didnt you all really want SMAC on earth?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by 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.

IMO only superficially more similar

Similarities with Civ1:

- Palace instead of throne room
- Leaderhead instead of portrait
- No farmlands
- hmm... can't seem to think of any other similarites other than the basic game concept which is the same for Civ1/2/3/SMAC

BTW, do you know WHY they can't stray too far off?

Perhaps because technically it is SID MEIER'S Civilization?

[WarpStorm]

You got it. Sid won't let them.

Seriously, it is 'high risk'. They know (as does Infogrames, who controls the money and the Civ name), that what will sell in a sequel is something close to the original hit title. If you keep piling on features and complexities with each new version you in fact get less and less sales as you are only catering to your hard core fans. Had they made Civ2 on steroids like many expected, it wouldn't have sold as well. It probably would have only sold a little better than SMAC did (the setting and name would pretty much guarantee more sales). Ultimately, Firaxis is a business and has to weigh potential sales into design decisions.

[pedrojedi]

That's it. Just as I said.

In the end, it is kinda common sense.

[VJ]

civs with actual differences

Unlike AC.

[VJ]

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

I'm actually glad that they got rid of it.

[ottok]

jaa vai silleen,Tuomerehu?

[badams52]

Originally posted by The Templar

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

I went back and played a civ 2 game recently, and realized for myself what I prefer in civ 3. Real borders, an AI that REXes, better trade negotiations (no caravans) and diplomacy, luxuries, resources that appear later in the game, AI gets to use goody huts, bombardment, a challenge when building wonders post trade, units require money - not city support, units don't die when the city that supported them is conquered, workers, stacks that don't die all at once, and there are probably others too.

In civ 2, ultimate power came quick and very easily.

[pedrojedi]

Agreed; but remembering how Civ2 is feels so good... And easy to beat.

[VJ]

jaa vai silleen,Tuomerehu?

No just niin!

[badams52]

Originally posted by 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.

Come over to the dark side. War is enjoyable.

Actually, I didn't really like SMAC that much, I played it maybe twice then got bored of it. I loved MOO, but never played the sequels. Somehow, I just became a civ fan and the other TBS games just aren't as interesting to me.

And I actually like that downtime during the industrial age when some of my cities are maxed out on improvements. I prefer macro management, and Civ 3 allows for more macromanagement of cities and workers so I can concentrate on war.

When I went back to play civ 2, I took my new warmonger self to see what would happen and I never realized before just how quick and easy a war in civ 2 could be. Overwhelming force is trickier because stacking units inherits a bigger risk, but using overwhelming force still worked well.

[Louis XXIV]

civs with actual differences

Originally posted by Tuomerehu

Unlike AC.

Ummm

Each Faction was completely unique, except for UU's.

[VJ]

Each Faction was completely unique, except for UU's.

Yes, that was why I was pointing it out from other options. Heard of sarcasm?

[Manya]

You should have placed the rolleyes smiley there

[VJ]

You should have placed the rolleyes smiley there

I I forgot it . Now it's edited, so no chance of misunderestanding. Hope it's not considered offensive

[Louis XXIV]

Sorry 'bout that

[Manya]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
I I forgot it . Now it's edited, so no chance of misunderestanding. Hope it's not considered offensive

Now is better

[Ubergeek]

Come over to the dark side. War is enjoyable.

Well, not so much when you play on huge maps, as I do. In my current game I am conducting a late-game war and I have something like 200 modern armor, 150 mech infantry, 125 bombers, 100 radar artillery...it takes an ungodly long time to move all that stuff around and make proper use of it, expecially given the weird unit-selection algortihm the game uses. Early-game wars are actually fun because they involve <50 units per side and are usually over quickly. Later-game wars are just tedious.

[CivPatriot]

I agree that Civ2 was more fun that Civ3, and its mainly like, Ubergeek pointed out, because of the ridicuouls amount of units reqired to win a war in the modern era and the time it takes to move them, attack, etc. The micromanagement just becomes ridicuouls. Even on a regular map, which i play, i have around 100+units to manage during a war, its tedious, even with armies to do so. The one thing i liked about the shield concept was it limited the size of the armies that could be fielded, unlike the money based one which though it frees up resources, allows for armies of extremely large size. I think that perhaps a combination of shields and money whould have been a better fix. But the main thing is that combat in mid-late game are tedious. That coupled with the slowdown in the gameplay makes the game more booring than Civ2 was and a whole lot less fun.

[badams52]

Spoken like a true peacenik.

I actually find the wars in Civ 3 more enjoyable and realistic (except for the HP problem).

I don't prefer the larger maps cause large/huge map games in general are slower, nevermind the war efforts.

I don't have much trouble moving units as the j key works wonders (even on bombers) and I attack 1 city at a time, unless splitting becomes worthwhile.

Just for the record, I recently retried a civ 2 game and realized why civ 3 is more enjoyable for me.

[Ubergeek]

badams52, I agree that the wars in Civ 3 are much more realistic than those in Civ 2, especially in the late game. In Civ 2 I routinely took over huge, continent spanning enemy civs with a force of half a dozen tanks -- try that in Civ 3 and see how far it gets you. Civ 3 forces you to use combined arms, air cover and artillery (I modifed the bomber, stealth bomber, and all artillery units to make them rather deadlier) and sound tactics if you expect to win.

But just because it's more realistic doesn't mean it's more fun. Seriously, on a huge map, a late-game war is just a pain in the dong. Can I say "dong" on Apolyton?

[bigphesta]

personally, I feel the thing that civ3 needs to take from SMAC is the nuclear weapons. The civ3 nuke is NOTHING compared to global busters in SMAC. SMAC is MUCH more realistic too. You drop a nuke, you level a city (now days, a country). Also, chemical/biological weapons need to be added

[Deathwalker]

I never really liked SMAC, not a bad game but not great

[CivPatriot]

The only thing that kept SMAC from being a great game was the color scheme and some of the graphics, it had awesome gameplay, great ideas, and more over was FUN!!!(kinda , i think alot of us were disappointed in Civ3 for not being as fun as its predessors. I've gone back to civ2 now that i've found a copy for my mac. and i hope to find a copy of smac for my mac as well, i don't have the time nor the patience anymore to spend time moving around 100+ units for a war and having really odd combat situtations occur.

as for the planet busters, the whole concept of that(the change of terrian) really only whould work for a far in the future tech, although i think that forest and jungles should be destroyed if they are in the center square(plus i think they should cause far more casualties than they do).

[Guynemer]

People downplay the "bells and whistles," but I think that is precisely what made SMAC so much more fun than Civ3. The quotes with each discovery or new building, the amazing wonder movies, the atmosphere of the interface... Civ3 may have resources and trade and better AI, but it doesn't have the SOUL.

It also slows down to ungodly speeds, but that's a wholely other discussion.

[Gangerolf]

no.
never palyed smac

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by CivPatriot
The only thing that kept SMAC from being a great game was the color scheme and some of the graphics, it had awesome gameplay, great ideas, and more over was FUN!!!(kinda , i think alot of us were disappointed in Civ3 for not being as fun as its predessors. I've gone back to civ2 now that i've found a copy for my mac. and i hope to find a copy of smac for my mac as well, i don't have the time nor the patience anymore to spend time moving around 100+ units for a war and having really odd combat situtations occur.

I agree here with CivPatriot, the color scheme was a major bane on the eyeballs. It also kinda made you angry for no reason, (too much red I guess) don't know if you guys also felt like this.

I'm not very knowledgable about any SMAC mods out there (I always played the vanilla version) but I wonder if no one tried to make an Earth mod out of the game. Lot's of work but it would've been cool.

[ChaotikVisions]

SMACs horrible AI and uber-weapons kept it from being a great game. That and I hate the damned fungus. But anyway, I felt Civ3 took a good number of ideas from SMAC and implemented them well, missed a few while it was at it but it didn't bring any of SMACs bad features either.

[badams52]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
SMACs horrible AI and uber-weapons kept it from being a great game. That and I hate the damned fungus. But anyway, I felt Civ3 took a good number of ideas from SMAC and implemented them well, missed a few while it was at it but it didn't bring any of SMACs bad features either.

Finally, a voice of reason. SMAC was and will always be a sci-fi adventure. Those of us who prefer a human world's simulation played SMAC only to find it unworthy of being satisfying. SMAC was SMAC and while it might be enjoyable for those who love a TBS game and don't mind the bad sci-fi (if you read Isaac Asimov's Nemesis you will notice a similarity between the two but Asimov did a much better job telling the story), it was just a waste of money for me.