I've never played this game nor TOT tell me, are they any good or just games made to test improvemant for the up coming Civ III?

Alpha Centauri is a GREAT game.... though I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a test for improvements being made for Civ3. Its in the Civilizations stream... but it is definitely its own game.

SMAC is a great game. What is really better than in other civ games are the comp players.
They all have there own 'personality' and playing style and at least try to get the advantage over you.

More 'interesting' than civ2, great leaders personalities, true pioneer spirit...but the future is just too bright and the A.I can't compete with a well developed human.

GET the GAME

1 major flaw is that the spies too good...datalinks!!!

Thanks i'll keep that i mind.http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cool.gif

Actually the major flaw is that there is too much things to do that the rookie-civer will be tempted to abandon. As for myself played alot and I think it's very cool BUT, there were some pretty useless things that slowed the game down such as the storyline, etc. The diplomacy is well-made though, a bit like Master of Orion 2.

For Shame CoolUserName!! (although I must admit your choice of handle for the forums is a deliciously refreshing one)

The storyline in SMAC is the exact opposite of a detriment. As to the spies being too good, I can't say that is totally false. Then again, even in Civ they are the most powerful unit.

I love the game, and think that it's just as good as Civ2. The only think that I have against SMAC is that, unlike Civ2, it's not compatible with Windows 2000!!!!!!!

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/snipersmilie.gif

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, vanillacube.

I adore SMAC, and spent way too many hours playing it. It has to be one of those games that the designers loved making, rather than quickly gunning for the high profit margin of a Sid Meier title. Any Civ game where Nietzsche's Will to Power is a tech/milestone deserves at least a second look...

Recently, though, I find myself returning to CivII... SMAC has a slightly apocalyptic tinge to it that gets gloomy after a while.

I liked it for a few sessions, but it's replayablity is nothing like Civ2 in my book.

------------------
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I just tried to install it on Windows 2000 - because a friend of mine had told me that he had tried it on a windows 2000 computer and....... It worked!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No I can only wonder why on earth they have written on the box that you can't play SMAC on Windows 2000???? To lower the sale perhaps???

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/snipersmilie.gif

------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.

Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, vanillacube.

I think SMAC is really good.
Not as cool as Civ2 was when I first played it (and still is) but it´s something different.

And I like that the game isn´t just 2d..
Try to walk up a fat mountain covered with fungus.
It´ll take many turns, but when you´re up, you have a big advantage aginst your enemies.

And I like that the differant fractions are so different.

And the cool feature that you can build cities in the water..great!

I think it´s a worthy game to buy, Dreadnought

But it´s not even near the true Civ2 feeling

------------------
What we need is another war! -Braindead

I've tried but I really dislike it. I've uninstalled it. Perhaps I'll another time... I was disappointed by Sid Meier because it was too classic. No innovative ideas. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif

------------------
Genghis K.

I hated it because of "idealogies". Eventually you had to go to war with even your staunchest ally.

The big problem I had with it is the same I have with CTP, by the end of the game, especially on large maps, the game is nothing but selecting what each city should build. I'll spend five minutes going through every damn menu, and then thirty seconds moving my units.

Ok I am like the SMAC fanatic. Iv played colonization, can and civ 2, for way too many hours. All in all, SMAC is the best.
AS one person said,
" SMAC has a slightly apocalyptic tinge to it that gets gloomy after a while."
I have to agree.
The things I liked however are numerous.

1. The building of units is INCREDIBLE. You customize everything, and instead of getting musketeers, you just get a weapon, or an armor, or a special ability. This added to the depth of the game infinite ways and im sad to see it gone in civIII.

2. One said that near the end of the game there was endless clicking, but thats when you use the govener option. the govener can be set to 4 different settings which speeds teh game up when it was boring in Civ2.

3. The different ways you could beat the game were great. I liked the "diplomatic" ending, when you used the counsil to declare the true leader of the land, instead of just killing each other.

All in all SMAC is hit or miss. People have hated it, while I love it. If you compare it to civ2, it is definitly deeper, and civ2 will forever seem a little kid-like. Get it! its only like 10$ at walmart.
VIVA SID

As I said in another post somewhere, I love SMAC! I must agree with Cobalt, however. I don't like the fact that eventually you'll have to go to war with your staunchest allies. I love the fact that one can design their own units, but I wish that the map editor was more useful, but overall, I enjoy this game immensely!

------------------
"Shake the world beneath your feet up"
--Johnny Clegg

<FONT COLOR="Black">Text</FONT c>

The game is absolutely great, especially with Alien Crossfire. I do think however that CivII with Fantastic worlds and the scenario's are even better.

I do not understand the "having to go to war with your allies" comments from above. I currently play nothing but transcend, and I have not problem making game long allies.

The only thing I can think of is that the game program makes the first and second most powerful faction have turmoil (if the computer controls them). This means that is you are in the top two, no matter what you do the other big power will want to fight you.

Other than this I never have trouble with allies. Just pick who you want to ally with and use there social engineering values. If you want Gia, choose green. If you want Yang, choose police state. If you want you can also just beat a faction into submission and then rebuild them back up (give them cities and units). This can give you a powerful ally as well.

SMAC is its own game, and it is a great game. It took many of Civ II's features, then it added many others (mentioned above) that were fantastic improvements. The city governor option, much improved diplomacy, truly diverse faction personalities/strategies, and unit customization are the ones that spring to mind.

It is true that SMAC has an eerie post-apocalyptic feel. It is the only game I have that consistently makes me turn on a light.

Alien Crossfire makes for even more fun. The pirates are a lot of fun to play, although I like most of the factions. Their respective strengths means that when you want to try a different game strategy you simply pick a different faction. Mucho playability.

------------------
"A thousand years scarce serve to form a state; An hour may lay it in the dust." Lord Byron

posted April 23, 2001 01:24 PM by GenghisK
I've tried but I really dislike it. I've uninstalled it. Perhaps I'll another time... I was disappointed by Sid Meier because it was too classic. No innovative ideas.


I tried it for about an hour over a year ago, and it just did not seem to get me "hooked" like Civ II did. Maybe I never gave it enough of a chance, or maybe I had too many expectations. Probably I was just wanting to have a Civ II that addressed and fixed the bulk of Civ II's shortcomings without a radical departure from the "regular" Civ II graphics and gameplay.

For those who have the experience, it there a better AI in SMAC? Or is it about as "dumb" as Civ II, esp. when amassing for battle, or deciding the "right" times to attack/sneak-attack?

The AI gets a Mineral bonus at the higher difficulties, yet is impeded at the lower ones; in other words, if you fall behind in productivity/population, don't credit the ostensibly well-crafted AI. However, in terms of military aptitude, the AI can launch large calibrated attacks by land and sea, bombing runs, espionage, etc.

The game's diplomacy, in my opinion, is great, granted that you leave the "intense rivalry" option off. I really like the dialogue, i.e. when Miriam tells me:

"...it's the Lord's will that we end this immoral conflict. Pledge Blood Truce with me and I will pray for your soul's redemption."

My response: "I'll see you in hell first." http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

In short, the AI is much better.