Back from Civ3...

[Mongoose]

I don't see the point in invading the Civ3 forum. Firaxis knows what they did. The folks at Civ3 General are either having fun with Civ3 or are having fun flaming each other about Civ3. There is not much contribution to be made here by either of those camps.

[SirVincealot]

Read this morning on AVAULT about the coming expansion pack for CIV3:

>>>new map features including airfields, outposts and radar towers, two new terrain sets that allow players to customize their maps; additional interface enhancements like unit stacking and auto-bombard<<<

In other words, it will be more like SMAC.

The same SMAC that was supposed to be "too complicated"...

What a mess

Regards,
SirVincealot

[Impaler[WrG]]

Yep the Irony is Palpatable even to a person such as myself who has only played SMAC and only knows about Civ3 only by READING about it.

I have read some quotes by Sid Meires that go something like "SMAC taut us that More is sometimes Less" so that was their half baked idea for Civ3 the "less is more" consept. Basicaly a 180 degree reversal from the well established paterns the game industry has been using ever sinces it was created. They didn't realize that Less IS LESS, More is is only Less when its done badly, if done correctly more is MORE. The real secret is to get as much in a game and yet keep it accessible and Deep. I hope SMAC2 can learn from the mistakes of Civ3.

[Method]

well if less is more then just think how much MORE could be!

[DickK]

I enjoy playing Civ3 a lot--its a good game but there's no question that SMAC is the better game in just about every way. Caveat: my own view is more than a little biased since I was on the beta test team for SMAC and SMACX so in some sense its my "baby" too

In any case, I completely agree that SMACX is the superior game compared to Civ3 as it currently exists. SMAC's first release was much better than Civ3's first release and, for that matter, is better that Civ3 with all the current patches. I really don't expect Civ3's expansion pack will make it the equal of SMAC, never mind comparisons to SMACX.

As has been noted elsewhere the key difference, for me, between them is the rich backstory in SMAC. The attention to the details shown in SMAC is incredible--it had to be, and was, there from the very beginning. The first release the testers saw was really little more than a late alpha--major features missing or not working. Yet the storyline was there already and made the game exciting and fun to play from the first moment. Like many of you I was and am disappointed with Civ3 because it doesn't look like the "lessons learned" in SMAC got incorporated into Civ3.

The now missing video sequences are just one of many things that I believe are a result of the fact that the investment in SMAC far exceeded the investment in Civ3. But I'd bet the Civ3 revenue has already exceeded the SMAC/SMACX revenue. Civ3 could have, and IMHO should have, been so much more -- but it would have taken another 6-12 months to produce and cost a lot of money. Perhaps the resources weren't there to make that possible--SMAC is a long time back and the investment in "Dinosaurs" was large with no return. The Golf game was running in parallel also and draining resources. Gents, its a business and if Firaxis can't keep the revenue coming in there won't be any future games from that team. Personally, I think there was a hard, cold business decision made: Civ3 will be "good enough" to ship at this point on the calendar and start putting major revenue on the books. Investing another year of effort would add all these neat features but cost a lot and probably not pump up the revenue by an equivalent amount. And there's always the pressure to meet the publisher's expectations because that group is a business too and they need to see some revenue, too.

I hope its not the case, but SMAC/SMACX might just prove to the best TBS for a long time to come simply because of the costs involved. On the other hand, I hope that Civ3 will make tons of money so Firaxis will have the resources to fund another SMAC-like classic!

[Mongoose]

Interesting. You claim, DickK, that the reason for the quality level of Civ3 is that hard business decisions were taken. Implicitly, it seems to me, you are claiming that the talent and vision to have made Civ3 as good or nearly as good as SMAC exist at Firaxis but weren't employed to do so because of the calculus of revenues, costs and time. (Correct me if what I find implicit in your argument was unintended.)

JT, OTOH, and myself, if the truth be told, believe that Civ3 was just about as good as the current Firaxis team could do, at least as far as gameplay is concerned. I concede that a larger budget or more time would certainly have made features like the voiceovers possible. I am not convinved though, that they would have fit without some backstory, which backstory cannot really exist in a game spanning 6,000 years rather than 400.

I am increasingly curious about the reason for Reynolds' departure from Firaxis. I find it nearly impossible to believe that some fundamental disagreement between him and Meier was not at the root of it. Perhaps a matter of vision, perhaps a matter of budget...I wager it involved Civ3.

[mark13]

JT, OTOH, and myself, if the truth be told, believe that Civ3 was just about as good as the current Firaxis team could do, at least as far as gameplay is concerned. I concede that a larger budget or more time would certainly have made features like the voiceovers possible.

I must admit, that's not how I see it - and I do agree somewhat with DickK that Firaxis took some real liberties with Civ3.

But, Firaxis wanted to make it plain from the very start that they wanted to go back to basics. It is my opinion that they *wanted* to dumb the game down from what SMAC had been - they erroneously (IMO) believed that the reason SMAC didn not sell well was because it did not offer the simplicity of Civ2, and was too complex for most players.

I would contest that, and say that SMAC did not sell well because it did not have the name 'Civilization' on the box. It had Sid, great - but the Civilization legacy is well-respected as well, and the number of avid civ-players who have tried their hand (recently) at SMAC and absolutely loved it is *staggering*. At first, of course, they hadn't realised that this game was so closely related to Civ.

The single-player experience was also Firaxis's priority. 'We want to make the AI as good as possible, therefore we must mould the game around the AI'. This was a deliberate design decision, IMO...they knew exactly what they were doing. Maybe they wanted to attract a new crowd, those who would normally play games like AoE, I don't know - or maybe the idea was to create a game that was compelling for two weeks, and then got boring - players will buy something else, which means more money.

In many ways, it is a shame. Firaxis started out as a gamers' company, in much the same way that Paradox (Europa Universalis) are now - they wanted to make a great game. They did with SMAC. Over the years, they slowly became more commercialised - and as is the way with many companies over the years, the gamers themselves got shafted. And then we end up with Civ3. Compare it, if you like, to Maxis - SimCity was originally excellent, innovative, compelling stuff - 16,000 Sim expansions and games later, along with the commercial monstrosity that is 'The Sims' (the game was made to sell copies, pure and simple), it is not. Or even Microprose, the company that Firaxis themselves branched from. That is what has happened here, I fear.

As for Reynolds - I agree with Mongoose that Reynolds opposed this commercialisation process, and wanted to make another good game. Rise of Nations will be worth a look, I think, if past performance is anything to go by.

Yeah, Infogrames rushed the game out of the door, so as not to co-incide with the release of MoO3 (since delayed many times, of coruse) and had the game been released six months later, it would have been polished, with a few bells and whistles attached - but it would still have been the same, basic, simple, uninteresting game it is now.

That's my tuppence, anyway.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Mark13 you've pretty much summarized what I have been posting for about the last month over on the Civ3 general discussion boards.

But I just wonder a second. All the things we suppose have credible evidence to support this view numerous i.e. quotes from Soren and Sid kinna confirm this view. But..... perhaps what they're doing is abit of spin doctoring. All of sudden the minor criticisms come rolling in from the boards about how dumbed down and featureless CIV3 is. Ummm... Ummm... We meant to do that, Yeah thats the ticket.
Are there any quotes that talk about the development of CIV3 prior to its release that give any indication that they meant to get back to basics? I don't remember.

I find DickK's comments fascinating. Assuming he is for real, he has about as good an insight into the mindset of Firaxis as any. we all knew early release was a bad thing and that profit genreation was the driver in this situation. It's just a shame that poor project choices such as Dinosaurs drained the needed development dollars away from the real center piece of the Firaxis offerings.

Shame that SMAC didn't find its following. I agree had they only tagged on a CIV title to it the sales could have been staggering. Iguess they thought that with Activision CTP coming out at the same time the whole Civilization name was a bit overplayed.

As for Reynolds as long as we're speculating, I'ld wager his creative differences (if any existed at all) were all around the dumbing down of the game and thereby tarnishing his two masterpieces CIV2 and SMAC.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Shame that SMAC didn't find its following. I agree had they only tagged on a CIV title to it the sales could have been staggering. Iguess they thought that with Activision CTP coming out at the same time the whole Civilization name was a bit overplayed.

I don't think this is the case, OgOg. Firaxis had no rights to the name Civilization then. They (Firaxis) are making Civ3 because Hasbro Interactive (successor to Microprose, purchaser of The Avalon Hill Game Company and predecessor to Infogrames) contracted with Firaxis to develop it. I have no doubt that if they could have worked Civilization into the title of SMAC, thay would have done so in the proverbial heartbeat.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Thanks for the correction Mongoose. I remember when it (SMAC) came out and CTP came out that only one could have the name. So Hasbro owned the CIV name rights and Sid owned his own Monikers rights. Sid banked on his name being the draw (too bad it wasn't that big of a draw) whilst in reality as just recently shown with CIV3 it really was the brand equity of CIV franchise that brought big sales. Now it all comes back to me. I remember now. (I remember how everyone was so livid that the crap that was CTP was going to drag the good name of CIV through the mud and how SID should be outraged.) Funny thing, fortunately the good people of Firaxis were able to accomplish that little feat on their own. J/K for all you FurX fans out there. Thanks again for jogging my memory Mongoose.

[rwprice]

Don't you think the content and setting have anything to do with sales? I agree with the level of excellence that SMAC contains, but for a lot of people, the sci-fi setting just isn't what they like. I've seen posts by people who say that they had a hard time making a connection in their minds to some of the wonders and advances, because they had no real-life counterparts. Civilization benefits from its connection to actual human history. I think that's a much bigger reason for lower sales than the name of the game.

[RedFred]

Good point rwprice. Comparing the sales of CtP v. SMAC it is easy to see that a very large number of people have very little in the way of an imagination.

[DickK]

{pinch} Ouch! yep, I'm real. However, I really have tell ya that I don't have and don't claim any "special" insight. But I've been a gamer for 30+ years and a software professional and computer game player for 20+. I've been involved with various test efforts and continue to be occasionally involved in such (exclusively with strategy games because that's what I love to do and you can't be a good, unpaid tester for something if you don't like the game genre).

Now, the question is whether Civ3 is as good as the current Firaxis could make it or whether if Brian (and Tim and a few others) had been there would it have been better? Tough one and something I've wondered about since Brian left. Bottom line is that I've concluded that Civ3 would have been different if it had continued to be Brian's project, but not necessarily better. "Better" is a problem because we're all comparing what came in the Civ3 box with what our imagination thought should be there. Let's just settle for "better" being "met our expectations better". So if Civ3 is Brian's project would it have met my (our/your) expectations better? Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

Fact: SMAC/X was Brian and Tim Train's "baby". Fantastic concept, well executed.
Seems true: SMAC/X is expensive to produce. It does well in the marketplace but doesn't generate blockbuster revenue.
Fact: Civ3 was Brian's project at Firaxis until he left.
Fact: Brian left and immediately formed a group to do RTS games.

There are facts missing between the last two and lots of possibilities. I doubt it was simple or that we'll ever know the full truth. However, just suppose --

Speculation: Brian wanted to make Civ3 into something really different from the Civ1/2 "franchise", like a shift to an RTS game. Brian says "either I get full creative control or I'm outta here".

IF that speculation were true then I could see how Sid, et al, say "not only no, but hell no". Sid/Firaxis wants to stick to TBS and besides it's a big risk to a cash-cow--in a company that may be cash short. In any case, we know that Brian, Tim, et al, leave shortly thereafter and Firaxis is left to rebuild a shattered project team. Firaxis turns out a Civ3 that gets done quickly, it's true to the franchise and makes a bunch of money.

Complicated way of saying that I think that if Brian had been the Civ3 lead he would have certainly been capable of producing a Civ3 that I personally would have liked better. On the other hand, I wonder if it would have worked out that way. We might have gotten a RTS version of Civ3 or something otherwise so different that I'd be just as disappointed with it as I am with what we've got. We'll never know for sure what Brian's Civ3 would have been--but just maybe it would have more looked like "Rise of Nations" than Civ2/3.

And yes, I believe Firaxis could have done better--with more time and resources invested. Although I suspect it is true, it's speculation on my part is that the time/money investment was the limiting factor for Civ3 and not the creativity and ability of the team. In a way, the team is proving that they're capable of more because the series of updates are making it better and I think the expansion pack will prove it again. Frankly, I don't think it will ever rise to be the gameplay equal of SMAC/X but its a very good game and its making a lot of money -- probably already more than SMAC/X.

[Capt Dizle]

I think its a matter of record that Brian had expressed interest in doing RTS games, but I don't really *think* that was the issue.

My *guess* is that Brian and his design team wanted to do Civ3 as TBS and include depth, complexity and the marvelous scope that they brought to Civ2 and SMAC.

That takes time and resources and that is money. Money that someone decided that Firaxis did not *need* to spend, being that Civ3 was, on its predecessor's rep, going to make a lot of money whether it was a great game or not.

So I think someone (Jeff or Sid or both) told Brian he could not build the game he wanted to build.

I am sure that Brian carried a little chip on his shoulder about playing second fiddle to Sid's violin in the first place. And being told he couldn't build Civ3 the way he wanted, after his sucess with Civ2 and SMAC, well that was just too much.

So, Brian decided (I speculate) that he was by God going to show them that he could make it on his own.

And he left and has gotten the necessary backing and will soon debut and we will see what we will see.

Again, I am just speculating here, but I feel Brian felt he was not getting the respect he deserved AND he just didn't want to be part of a blatant milking of the gaming public.

People think that Sid and company wouldn't intentionally throw a B product on the market, not in the Civ franchise. Well, they did. It is worth noting that Firaxis has hired several high profile types to run the company lately. Someone put Sid on that European tour. Its plain they have big plans and the explotation of Sid's name will continue to be a part of it.

I wonder how long Sid will like being a trained seal.

Thats my take on it, just an uninformed opinion from the outside, rampant speculation from a disatisfied, obsessed fan.

[Capt Dizle]

FIRAXIS Games Appoints Chief Operating Officer
Steve Martin Joins the Company from Absolute Quality, Inc.

Hunt Valley, Maryland, March 28, 2002 – FIRAXIS Games, on the heels of the successful launches of Sid Meier’s Civilization III and Sid Meier’s SimGolf, proudly announces the hiring of industry veteran Steve Martin as Chief Operating Officer.

Steve comes to Firaxis from Absolute Quality, Inc. (AQI), a software testing and technical support interaction center, where as Co- Founder and Chief Financial & Administrative Officer he built AQI into a $10 million business, averaging greater than 100% growth each year. Prior to that Steve was the Controller for MicroProse Software, Inc., a $60M entertainment software developer in Hunt Valley, Maryland. As the Chief Operating Officer at Firaxis, Steve is responsible for the overall business operations of the company and reports to Firaxis's board of directors.

"We're very fortunate to have Steve on board, "said Jeff Briggs, Founder and CEO of Firaxis Games. "He brings a tremendous amount of knowledge and experience that will further strengthen our operations and add another level of depth to our already powerful team. "

[DickK]

Jimmytrick -- we'll probably never see the real reason(s) for Brian's exit from Firaxis in public but you could easily be right. Regardless of the details I think we're in agreement that at least part of the issue was probably a big difference between Brian's vision of Civ3 and what Sid/Firaxis/the publisher wanted.

But I don't think its any cooincidence that SMAC, Brian's last project, was expensive to implement, done in loving detail and didn't take the marketplace by storm. Just what triggered the break I don't know but something put Brian in a position where he no longer wanted to be part of Civ3. For the creator of Civ2 that can't have been easy.

[Jac de Molay]

What triggered the break was that BR probably wanted to produce a game with the lasting impact of SMAC and Civ 2, and got snowed by Firaxis who wanted to make shite, toss-off games. Quantity over quality.

Dave

[Mongoose]

DD, that's rampant speculation. It could be the case...so could some adulturous office romance gone bad...so could any number of things.

Any support for your 'theory'?

[Jac de Molay]

Ok maybe I'm foaming at the mouth just a little

Not really a theory, just a hunch based on what I've seen.

I think civ 3 is the smoking gun. BR's departure is a bad omen of things to come, and the rough polish of Civ 3 foretells that. When you lose someone of his caliber, the entire catalog of games will feel the reverberation in the future.

[Mongoose]

lol Actually, I think you're probably close to the truth, but I've been wrong more times than I can count.

[LodeRunner]

Didn't Bruce Shelly leave the civ team to do an RTS (Age of Empires series). Maybe, Sid just can't stand the idea of rts games.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by LodeRunner
Maybe, Sid just can't stand the idea of rts games.

I don't think that's the case. Railroad Tycoon, Gettysburg! and Antietam were all realtime. There might be others, also.

[Talent]

Okay this is the deal:
CIV3 IS total and utter shite (our friend from Michigan is right)
yes it is...we all know that.

the question is this: is it shite on purpose? of course it is. And yes that is speculation, everything that we discuss IS going to be rampant speculation. This is a forum, not a courtroom (I don't know about you, but I am not under oath here)

I think that the issue is this: why are we all so TICKED OFF that it's shite? I mean, we've all purchased and played bad games before. You uninstall it and then you move on. right?

I just sat down last week and played over a few days a wonderful deity game of civ2 (just straight...with no senarios or extra frills...) and you know what? it's still a WONDERFUL game!!

SMAC is of course in a class by itself.

But CIV3 is not only a bad game. it's an insult. because it is obvious that the FIRAXIS team was lazy when making the game. (I don't know about you guys, but I don't BUY the thing about movies hindering the gameplay) Just look at the time that was put into Civ2. (Let's not even discuss the huge amount of work that was put into SMAC).

and then consider the huge amount of time that was supposedly put into CIV3; consider how long we waited...and for what?

it seems that everybody is tiptoeing around the real issue out of a misguided respect for a group of people who have let us, the true fans, down.

It's like the emperor's new clothes. Well, I'm the little kid that will stand up and say the truth:

Sid Meyer has become fat and greedy (as a certain bucanneer would probably say)

There was OBVIOUSLY no effort whatsoever put into the creation of CIV3.

CIV3 is an obvious financial tool.

Am I the only one who noticed all the glowing reviews (aparently unbiased and unsolicited) for CIV3?
suspicious? of course!

CIV3 is very simply a bad game. And the only reason it was made was to line the coffers of a greedy bunch of people.

But the thing that really angers me (and should actually anger more some of you guys than me) is that the reason why SMAC is still THE BEST game out there is because before it's creation the Firaxis team REALLY listened to the fans and to the senario creators and other talented folks out there. I am not a senario creator nor do I understand really how they are made (although I love playing them). But I do know that one of the biggest advantages of civ 2 is all the senarios that were made. This gave the firaxis team who were making SMAC a HUGE wealth of ideas and suggestions...which they used.

But do you guys remember all the CIV3 suggestions on this very website? if some of those suggestions had been used (even just half of them) now that would have been a good game!

TOO bad that Sid and his buddies have become too rich and fat to come out of their ivory tower and attempt to make a good game.

As far as I am concerned everyone is cutting them a little too much slack.

I will gladly apply the "three strikes" rule

Gettysburg : strike one.

The dinosaur game: strike two (I mean, talk about getting our hopes up!...that's what really showed me that sid was ALL talk, ALL wallet and NO integrity)

and sim golf. huh!!! what the-? : strike three.

and even after all that, I was so excited and so looking forward to CIV3...and what a dissapointment.

I have given up on Sid and his team. I will never purchase anything even vaguely associated with them.

Let's hope that BR and RoN will be more what we should expect...in the meantime, SMAC/X are still the best games out there...anyone wanta play?

later,

Talent

[Blake]

Talent, I almost entirely agree with you.

Civ3 got good reviews, because it does look quite shiny, the graphics are much better the interface is great, theres a nice wide range of civilisations and a few things to do.

Civ3 was a pretty good play the first couple of games (which presumably, is all the reviewers played). The problem is it has nowhere near the depth of SMAC, play it for a week and you realise that it's actually pretty darn boring, the gameplay is much more linear than SMAC.

I think part of the problem is we have been spoiled by SMAC, a futuretech game allows almost infinite creativity (hence a very large tech tree densely packed with goodies). The other day I was on IRC explaining to someone why Civ3 reeks and SMAC rocks, and I listed all the level 1 techs...
Industrial Base, Applied Physics, Doctrine: Mobility, Centuria Ecology, Social Pysch, Biogenetics, Information Networks, each and every one of these techs has some nifty stuff attached.
In the first level not less than 3 secret projects, 4 facilities and 4 unit components.
The second level:
Industrial Economics, Planetary Networks, Doctrine:Flexibility, Ethical Calculus, Secrets of the Human Brain, Nonlinear Mathematics, Doctrine: Loyalty, and this level is even more packed with stuff to build and do.
Not less than 2 secret projects, 4 facilities, 4 SE settings, 3 new unit components.
And all of these can be had be researching 2 or 3 techs.
To summarise, in the first two tech levels, there are 14 techs, 5 SP's, 8 facilities, 4 SE settings, 7 unit components (plus those you start with) and assorted bonuses (like trade and fungus nuts).

When you compare this to Civ3 you realise that SMAC simply has way more choices of ways to play, directions to take and strategies to pursue.

This is the main reason why SMAC is much better than Civ3 (ofcourse there is also the book of planet, blurbs, voice overs, movies etc - they are icing on the cake - I would happily play SMAC without any of those.)

I wouldn't nessecarly say that Firaxis wanted to release a worse game than SMAC, rather I feel that they had no choice, a game confined to history simply doesn't, and can't, have the depth of gameplay as a sci-fi or fantasy game.

Therfore, it was actually somewhat unreasonable to expect Civ3 to be better than SMAC game-play wise.

Other aspects, like modability, are a whole can of worms I'm not going to open (because I'm not particulary qualified to).

So, to put it quite simply, the only way Civ3 could have been better than SMAC, is if instead of Civ3 Firaxis had made SMAC2. Why didn't they? Well, it's because of what the fans wanted... more people wanted a Civ3 than SMAC2, so Civ3 was made. Also the Income/Effort ratio for Civ3 is doubtlessy better than what it would have been for SMAC2. (the old money thing).

What does this all mean? Somewhere in the second paragraph I lost the plot and started rambling, but hopefully I have explained why Civ3 actually does suck more than SMAC. (and also why, if Firaxis does come through and make SMAC2, you shouldn't boycott it just because they made Civ3 suck)

[Talent]

so what you're saying is that the reason why civ3 doesn't work is because of the historical context rather than a future one.

I disagree, because civ2 worked very well actually.

there are two things on this point:

1. the game does not necessarily need to be a recreation of history in order to be a historical game. Rather it could be a version of history (with all the plethora of possibilities attached to scenarios, etc...) all that would be needed for this would be to expand the scientific tree and the various possibilities of gameplay (governements city styles etc...) CIV CTP kind of went in that direction with there whole ecotopian concept. but not far enough.
What I mean is this: in our world the north american native civilisations were supplanted by the europeans and therefore their (ancient) technologies of ecology, recycling and equality of the sexes were lost until very recently. Also, matriarchal societies died out for patriarchal societies. there are also many tribes throughout history that (for some reason) didn't last until today that had discovered things that we only discovered later. If you base yourself on the idea that a scientific choice is also based on the kind of culture and social structure that you have...then the possibilities become endless!! If the past is considered more objectively, than we can stand in this imaginative past looking towards our present rather than simply standing in the present trying to decipher the distant past. So, if it trully was ALL the possibilities of history than one possibility could be (for example) and environmental matriarchal society in 200 BC. why not?

there are just as many possibilities in the past as there are in the future (the point is how much of your imagination are you willing to use) and for the CIV3 team the answer was NONE!

2. for me the main thing that makes CIv3 unenjoyable is not the limitations of the game but rather the emptiness of the game...there is just NOTHING THERE. even the final defeat screen is just too puerile for words. The game actually has less stuff in it than civ2 did. The jump from civnet to civ2 (and even from civ2 to test of time ) was PHENOMENAL. I feel however that Civ3 was ACTUALLY a step back.

There's also the idea of religion and culture in CIV3 which is not even considered (come on! their whole culture based on a colloseum thing is ridiculous) I am talking about culture, race, tribe, spirituality, patriotism or dissidents etc..etc... CIVCTP again had an interesting element of religion with the conversion thing but in the CIV3 world religion, thought, and cultural beliefs don't even exist!!!

and the whole leaders thing is absolutely ridiculous. Armies do not exist only when leaders appear (they become more effective when you have Alexander, Napolean or Paton at the lead. But soldiers can still organise themselves into an army without heroic figures...

But that's just it, all of CIV3's ideas are weak and not well explored and even then there aren't that many ideas there to begin with.




later,

Talent.

[Blake]

Unfortunately I havn't played Civ2 for a long time so cant make a terribly accurate comparison of Civ2 and Civ3 (altough I do remember that Civ2 was much more fun).

One thing I can say, is that strategic resources makes Civ3 less fun than Civ2, because it gives you even less options of strategies to pursue, ie you can only chariot rush IF you have a source of horses.
I would go so far as to say Civ3 would be more enjoyable without strategic resources at all. (I'm not saying there isn't a strategic resource implementation better than none at all - but Firaxis sure didn't find it).

Great leaders are possibly another, I for one would prefer no GL's at all and making it possible to form armies anytime. GL's enhancing armies would be better, but that would require rebalancing with the wonder building ability. (Firaxis chose the 'bad' way of doing armies, making them exceptional rather than the norm, this was possibly to balance the wonder building ability, in which case firaxis has it all backwards.)

The Culture model may not actually enhance gameplay in any meaningfull way. But I havn't played since the captured cities flipping back thing has been fixed, so I shouldn't comment.

The tile improvments are very boring, by this I mean a plains + farm = grassland + mine, plains + mine = forest etc. Basically it's so boring and ordinary there couldn't possibly be several dominant improvment strategies. There is pretty much only one improvment strategy, which pretty much means no strategy at all.

I *think* the main reason why Civ2 is better is it has a certain simplicity that Civ3 lacks, altough that simplicity is harder to pin down than SMAC's complexity.

But yeah, Civ3's main problem is it's feature sparse, and many of the features are gameplay-neutral (they dont actually enhance gameplay, some even damage it).

[Dranthar]

Hello,

Being a big SMAX fan (no other game has been such a threat to my education ), I've been lurkinfg about these forums for some time now, but this particular thread has sparked my interest enough to start posting.

Okay, now I've played both Civ3 and SMAX, and I can say without a doubt that SMAX is by far a better game. Why? Two broad reasons really:

1. Everything is more exagerated in SMAX. In Civ3, when you drop a nuke, you might destroy half the units there as well as kill a good chunk of the cities population. Drop a planet buster in SMAX, and you descimate EVERYTHING in its radius, as well as create your own minature ocean.
If you cause pollution in civ3, you get squares being polluted now and then (easy to fix), as well as OCCASIONALLY turning a square into desert. In SMAX, you mess with planet, it screws you around royally. Massive mindworm boils pop up and start overwhelming cities, while ocean levels start rising and consume your faction Atlantis style.
In Civ3, espionage can maybe give you some techs, or see their map, that is, assuming your not at war with them, in which case you can't do any covert operations. In SMAX, you can take over units, mind control cities, release viruses, steal techs, steal money, free conquered faction leaders, and destroy base improvements.
Civ3 lets you improve squares by building forests, farms, mines, roads, railways, and fortresses. SMAX lets you do all that, plus you can raise or lower terrain, plant fungus, build boreholes, mirrors, solar panels, condesors, and rivers.
In Civ3, you have a choice of 5 governments, only two of which you'd want to use once you get the techs for them, and even then their bonuses come down to two categories (good for peace, and good for war). SMAX gives you social engineering, the choices of which are greatly varied and have major effects on your faction (including other factions opinions of you).
I think you get where I'm going with this point.

2. Civ3 is extremely linear. There is really only one or two ways to go about things if you want to win, and even then you are really doing the same thing anyway. SMAX gives you do alot more choices for attaining victory. You could turtle in and max out science, be a greenie and beat everyone up with mindworms, play the diplomat and get your allies to do the fighting, or go capitalist and bribe your way to victory.

Anyway, thats my take on things. Anybody agree?

[Dienstag]

I agree with Dranthar, and pretty much everyone else here. CivIII is SMAC's sickly little half-brother. I might never have bought Alpha Centauri if CivIII were a better game (still holding out some hope for the expansion pack), but I finally got around to buying SMAC last Friday. I had played the demo in its time...but the real game is even better!

My girlfiend is (at best) bemused by my Civ-playing habits. But while playing my first game of SMAC (this weekend), I kept thinking "I gotta show her this. This is what it's all about." I've tried half-heartedly to share CivII and (less so) CivIII with my girlfriend, to try to justify the time I spend on them. But SMAC is fundamentally different, something I want to share as equals, something I think she'd really appreciate. I can't say that for the other games. Anyway, why am I writing this? I could be off playing!

[Jethro83]

I definitely find some times when SMAC gets my interest more than Civ III. At this point, I'm actually bored of Civ III. But its just a phase I'm going through. When I'm bored of SMAC, I'll probably go off and play Civ II all over again, or Shogun Total War.

One definitely needs time out from a single game. Even the most diehard fans will eventually get bored and long to play something else.

[DilithiumDad]

I agree with most of the posts about the superiority of SMAC over CIV3. I started a thread in the CIV3 forum entitled "Things We Miss from SMAC". A hybrid game, a CIV3 with more elements from SMAC, would be super. Maybe the expansion will be it.

But in many ways CIV3 is an improvement over SMAC. First there's the AI. Single-player SMAC is no challenge. The only challenge is seeing how fast you can dominate. CIV3 is much more challenging. On higher levels, you will be trailing the AI for a long time. The #1 problem with the SMAC AI is terraforming. AI terraforming in CIV3 is near-perfect. You can conquer AI territory and not have to improve a thing. You can automate terraforming without losing anything. Try that in SMAC!

The AI factions in CIV3 aggressively build bases on every available tile. SMAC AI just sits there and can't even use a transport.

AI combat strategy is much improved. You can actually lose bases if you're not careful, whereas in SMAC there's no way that should happen.

There is a certain lack of eventfullness that makes the midgame tedious. You can whiz through this period, though, by automating terraforming and just making build and move decisions.