didnt you all really want SMAC on earth?

[Louis XXIV]

I like SMAC's Planetary Council, and most of the faction diplomacy. I love Civ 3's trade (and trade is more influential in history than the UN).

I think Government custimization would be "nice to have." (Although the one thing SMAC had was someone who did not micro-manage governments could still continue, because the basic government had no advantages or disadvantages, aside from what your civ had).

I do not want unit custimizing (That definetly feels out of place).

The live terraine is nice (No, not xenofungus that trys to kill you)
Forest could expand, mountains errode, etc.
Weather would be nice (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Snow Storms, Draught, and the "now implimented" disease).

I think Barbarians act sort of like Mind Worms (although they are obviously not as creepy, and are downright weak later on, but that's another topic).

I'll still play SMAC occasionally (or just watch that cool opening video), but the games colors make it depressing.
I considered getting the expansion, but I heard that some of the new factions were completly un-balanced (so what's the point, if I don't include them).

[Master Zen]

I agree that SMAC's colors are not ideal. They kinda get you angry after a few hours of play.

My only other gripe is that it is too similar to Civ2 to really qualify as a "new game", it's more like Civ2.5 in space. It's the Civ2 engine going as far as it can, and succeeding admirably.

The real deal is that these games did not dissappoint when they came out, something that Civ3 did, and it is only superior thanks to its patches and especially PTW.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
SMAC is to Civ3 as Russia is to America. America may seem pretty on the outside, but once you get right down into it....Russia is always a superior country

You're funny, Tass.

[Ubergeek]

Oh, one other thing I wish had been carried over from SMAC: the ability to subjugate a defeated nation. I would much rather be able to make a badly-outclassed nation a reliable satellite than have to screw around hunting down every last one of their cities and settlers because you know they'll always be a pain in the a$$ if you don't.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Ubergeek
Oh, one other thing I wish had been carried over from SMAC: the ability to subjugate a defeated nation. I would much rather be able to make a badly-outclassed nation a reliable satellite than have to screw around hunting down every last one of their cities and settlers because you know they'll always be a pain in the a$$ if you don't.

Yes please. I would like to be able to have the remnants of a defeated civilisation as a vassal or protectorate. There need not be any tribute involved (probably prefer it if the master has to pay the client state a modest subsidy), just take control of their foreign policy, they can't declare war but they join you in war. Perhaps they could trade with whomever they please? They should be able to throw if the yoke if you make too many demands on them.

[Verto]

How exactly did 'subjugation' work? I never played the game, sounds interesting.

[CivPatriot]

Originally posted by Louis XXIV

The live terraine is nice (No, not xenofungus that trys to kill you)
Forest could expand, mountains errode, etc.
Weather would be nice (Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Snow Storms, Draught, and the "now implimented" disease).

I agree that more dynamic terrian should have been incorporated, altough the erosion of mountains are too long term for even the vast scale of Civ. I wish that forest expanded and contracted, with pollution having more of an effect on a terrian tile than just while its present(or limit the ability to full clean up a pollution tile till really advanced tech is aviailable?).

Weather as a random event would be nice, since its a proven fact that climate changes have had a dramatic effect on history(this coupled with a more dyamic an coherent minor civ or barbarian system whould be awesome(think migrations of minor civs or barbarians to your area or others then becomeing a major civ).

In terms of Random Events, i miss that from SMAC, it makes the game alot less predictible than it currently is. I just wonder why they ingored some great concepts from SMAC when they did Civ3, it almost feels as it they made Civ3 before SMAC and just added the graphics for modern standards.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Verto
How exactly did 'subjugation' work? I never played the game, sounds interesting.

I don't know, as I always said destroying them would be a gift to humanity. Then my spartans (Morgan is just cooler, that's why he's my Avatar) would procede to wipe out the Lord's Beleivers.

[CivPatriot]

I believe that the subjugation worked as like this, at some point in a war(or a series of wars) if you had beaten a faction bad enough, they whould give you virtually anything to survive and if you did, they were greatful enough to you to never bother you again and to do you bidding(kind of like the Warsaw Pact of Russia). I may be wrong, its been awhile since i sat down a played SMAC.

Also, didn't SMAC have an option when you took over a town that had been taken over by another civ(like the Gaians took over a Spartan town and you took that from them) to return it to its previous owner? I think there was but i'm not sure(was a Civ type game i know) that whould have been a nice addition to Civ3(a good way to help out allies in a war as well).

[mrboo123]

last time I checked, you CAN give away cities in civ3...

[CivPatriot]

I know that you can give away cities in civ3. but i was was thinking more along the lines of when City was as a city was captured you were given a set of options

1. zoom to city
2. raze city or the version of SMAC(what ever it was called)
3. Liberatate city(return to original owner).

it was just a quick and easy way to return control of a city back over to the original owner(gained you alot of credit with the faction you helped too). Its just easier than the go to diplo screen give city that's in civ3.

[Inverse Icarus]

i want civ3 with social engineering and a unit workshop.

the problem is, it gets more and more un-civ with each addition like that.

civ is civ is civ. firaxis had a history to cling to when designing the game. perhaps another company (or firaxis) could make another civ-like game with many new elements.

[pedrojedi]

I agree with that. Civ is not just "a game", it became a traditional gaming reference. Each change must be very well thought so it does not make Civ fall into "a different game" category. Which can be good, of course, but is also very dangerous to the series.

[CivPatriot]

I agree that Civ could be damaged by significant changes, but i also think that the Civ series is risking staleness if it doesn't try to venture on new territory.

I think that the social engineering could have been relegated to the modern age(when most of the odd experimentaion with gov'ts began), or at least on a limited basis beforehand(consitutional monarchy, elected monarchy, absolute monarchy, etc just on that kind of gov't alone).

The unit workshop whould have been out of place in Civ3 I think. But i think that the units should be more dynamic and dependant upon the civ (or atleast how the civilization has evolved) than they currently are.

I had hoped that Civ3 would have incorporated the best elements of SMAC Civ2, CtP(I and II) plus new ideas to make it a refeshing and ground breaking game. But oh well, i'll be waiting for Civ4(just not buying it the first day like i did Civ3 or its better predecessors SMAC SMACX, Civ2 and all its XP). Sadly, Civ3 made me far less confident in the series. I like it but, its not as great as its predessors in concept of ideas and in execution.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


You're funny, Tass.

I am simply the bringer of truth to the ignorant masses

[Verto]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


I am simply the bringer of truth to the ignorant masses

And a modest one at that.

[VJ]

Units could be created. For example take a basic foot soldier, and add an arrow or a longbow, a spear or a sword, later a musket or a rifle or an assault gun, no armor/chain mail/kevlar

tanks too: gun size: 37mm/75mm/90mm/120mm things like that. It would be great!

True , great ideas.

[The Templar]

Granted, the UN being more like SMAC's planetary council and social engineering would have been nice (assuming the AI could handle it - too many options and the AI doesn't know what to do you know ...), Civ3 is by far the superior game.

Civ3 air combat is conceptually better.

A unit workshop would be a waste - unless your just dying to build a steam-powered tank (and there is probably a good reason we never saw many of these in real history ). Face it, knights, spearment, etc. would be the "sweet spots" for design and we'd all just build them anyway.

And most importantly - the AI in Civ3 actually works. I could beat SMAC's brain dead AI with no problem. Hell, the only reason the AI lasted so long was because it built tons of worthless ocean cities. (I eventually turned this off by screwing with Alpha.txt - which greatly improved the game). Gee, evey game comes down to me and the Hive.

SMAC had lots of bells and whistles (a Brian Reynolds trademark) and a brain-dead AI (another Brian Reynolds trademark).

And yes, Civ3 beats Civ2 as well - so suck it!

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar
And yes, Civ3 beats Civ2 as well - so suck it!

Blasphemy!

[CivPatriot]

I agree that Civ3's air combat system is better, i just think that as technology advances(radio, advanced flight, precision weapons, etc.) that the damage infilcted would be greater, plus it should be able to sink ships!!

I think that the combination of the "bells and whistles" of SMAC(keeping only those elements that fit into an earth history game) with the history, fun, and modability of Civ2 and the AI of Civ3 whould have been awesome. alas, it was not to be.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by CivPatriot
I agree that Civ3's air combat system is better, i just think that as technology advances(radio, advanced flight, precision weapons, etc.) that the damage infilcted would be greater, plus it should be able to sink ships!!

Can be modded?

I think the Koreans have something like this

[Master Zen]

You can mod units to have "Lethal bombardment" against land or sea units. No unit has this by default (although the cruise missile's properties allow it by itself)

The Korean UU as well as the US UU in theory have no way of getting you a GA unless you mod this.

But, be careful, giving units lethal bombardments can make the game very unstable since the AI is really pathetic in using artillery units. Think twice before you do it.

[Master Zen]

I'm beginning to think that SMAC-haters are macro-managers, which is alright with me.

The ideal way would be to optionally incorporate SMAC's details in to Civ3. For example, you could have generic units or make your own.

Also, what's the problem with making civ not-civ-like?? Civ3 was so much different than Civ2 yet they still got away with it...

[WarpStorm]

But Civ3 is closer to Civ1 than Civ2. When I was talking with Soren the other day, he told me that they can't go too far from Civ1 and still be call it Civ. It has to stay similar to the original. More fans would be disappointed than happy if it changed a lot.

[pedrojedi]

Well, I think that keeping a good change between the games is a healthy choice. Anyone can point without much thought at least 10 different major features between civ 1 and 2 and civ 2 and 3. The problem is statistics: generally, one can only add/remove/change a certain feature if there is a significant number of people who would like to see that changed, usually to a same concordant term. Getting this number can be pretty tough, and most changes we would "love to see and simply does not understand why they don't do it!" have too few people that actually support that. And there's even the other side, the "no, hell, no!" to such changes. I think that's one reason to why so many different points about how nice would be SMACCiv4.5 weren't incorporated in Civ3, and will not likely be in Civ4.

Of course there are some exceptions, like the fundamentalism issue (that was good I liked people believing in my holy words).

Master Zen's idea of optional incorporation is pretty good, but I think it has the "danger" of consuming too much of programming just to put "generic" or "optional". Or even worse, a second "patch" like PTW. (One can have the generic game, and, for optional rules and systems, buy the Rule the World CD).

Civilization Series have wonderful features that got better with the passing of years, not just because programming got better but because the time elapsed between each game was pretty big, enabling people to "grow" and "maturate" new ideas to the game that could only be properly thought with time and experience. That's why I think a eventual Civ4 can only be released after much discussion about Civ3.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Verto


Blasphemy!

Alright, maybe "suck it" was going a bit far, but ...

Remember how in Civ2 if you left a hole in the middle of your territory someone inevitably dropped a settler there?

Borders alone make Civ3 superior. Add in the new air combat, the AI that has a strategy other than ICSing the whole damn map (remember picking out the last remanants of the mongols in the desert?), and everyone's favorite: hording caravans in order to beat the AI to every wonder.

Even the animated leaderheads (the real key to killing customization in Civ3) can't offset the new stuff.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
When I was talking with Soren the other day

Name-dropping!

[Verto]

Originally posted by The Templar

Remember how in Civ2 if you left a hole in the middle of your territory someone inevitably dropped a settler there?

Yes. You would've thought they'd eventually learn not to.

[Ubergeek]

I played the heck out of Civ2 and SMAC, and I have to admit that Civ3 is a better game for a whole slew of reasons -- better trade, better AI, an editor so simple even a buffoon like me can use it, civs with actual differences, UUs, etc.

On the other hand, Civ3 isn't as fun as the other games, primarily because of the long section in the late Industrial period where there is NOTHING to build. For a builder like me, that's a searingly boring time in the game, when there's nothing to do but crank out a buttload of units I don't intend to use because I almost never declare war on anybody. If they could add two or three city improvements into that spot, I would have no problem adoring Civ 3.

[WarpStorm]

In PTW they did add some stuff there.