since the first one came out in the early nineties, and i'm getting a little tired of just developing the wheel again a million times and ending with space travel. I was really hoping that civ3 would go from the wheel and end at least halfway up the alpha centauri tech tree.

what civ3 needs is more techs, more colors (256 colors is so limiting, yet apparently so necessary), more STORY! The discovery of new things is what makes civ great, but come on ten years of the same thing. I can't play alpha centauri because my copy is in storage and they dont sell it anymore. i played the **** out of it though, thats why i put it in storage. if there was something else out there to play, i might just be playing it. like i might have been playing on the new eq legends server if they had made it so characters didnt transfer but had to start new.

oh yeah, i still play civ3 hoping that they might come out with the ability to place and edit cities as well opening up some other options and allowing events. if they just came out and said no, we're not going to do any of those things, I would just stop playing now and get a new drug. hell, I could start working on NWN campaigns, or going back to modding baldur's gate 2. or even better, i could actually study for my classes, lol.

i think it is false logic to assume we are still playing civ3 because it is better than smac.

Tarquelne · February 28, 2002, 04:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Windwalker

Hey Tarquelne, thanks for the great response! Just curious, why did you not find the Multiplayer aspect of SMAC as enjoyable as "other games"? I would assume that with MP, the only flaw to SMAC (the AI) would be compensated for, and you would thus have an outstanding game... Is the MP in SMAC generally consisting of lame tactics or lame players? Or is it that you just don't like playing turn-based multiplayer games?

- Windwalker

By "other games" I was thinking board games, or RPGs, or (on a computer) FPSs (preferably co-op.), wargames or RTS games. I guess almost anything other than a strategy game. "Board games" (Illuminati (NOT the card game!), Advanced Civ, Diplomacy, Settlers, etc) and RPGs, as "face to face" activities have some obvious advantages over computer games. As for the computer game types I mentioned.... FPSs have action, RTS do too at a slower pace (and maybe more thought), and wargames have a tighter focus... I guess MP strategy games just aren't to my taste. I played a few games of SMAC and Civ2 and Imperialism II MP and others, but always just a few. So I can't really speak about MP SMAC. I've been told it's good, though.

Tarquelne · February 28, 2002, 04:42

Quote:

Originally posted by BustaMike
Tarquelne, here is an example of offered AI trade with me in a recent game.
<snip>
Please keep in mind I playing 1.17f, I have a feeling they made the comp more of a **** in the latest patch.

Sorry sorry sorry. Bustamike wasn't going off topic when he wrote of trading, but my response was... I'll do it once more. Just once, I promise.

I think your last sentence sums it up. (Assuming your *'d word means what I think it means.) The 2 techs might have been low value... and if you're rich the AI might think that you can easily spare 150... and it might have just been desperate. And I think the AI puts too high a value on maps in general (did you do the trade? Did you get a big map? And did you try to renegotiate? Maybe it'd take less.) But most likely the AI was just trying to screw you over. But, believe me, I'd do the same thing, and I usually win face-to-face trading games.

I have to admit that I love it when the AI makes me a "bad" offer that's still worth my while to take. If only my friends would do the same.... ;p

As long as I'm off topic I may as well do so Big Time. Here's some things to remember about trading.

Luxuries don't all have the same value. The more Luxuries you have the more valuable they are - and I think the AI always knows how many you have. (A cheat, I think.) If the AI wants 2 for 1 you still might be getting more happy faces out of the deal. (A fact I should have brought up in the orignal post.)

"You have no Oil? So sad." The AI does seem to have some idea how much Strategic Resources can be worth. You should expect to sometimes pay through the nose for them sometimes.

Techs have differing values. For one thing, AIs will often just refuse to trade you a tech if there's an unbuilt Great Wonder attached to it. But every tech has a value assigned to it, and that value isn't static. As other civs get the tech the value goes down, and as a civ gets close to getting the tech through research the value goes down. Down to, like, 1 gold.

"You bastard!" The AI is often unfair, in that it'll accept deals that are "unequal". It might be because the programming is slightly off. It might also be because the programming is dead on and the AI is a ruthless trader. Its all the same in the end, though.

Collusion: I've just never gotten the impression that the AI's were giving each other preferencial treatment. I was annoyed when they'd trade techs during my turn - but they didn't always do it, and I felt they were _cheating_, not giving preferencial treatment.

[shrug] I can trade away my techs and Resources for better-than-one-for-one terms at least as often as I get worse-than-one-for-one. I don't like using this line of argument - but if you aren't then I think you're doing something wrong. Maybe you just aren't trading often enough (I check for trades pretty often.), or don't have enough expereince with the game. Or you have delusions of persecution... but I don't think that's likely.

There are certainly some flaws in the trading AI (I'd call the value placed on maps a flaw, not an example of the AI trying to cheat you, because I've sold my maps for far more than I thought they were worth) but, to be frank (and brag, too) if the other civ AI's are all working against me, they aren't doing a very good job of it!

Okay, that's it. I'll start another thread rather than reply here on this subject again.

notyoueither · February 28, 2002, 04:56

SMAC is OK, if you like plants, and fighting with plants, and talking with plants, and empathising with plants, and merging with plants into a galactic super being...

No really, SMAC is OK. If you like plants...

SMAC is great if you like designing units. It's great if you like a lot of micro management. It's great if you like research. It's great if you like a polished story. In short, it's great in its own right.

Civ3 is great too. In different ways. Really, it is OK to think that more than one game is great. Really, they don't have to be identical. Do they?

Salve

Dis · February 28, 2002, 05:00

this is a toughie.

I played a lot more SMAC than I have civ3. But I did grow bored of SMAC by August of the year it was released. So that's about 5 months of play compared to about a month of civ3 (I play off and on- so that is still going up- but I never play complete games anymore)

I still think the first half of civ3 is better than SMAC. The first part of civ3 is fun. The graphics are far superior than SMAC. And I prefer "Earth" like planets over a weird alien planet. And xenofungus was a pain- but actually it is less annoying than many civ3 "features"

SMAC suffered from late game tedium as well, but not as bad as civ3. And you could put those quantum thingies in planetbusters and have real fun if you are bored

. you can't do that in civ3.

tons of terraformer options were fun for many people. I never made those solar array field thingies. But there were whole threads dedicated to this. Great for you micromanagers out there.

The AI of smac is not as good though. This is a result of many more options (just terraformer options alone far surpasses civ3 piddly worker options)

Conclusion: SMAC overall was a better game. But the first half (up to late medieval age) of civ3 surpasses any part of SMAC. Both games suffer from late game tedium. But SMAC was better at this. And it had freakin' movies and a nice storyline!! And SMAC feels like a complete game. Civ3 feels incomplete.

P.S. I never bought the expansion pack for SMAC. I was bored of it by the time the XP came out. So I'm comparing the 2 "base" games.

Pius Popprasch · February 28, 2002, 09:08

In SMAC the game tells a story, in Civ2/3 I tell a story. SMAC is roughly Civ2 in space, Civ3 is a different game. Cause I'm not a tinkerer I prefer Civ3.

MonsterMan · February 28, 2002, 11:41

SMAC was a stupid game with ugly graphics that didn't deserve to exist. Sometimes I think people like it because they've convinced themselves Sid Meier is a genius. I'm reminded of a comment a reviewer made of the movie Species: Giger only ever had one idea, and Alien did it. I use the same reasoning with Sid Meier and Civilization.

Remember Gettysburg? I almost bought the crap from name recognition.

Zealot · February 28, 2002, 12:41

SMAC was a great game, with great new features!
I loved the diplomacy options, the 3d terrain, the interaction with Planet and pollution, the Secret Projects, the terraforming options, the Planet Buster (awesome!), the geographic specials (Moonson Jungle, etc.), and many other great things.

Civ 3 is boring and slow paced, and I can't get satisfaction from it. Good ideas too, but the game itself, as it is, does not seduce me for too long.

Ecthy · February 28, 2002, 14:57

No matter what some guys say, SMAC is indeed better than Civ3. It's actually the highest developed of all civ games, Civ3 has too many simplifications of essential features, such as the bcombat system, the unit modell and the government modell.

BTW, we used to have no polls at all earlier on, just a year ago. Back then everything was fine, so it absolutely doesn't matter if someone asks a question right into the blue sky without making it a poll or not.

If you want nicely-colored bars, browse some American statistics site, it'll be just about as informative

The Andy-Man · February 28, 2002, 17:08

good point b out the simplification in Civ3.

Something that made SMAC and Civ2 good was that it had complex aspects, and ToT with Kestrels Unit mania ruled because you had so many units to choose from, all different, which gave a much more deper strategy lever: shall i build a fleet of sea mines or some dreadnaughts?

it was also imensly well balanced. Civ games aint the same if a kestrel mod hasnt been used....