Alfa Centauri - is it worth it?

[Sonic]

I recently seen a legal Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri in a shop. Legal games (especially TBS) are very rare in Lithuania, so I had to buy pirated Civilization 3, Call to Power 2, Imperialism, etc, because I wasn't able to find legal copies. I thought now maybe could be a good time to support Firaxis (and whole industry) after all. However, I still don't want to buy a game if I won't play it. So, I would like to hear your opinions and recommendations.

I know there are reviews, however I thought I'd better ask here because I will write down here what other games I liked so people will know what games do I like.

First, I would like to say I really liked Civilization 3. However, as a counter, I didn't felt the same about CtP2. Maybe because CtP had poor graphics and interface, also it didn't had good sights like for example city view of civ3 is. How SMACs graphics looksalike?

Second, I know SMAC is set in future. I ussually don't like future games very much (unless they are good ones), so I would like to ask - what kind of units and techs there are in SMAC? Are they something like super-turbo-robots with laser rifles or just tanks, planes, etc?

Third, do you still start in SMAC as in civ (with one city or settler) or do you have an empire immidietly?

Fourth, what terrain is in SMAC? Are there still mountains, plains, or just some laser dunes?

Other knowledge and opinions on SMAC are very welcome. I know not much about the game, except for what I know from a few reviews, which were mostly about story, not about gameplay.

Thank you.

[Method]

there have been several threads on this...look around.

i had a long reply typed up, but it got erased when i pushed the wrong button

civ3 is the worst game i've ever played. way worse than civ2. if you like civ3, SMAC is 10 times better, even thought it takes place in the future.

just on terrain, you have 3 settings, raininess, and rockiness, and elevation. flat tiles make 0 minerals, rolling make 1, rocky make 1 (but 4 with mine). arid tiles make 0 nutrients, moist make 1, and rainy make 2. then elevation determines energy production: 1 per 1000 meters IIRC. you combine rockiness, raininess and elevation to make a particular tile. a rolling rainy tile makes 2-1-0 (nutrients-minerals-energy). the same tile at 1600 meters makes 2-1-1. get it?

[Willem]

If you liked Civ 3, you'll like Alpha Centauri. The AI's not as good as in Civ, but there's a number of features that in my opinion are superior. For instance, you can design your own units, which is rather fun. And diplomacy is more involved. The graphics aren't as good as in Civ, but they're still fairly good. Better than Civ II at any rate.

Whether you'd like the future tech or not is hard to say, though I suspect you would. It mainly involves using different types of weapons and armour with various unit types as a chassis, like infantry, aircraft etc. Plus you have special abilities you can give to each unit. Like Anti-Air and Bombard for instance.

As for gameplay, it's very similar to Civ. You start out with at least one Colony Pod, sometimes two, and a scout, and you have to build your empire from that.

[Adalbertus]

For an objective poll you're in the wrong forum. Most here (I think) have some experience with Civ3 and came back or never really left. For a more mixed answer, you might ask at the Civ3 or off-topic forum (hopefully you won't be flamed for that!)
Personally, I was completely drawn into the game the second time I played it. Not so with Civ3, even if I prefer historical settings. I fear it is some (commercial) necessity in terms of developing time. But you can have a game with many different strategies for the player (SMAC/X) or with better AI opponents (Civ3) - both games seem to go to the respective extremes, at least from the intentions of the programmers. To train an AI for a more flexible gameplay takes more time and would make a game twice as expensive (and it would rot in the shelfs). About graphics, I probably would agree, Civ3 is slightly better, but it doesn't include movies (as in Civ2 and SMAC/X), and the basic requirements of the engine aren't so high. SMAC/X has variable terrain heights which are displayed on the main screen, or course the mapping costs some CPU time. But the thing which is the crown on the game, and gives an atmosphere I experienced mostly in RPG's is plain text ...

(sorry for nitpicking) TKG, an unimproved tile, at the beginning of the game doesn't get any energy. You'll have to build a solar collector or echelon mirror to get energy at all and also the height benefit. a solar collector on height 0...1000 gives 1 energy, on 1000...2000 gives 2 energy, the highest you can get is 3500 with 4 energy.
Even that is not complete, the best you can get from a single tile with luck and planning is 14 energy (not the most efficient to do, btw.) but this is for once you get involved into the game.

So, I would say SMAC/X is worth any money you could pay for a computer game. I put the money I paid for Civ3 (too much) to that I paid for SMAX (not enough) and can happily get away with this. If you feel uncomfortable with the pirated version of Call to Power 2, be happy. I was upset with the game, they made the different difficulty levels the worst way they could (giving a huge start bonus to the AI, which simply sucked later, so that if you survived ancient times by luck there was no more challenge in the game), and there were reproducible crashes which made me going back 10 turns, playing 13, going back 10 ... not really a fun. Civ3 is better, and if only more stable. And even if you paid the company for the game it would go to the wrong place. After patch 1.1 they decided to withdraw from making PC games. (You see I'm really angry about the game).
So, playing Civ3 after SMAC was like moving from a 200m² house to a 40m² appartment, but there is nothing wrong with the game in itself (given a normal level of bugs).
Once I posted a poll in the Civ3-general forum who prefers more strategic options for the player and who prefers a tougher AI. The result was quite balanced. So it's up to you to decide what you want. If you prefer more strategic options, go to SMAC/X and you'll be happy. If you prefer a tougher AI, stay with Civ3.

[Anodyne]

At least the poll is going to the right direction
Down with Civ3!

I'm quite sure that you'll get your money worth of fun with SMAC.

[Nubclear]

SMAC is infinately better than Civ3.

A virus recently infected my computer. I ignored everything (Even my anthems! ) and tried cleaning the virus out of SMAC first (and it worked! ) as its the best game in my collection.

Civ3.....Well, in order to deal with the virus, i simply deleted Civ3. It's gone now.

[Anodyne]

Adalbertus> There are still ways to make SMAC more difficult for yourself when playing.

For example; Always build what the Governor tells you / Never use all-specialist bases / Never use supply crawlers / etc etc...

[Kassiopeia]

Never use supply crawlers

I never use supply crawlers. I always wonder what the big fuss about them actually is.

[Sonic]

Everybody seems to complain about bad AI. Just how bad it is? Is it declaring war on you for nothing (like civ2 AI)? Is it capable to do all the diplomacy options?

Also, I like text games but only when they are simple. This is why I don't like bad graphiced TBS games - in my opinion TBS games are too hard to have text interface.

[Anodyne]

Originally posted by Sonic
Everybody seems to complain about bad AI. Just how bad it is? Is it declaring war on you for nothing (like civ2 AI)? Is it capable to do all the diplomacy options?

The diplomacy works just fine. And I wouldn't call the AI "bad".
The problem is probably that it isn't as good as a war tactician as in Civ3 for example. I've always found challenge in the game, though.

[Blake]

Over all there is a lot more to see and do in SMAC than Civ3, the AI is a bit weaker but there is more fun things you can do to your opponents which makes up for it IMO.
For example there is a planetary council where you vote for things like "Repeal UN Charter" (no penalties for use of atrocities)...
And there are atrocities, nervegas, planet busters (a kick-ass nuke that erases several bases and leaves a lake), nerve stapling (instant pacification).
Theres a lot more to do in the Social Engineering, choose a goverment, economy, values and future society. 256 possible combinations, dozens of strong combinations.

The factions themselves are much more interesting and distinctive, playing the Human Hive is somewhat different to playing Morgan Industries. The bonuses (throughout the game) are somewhat more extreme than Civ3, as are the penalties.

The AI may suck at tatics but the AI leaders sure have interesting personality, each faction has a different ideology, Diedre of the Gaians will prattle on about protecting the ecology and warn you against using Free Market and Planned economies. Morgan will lament about the economic damage you are causing by your impratical Planned economy (or congratulate you on your Free Market economy). Chairman Yang loves Police state, Brother Lal loves Democracy, these two naturally tend to hate each other (assuming they run their goverment of choice) and no-one really likes sister Miriam and her fundie.

Theres some really fun stuff you can do in SMAX - like free a captured faction leader from another faction - how's that for cool they'll be forever grateful and thus in a permament submissve pact. Likewise when you have a faction down to a couple of bases, they may very well surrender, making them permamentely submissive to you, so you can then rebuild their faction and have a strong, permament ally.

So overall you play against a weaker AI, in a much much more interesting and immersive world.

[BustaMike]

Right now the only response in the poll is that SMAC kicks Civ3's ass. All 14 votes vote this way.

Basically, SMAC is one of the best games I have ever played and Civ3 was a colossal waste of my time (not that I put that much time into it, I couldn't even finish one game it was so bad).

[The Bloody Baro]

I bought Civ3 first than upon many insites into SMAC by Apocalypse in the chat room bought SMAC and haven't touched Civ3 again. Plus tha fact that if your smart enought to create your own faction there are thousands times more options than in civ3. Personally, SMAC kicks Civ3's ass 9 ways up to Paris.

[gwillybj]

Get SMAC.

Play SMAC.

You'll know why soon enough.

[Mr. President]

I think SMAC is much better even than Civ2. It plays like a novel. Each experience is different. There are half a dozen ways to win and a million ways to play. If you get it, you won't regret it.

[Anodyne]

Hmm... It's just a shame that I cannot find SMAX anywhere...
Nowhere to be found in shops, not even a pirate *shiver* version around....

[Adalbertus]

Ade, SMAX is very difficult to get hands on. I bought mine in an attack of panic at SoftwareFirst or so. You should have a look in the FAQ thread, I think there is some information about how to get it.

[Clear Skies]

Wow. That poll's pretty damn conclusive

[Adalbertus]

I like the poll, too . But I think there are mostly die-hard SMAC/X fans on the forum at the moment. At least until Civ3 has become a normal game and the hype has settled. Which traitors rated only 4???

[Straybow]

Who rates SMAC 4? Me, for one. I saw that such a poll would be biased by the die-hards, just as you said. I couldn't find an old thread I'd posted in so I thought I'd chip in my two bits worth… here and in hi, is AC really that great?. I address SMAC itself there, I'll address the comparison to Civ3 here.

Civ3 city-flipping is the real killer ('nuff said). A close second, for me, was trade. Automatically generating luxury trade between your own cities connected by road was really good, but killing traditional Civ2 trade was a major mistake. The strategic resource model sucks, too. The third strike was espionage.

As a threadmaster from the Civ3 List project my hopes were high and my disappointment higher. These aren't bugs that can be fixed; Firaxis' hasty retuning of the culture model didn't help. "Something for nothing" just doesn't cut it, nor the "nothing for something" of trade and espionage/diplomatic contact.

SMAC shares one of the three Civ3 strikes: lack of decent trade model. I thought Firaxis would have learned from that one, but no, they took it one step farther in Civ3. SMAC Social Engineering is a tremendous advance in the way a Civlike game handles government and related factors. Again Civ3 is a step backwards. (At least Sid realized how dreadfully unbalanced Fundamentalism is; unfortunately he amputated instead of correcting the problem.)

The span-of-history format renders SMAC-style unit design a problem. Again, instead of rising to the challenge Civ3 drops back to punt. It was a good punt, mind you: civ-unique units and Golden Age are good ideas. IMO SMAC and Civ3 could use help in that department.

Verdict: I don't play Civ3; I do play SMAC until I get bored pushing formers around and lobbing missiles.

PS: Sonic, you can hack out half of the url in your sig. Post #1206967 is on page 1, so http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=58710 will get there.

[CEO Aaron]

Wasn't me.

On the Civ3 AI: I utterly deny that the Civ3 AI is any better than the SMAX AI. The fact is that the culture mechanics and horrible battle resolution made it so the equally idiotic AI was much harder to put down.

I can't tell you how many times I'd wade in and crush a city only to have my entire invading army suddenly become French. Not to mention all the games that were completely hopeless because I never wound up with any iron deposits. Are such situations realistic? Certainly? Do they make for a good game? Not so much.

Conclusion: SMAX is a much more robust game that better rewards shrewd decision-making. You won't regret owning it.

[Grrease]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
On the Civ3 AI: I utterly deny that the Civ3 AI is any better than the SMAX AI. The fact is that the culture mechanics and horrible battle resolution made it so the equally idiotic AI was much harder to put down.

I second that.

[Pandemoniak]

Just a small taste of social engineering will damn you forever and bound you to SMAC.

[Straybow]

Yes, probably the greatest feature of SMAC.

[Andemagne]

SMAC is better than Civ3 but dunno how much.

[ProfessorChaos]

I would choose CIV3 over SMAC but before CIV3 came around SMAC was one of the greatest turn based games to be developed

[Todd Hawks]

I am not so sure that you should buy the game. I think it is better than Civ 3 BUT:

The graphics are worse than CtP.
No city view at all.
You don't like future themes.... SMAC is ALL about future.

I don't know how important these points are for you.
If you think you can cope with it then by all means go and buy it before someone else does.

(Btw: The AI in Civ3 is waaay better than in SMAC... I wish there was a game with the "richness" of SMAC and the AI of Civ3)

[Straybow]

It will take some Great Leap Forward in theory and programming to make AI that can handle a Civlike game anywhere near a moderate human player without cheats. We may see it in our lifetimes.

[Adalbertus]

Straybow, in the effect, you're probably right, it's impossible to have a good AI in a "rich" game in forseeable future. But unless there is a way to create a "play-everything-AI", it's simply quality vs. money. You can get a better AI when you are optimizing more, even with today's computing power, and today's programming skills. But it takes longer, and in the effect you will have to pay $100 instead of $50 for a new game.

[Sikander]

The problems with SMAC are really the problems with Civ 2. The vast majority of the changes from Civ 2 to SMAC were positive IMO, while the vast majority of the problems in SMAC come directly from it's Civ lineage. I have always felt that the Civ series of games were terrible wargames. As someone who has owned and played hundreds of wargames over almost 30 years I feel like I have enough experience to tell the difference.

The problems with Civ as a wargame are legion, but here are a few starters for example:

Movement Scale: Why does it take a year for a modern unit to move one tile the map? Even ancient units were capable of moving much further, yet they are limited to 1 tile every x years. Movement limitations in reality have a lot less to do with the actual capabilities of the units IRL than they do with the limitations of supply. However there is no means of showing this in the Civ series other than to handcuff every unit which is moving within it's own well-supplied areas while at the same time allowing your legion to move another 200 miles into the wastes of Siberia living on god knows what, having left 1000 years ago. By the modern era it gets truly ridiculous. World War Two would take (game) decades to fight out using Civ as the simulator.

Rigid Zones of Control, Tactical Units on the Strategic Map, and Another Humongous Scale Problem:

Why Sid ever decided it would be cool to have tactical units on the strategic map I have never figured out. Especially when he is using the clunkiest wargame engine seen since the early 1960's to regulate movement and combat. This device ends up destroying much of the value of the game, as all historical techniques are completely lost on the player, who builds only the best units, builds a lot of them and engages the AI in a very simplistic form of attrition, whereby the player's advantage is to trick the AI into falling into simple traps, traps which the AI is completely blind to due to it's inability to move it's forces in any order it chooses to. There is no tactical game in Civ worthy of the name, and the attempt to crowd the board to deliver the appearance of one simply obstructs whatever capability the game might have had to skip over tactics as beneath the scope of the game and simply show strategic and operational level details.

Other games have managed this with much more success. Master of Magic and Master of Orion 2 for instance take a better approach by assuming that all combat occurs in one square, and they resolve combats on a tactical map of roughly the same terrain as the tile had on the strategic map. This is not only fun (you can allow the computer to fight the battle if you don't enjoy it), but it gives additional benefits. Firstly you can see and utilize the advantages of combined arms in tactical combat. This adds a lot into the strategy element of the game, as you can build forces which are properly balanced to carry out your sort of tactical combat. Secondly you are not penalized for massing troops, in fact like all sensible generals have advised for millenia concentrating your troops gives them a distinct advantage most of the time. Finally the ZOC clutter on the main board is cleared up a lot. No longer can a militia unit armed with hunting spears (which was built in an urban area only containing only 10,000 persons) ZOC block a Panzer Korps containing more than 10,000 highly mobile troops with a staggering array of firepower!

Many complain that tactical combat gives the player too great of an advantage over the computer player, and I tend to agree. This is one of the reasons that most of the games that use this method are very easy to beat on even the hardest levels. My only caveat is that the AI has a much better chance of being a challenge to the player tactically than strategically. Chess is perhaps an unfair example, as simple as it is it is orders of magnitude simpler than any of the tactical combat modules I have seen. Still, chess programs for 286 era computers gave me all I could handle (I'm not a student of the game), which is much more than I can say for the AI of any other game. With time, proper programming, and the continuing growth in computational speed it does seem that eventually these tactical submodules could provide an extremely satisfying "game within a game" challenge which might reverse the current situation where it is to the human player's advantage to use tactical combat.

This would solve or begin to solve two lingering problems in all strategic computer games. The first problem is that AI really has no business formulating strategy at all. This is why is doesn't actually do so, but follows certain complicated scripts to pretend that it is actually thinking every turn. The concept of grand strategy is far too complex for the AI, period. If we are someday capable of creating an AI which is capable of this level of imagination, I am sure that I will have been a long time in the ground. The best we are going to have for the foreseeable future is either a great AI tactical engine which to some extent makes up for good but ultimately hopeless AI strategic scripts, or another game design entirely that abandons the (always wobbly) concept that states that the computer must play the same game as the player does.

I realize that computer cheating is frustrating, but it can be done better than simply cranking up AI production etc. Games where there is a bit of roleplaying involved to simulate the player's attempts to rule his empire through whatever it's internal political methods are would certainly be much more realistic (as any fairly astute observer of history will note that the vast majority of rulers spent the vast majority of their time trying to keep their own house in order, and relatively little time plotting the downfall of their neighbors). In such a game a rich internal political environment could provide quite a challenge to the human player, with potentially rebellious subjects or troops, military leaders and governors, or unwilling merchants who refuse to see the value in going out of business while the entire industrial capacity of the empire is used to suddenly build newfangled "supply crawlers", whatever those are. This portion of the game could be simplified or removed entirely from the AI, in order to allow it's strategy scripts to plod forward without too much trouble.

This is the sort of thing that I would like to see in a game at any rate. My favorite part of the Civ type games is the strategic scale, and particularly the economics. It's not that I don't enjoy a good wargame, I do enjoy a good wargame, but Civ and it's direct decendents are not good wargames. I would enjoy a game like Master of Magic with improved graphics and a better (more stable, better AI) tactical engine. Add on a "ruler interface" (the internal political game within the game) in order to give the poor AI a chance to compete strategically and it would be one hell of a game.


Finally, what the hell are Civ 3's fans thinking? That game is a step back from Civ 2. The main improvement is to the portion of the game engine that should have been tossed out years ago (tactical units on the strategic map = bad strategy and no tactics), while the more interesting strategic play was emasculated so that you could not get too far ahead of the AI qualitatively, and are forced to meet the AI in a slogging match for all of eternity. It makes Warcraft seem like inspired genius in comparison.