SMAC on Trial

[Sprayber]

Am I in the Off Topic Forum?


SMACed has some points. I got into the turn based games because of SMAC. So I am probably way too biased to comment. I tried CTP and was bored out of my mind. I just couldn't get into the game and I am a big fan of history. For me the biggest attraction of SMAC/SMAX is the personality of the factions. It helps me get into the game. And with mulitplay, the weakness of the AI is sidesteped. I haven't played CivI or II. I may pick it up in the bargain bins, but for now I always go back and fire up a game of SMAC

[Wiglaf]

quote: Now, to me you've just stated that all the pro's are simply asthetic. I'm not sure this could be interpreted any other way, and appears to be the thesis of your arguement.

Not all the pros. Just the terrain, although I later retracted that.

quote: So, my comment about your bias towards historically gaming, in fact, does have a basis, and wasn't just pulled out of the sky. Here, you clearly state that you enjoy historical gaming over sci-fi. I don't think this could be interpretted into anything else. I hardly think this is a "pointless attack". What I'm suggesting here is that you are biased toward historically gaming, that's not an attack it's an observation.

No no, it was an attack on the faction attributes! That's it! Notice my exact words included ~~ what's he doing with economics ~~ big difference! Actually, I've shown bias in a lot more than what you just quoted. But the fact is I enjoy both games (as I said, smac is better, does that make be biased towards scifi?).

quote: It's not that I relentlessly support SMAC. It's the fact that your making claims without supporting evidence other that the AI is easier to beat. Of course their going to use stuff from Civ, but they've taken it to another level and you haven't been able to refute that.

I'd like to enter into evidence Zelda: OoT and Zelda: Majora's Mask ( ). It is the general idea that MM reuses the ideas in OoT and while it improves it, the game is far less appealing because of it's lack of originality. It's sales numbers declined from the original's. There, eat that evidence .

quote: you underestimate me

I am your father.

quote: As a side note, I actually prefer WWII era gaming or fantasy.

Convenient, no?

quote: how did a "Smac on Trial" turn into "smac vs civ2 contest" with WE on one side and SMACed (confusing choice of name by way .... )

It didn't. First off, SMACed is a good name considering it's cool. I'm sure you guys knew that it has not one, not two, but would you believe three meanings (!). Also, it's not an AC v Civ2 contest. It's an "whats the matta smac? who's yo daddy?" thread.

People, I'm just trying to bring out the flaws in smac with relation to civ. That's all. SMAC IS A BETTER GAME. But civ is a classic and I merely want to know why it's oso boycotted. White Elephants is cross-ex'ing everything I say (like it's a trial or something...). If you look back to (article one), message one in this thread, you'll notice that was my intent. I mean you no harm. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the civ is bad feeling. It's weird if I'm biased because I don't have civ on this computer anymore, only smac, starcraft, and the sims remain.

So please, don't regard this as a war between civ and smac. I'm not a smac hater. I'm not a civ hater. This thread's oringinal intent, and it still is, is to find out if you guys still play civ and how you'd rate in in relation to smac given its time period. What'll it be?

[Wiglaf]

Oh, johndmuller, good post. I think that the native life is a great improvement too that helps the gameplay and makes early colonization a bigger challange. And you're right, the unit wkshop was a bit of a put off for the AI, although I still want to see it in civ3 and or smac2.

[Skanderbeg]

Before I had discovered SMAC, I played a lot of CIV.

The thing, that makes SMAC much more fun to me is that You can get personally involved. In Civ the different factions/nations are all the same, they have no real personality. In Civ, have You ever let a nation pay for the things they had done to You in another game?
In SMAC, I still let Morgan pay for the first time bribing away a city from me with my best troops in my first game on bibliothecarion level more than a year ago He's still my favorite PB target for that
I like the different characters of the factions, and I like to make custom factions, to play with and to play against, a thing You couldn't do in CIV.
And if someone has REALLY pissed me of in real life, I make a SMAC faction after his characters and give him some nice singularity PBs to taste

[Wiglaf]

The good ol' personality issue. While SMAC's factions really do add to the overall enjoyment factor in the game (I've mentioned that in a lot of my posts), civ2's aren't all bad. I mean, if Carthage bribes your attacking force to death, I'm sure you'd hate them for a while (I know I did ).

I take it the overall conception of civ is a classic that has outlived its lifespan due to smac's new features, personality, and of course multiplayer. I'm just suprised there weren't that many people who lashed out and declared civ a horrible, old game, but instead gave it the fairness it deserved as a classic that, while beaten by ac, is still being played on occasion. As I've said, I wrote this post to see if you still enjoy playing civ or checking it out, instead of focusing purely on SMAC.

And as for the people who suggested a name change, I think you should recognize the difference between dislike of something and criticism of something. There's a remarkable boundary of maturity between those two.

Keep on smacin', any more comments are welcome.

[Earwicker]

Despite the surface impression that SMAC is Civ II on a different planet (as I confess I felt when it first came out), the game has proven to be immensely satisfying. Even with all its faults. I gave it up for almost a year because of the major crashing bugs, returning to CivII scenarios. The gameplay was much quicker because of the simpler graphics but there was still much to be missed about SMAC. I guess the bottom line is that SMAC is more compelling to me for whole games -- the conquering Planet side -- and CivII much more fun with all its elaborate scenarios. Although SMACX fixed my continuous-crashing bug (knocks wood), there remain things I would change if I could press for another patch -- but if I get a spot on the jury, I move for acquital.

I love SMAC. But I love CivII too. CivII has a special place in my heart. Playing civII increased my knowledge of history and also made me love history. In fact, it increased my knowledge of geography as well (i used to play the world map and name cities as they are in the real world, thanks to an atlas).

As for SMAC, the design workshop is really possibly what I like the most. But with more possibilities, the AI just becomes an ass. What I cannot comprehend is SMAC's commerce. It sucks. I prefer civ's caravans. The challenges of getting a trade caravan across hostile terrain to establish trade with a rival city. That's one of the little things that make civ2 fun.

All in all, i like both games. SMAC is an improvement over a great game, but it's not just an improvement, it's also a new concept. However civ shouldn't be attacked. After all, it's the predecessor to SMAC. You could say it's the prototype.

IMO, the thing that makes SMAC's AI an idiot is that there's to much micromanagement for the AI to handle. Until an AI that learns from its mistake is developed, a polymorph, regardless of all other improvements, the subsequent versions of the game will probably still be less than satisfying when played SP.

----------------------------
One thing I knoe is that life is short
So listen up homeboy, give this a thought
The next time someone's teaching why don't you get taught?
It's like that (what?) and that's the way it is

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Earwicker on 03-27-2001 09:06 PM Despite the surface impression that SMAC is Civ II on a different planet (as I confess I felt when it first came out), the game has proven to be immensely satisfying. Even with all its faults. I gave it up for almost a year because of the major crashing bugs, returning to CivII scenarios. The gameplay was much quicker because of the simpler graphics but there was still much to be missed about SMAC. I guess the bottom line is that SMAC is more compelling to me for whole games -- the conquering Planet side -- and CivII much more fun with all its elaborate scenarios. Although SMACX fixed my continuous-crashing bug (knocks wood), there remain things I would change if I could press for another patch -- but if I get a spot on the jury, I move for acquital.

Oh, you're not the only one . I just read a review that asked: "is smac civ2 on the outside or on the inside"? That's something to think about, and I take it you think it's merely on the outside. Interesting point of view, because it's one very few people think of.

It'sLikeThat, you're right. The only problem with the smac AI is the micromanagement (and in many cases macromanagement). On the highest difficulty, it is challanging, but I think that the other diffs should be tougher. I like the idea that civ is a prototype or prelude to the final version, which would of course be better in the long run.

And Earwicker (and anyone else interested), do you think SMAC is better than civ2 given it's time period? That's probably the true purpose behind this so called trial, and one question I'm still very interested in. What'll it be?

All I could say is that in SP, civ2 gets the medal, whilst smac is an improvement, it is only as enjoyable when played mp. which is why i'm trying so hard to sigup for more pbems.

[Bkeela]

Both Civ2 and SMAC are yesterday games. Get on with it.

Bkeela.

[Wiglaf]

Now that's extreme. Bkeela, do you mean that SMAC's age is old or the concept is old?

I think videogame ageism is a bit overdone. I mean, AC and civ are classics, but you Bkeela are more concerned with the new junk that developers constantly throw at you. I hope you understand that the $40 spent on SMAC is a lot less than $60 on Red Alert 2 and B&W, especially given their long term value.
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited March 29, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by Bkeela on 03-29-2001 10:07 PM Both Civ2 and SMAC are yesterday games. Get on with it. Bkeela.

But they're still enjoyable, that's why this site exists. That's why this forum exists. That why this 'controversial' thread is 2 pages long.

Besides, if you think about it, many people still play the old games, the classics. In my community, there is no cybercafe that doesn't feature Counter-Strike 24/7. People still play old games. If the game is good, why should you abandon it? Sure, you should move forward, but if after moving forward you don't like it, go back to classics.

I myself tried CtP. I didn't really like it. I continued with civ2. Then came smac, i like it, i play it. Then there was ctp2, tried it, still didn't think much of it, went back to smac.

maybe i will try to play ctp if someone convince me with a 40 post thread of the joys of ctp.

[mark13]

quote: Both Civ2 and SMAC are yesterday games. Get on with it.

Am I the only one that actually plays games because they're fun?

[WhiteElephants]

Bkeela periodically pops his face in here and tells us all how outdated SMAC is and then disappears in the drift and current of the net until he strikes again. He's mildly entertaining because you never know where or when he'll appear and what deragatory statement he'll make. He's like the Dungeon Master in the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoon except he's not very helpful and usually very cranky.

[Wiglaf]

Methinks the whole reason Bkeela said that was to get a reaction ...

[BillyM]

You think you've been playing SMAC? Apparently you don't understand
the value of the Design Workshop and how big an impact on the game custom designed units can have. The built-in units are horrible compared to expending a little effort tinkering. Build Probe Foils next time you think you need Alien Artifacts and Network Nodes to win the tech race.

All computer game AIs are crap. Every one of them I've encountered consistantly does stupid things that SP players learn to take advantage of and thus 'win' the game. Even weak humans stop making that same mistake over and over (at some point . So the multiplayer aspect also stands out.

The only thing I'd put SMAC 'on trial' for is the crummy multiplayer support. Prior to SMAC, many games had master servers designed to provide a list of available servers and games, but those abilities were left out. PBEM games are for Rip Van Winkle.



------------------
- turn complete -

[Sikander]

I played Civ1 hard for years, until I eventually got bored and let it alone for quite awhile. I picked up Civ MGE eventually, but was somewhat disappointed that it was almost the same game, though the bug fixes and AI play were much improved. I could still beat the crap out of it immediately, and it didn't remain on my A list for very long. (In fact it remained a distant 3rd to two other CIV type games MOO2 and MOM). SMAC was different enough that I have been playing it for a year and a half with only one three month hiatus. IMO it is a much better game compared to CIV2 than CIV2 was compared to CIV1.

As far as historical gaming vs sci fi are concerned I am a total history nut, with history accounting for about 90% of my reading over the last couple of decades. I also like sci fi, but not nearly as much as history. Another of my favorite hobbies since 1974 is wargaming. It is the game systems in SMAC which make it a better game than CIV2 for me, and like other posters here I actually prefer historical gaming to sci fi gaming.

What keeps SMAC interesting are all of the different approaches that can be used to play the game. Different factions, different SE settings, different strategies. Both games are weak when viewed as solely wargames. They utilize wargame technology from the 1950s and the dawn of commercial board wargaming, with their square grids, rigid zones of control, and very simple comparison combat resolution. Hell, both of these games still penalize stacking (concentration of forces), which even the oldest wargames did not. As wargames both SMAC and CIV suck, quite frankly. But these are not wargames, but strategy games in the truest sense, and as such they are quite good and still are amongst the best ever produced.

What tends to turn me off a bit about the CIV2 forums is the flavor of orthodoxy which some of the posters there exude. I find that SMAC posters are much more likely to have an open mind to CIV than vice versa (making a huge generalization). Yes CIV was a milestone game which captured the imaginations of thousands of people. But the game had a lot of weaknesses as well, and there is enormous room for improvements to the system, which in my mind SMAC proved without that being it's intention. I certainly hope that CIV3 is a great game, but I fear that what so many fans want is CIV2 with new graphics, and that Fireaxis is likely to give them (and us) exactly that. (What could be easier?) I will be careful before I purchase CIV3 that it indeed breaks some important new ground in it's game systems. It won't be worth more than 5$ to me otherwise.