Wish list for SMAC 2 - let's tell Sid!

Ok, Firaxis has got a poll going for which game to update. Maybe, just maybe, there might be a SMAC 2 ... we can wish can't we? Well, what would you like to see? What would you tell Sid if you could about a new SMAC?

Ok, here is a start to the wish list:

1) A couple more options and flexibility with the Social Engineering screen. I find that it is too easy to fall into a certain pick combo and so really, you don't have 3x3x3 (x3 future) options ...

2) Make the world rotate or something, nothing more annoying than not being easily able to tell where the former is going to build that road when on a big hill facing away from you

3) make getting rid of unit design easier / easier to clean up that screen

4) better negotiations (I must admit, the Civ 3 model is not too bad) with some improvements this could go a long way, at the moment, its hard to trade maps if that is what you want etc ....

5) Add in more options into the planetary council - stuff like embargoes against factions, map sharing requirements, maybe even a tech sharing requirement (in line with the mission directive as they so like telling me in negotiations ), maybe even aid packages for someone getting hammered by eeevil wormies!

6) A way easier to use map editor

7) more stuff to build in the oceans (like deep sea mines perhaps, underwater tunnles, etc)

8) central unit support, but this is a maybe (I hate having to support from one base and need to move support around, but this is a critical game mechanic between war and peace)?

other ideas?

I wouldn't want to change unit design too much as it's one of my favourite features of the game. I would like it to be easier to make designs obsolete and KEEP them obsolete though ...like that blinkin' 1-1-1 scout that keeps popping back into the rotation.

The terrain could be a wee bit easier on the eyes while still looking alien.

I like the SMAC diplomacy a great deal. Especially unique features like negotiating ends to wars between AI factions and negotiating a faction's unconditional surrender.

All i wish if SMAC2 begin a reality is that it does not end with a totally illogical AI like Civ3.

I like the AI from SMAC when it comes to diplomaty and commerce, in fact i continue to play SMAC because of the interesting game mechanics and the credible AI .

I would really hate to see like in Civ3 an AI loving me since 100 years , being my ally in war all that time, making some good deals in commerce with me during all a century, and suddenly for some internal ridiculous game mechanics reason decide to hate me suddenly and attack me the next turn while allying itself with the worst enemy we had when we were allied.

For me gameplay and AI in such a game is infinitively superior to my need of game graphics.
And if game graphics improve while "dumbing down" gameplay or AI , it will not worth the money for me.

I love in SMAC the fact that the AI tends to respect your political boundaries, as long as you have good relations with them. In CivIII the ai will just march through your "cultural boundaries" at will.

I'd like the option to have negotiable political boundaries that are initially set by base locations, but can later be negotiated over during diplomacy without the need for exchange of bases. This would be somewhat problematic if one of the parties decided to alter the borders by founding new bases, but there are solutions to such problems.

I meant, that the Civ negotiation screen is a little more user friendly - but totally agree about the AI logic stuff ... I love the fact that the faction leaders have personalities, that they too can be friends and stick to it.

My gripe was that I can't trade maps if that is all I want to do, I need to ask, wanna excahnge tech? No, not my Super weapons 11 for your base building 2! dag nab it!

Pasi Nurminen said:

I'd like the option to have negotiable political boundaries that are initially set by base locations, but can later be negotiated over during diplomacy without the need for exchange of bases. This would be somewhat problematic if one of the parties decided to alter the borders by founding new bases, but there are solutions to such problems.

Click to expand...

That shouldn't be a problem. If the border is based on negotiations, founding a base near the border doesn't change the border.

The Person said:

That shouldn't be a problem. If the border is based on negotiations, founding a base near the border doesn't change the border.

Click to expand...

What about when a previously unknown third party comes into communication with the two of you? They you have to enter into tripartite negotiations all over again.

I think a remake of Alpha Centauri can't be the same game. It would obviously hold many similarities, but many differences as well. I'm not just talking about gameplay either, but the sort of plot that exists in the game as well. Factions themselves will probably will share similar characteristics, but they don't necessarily have to be exactly the same. They can even pick and choose what works best with the SMAX factions, or add them in some other creative way.

As for gameplay:
Allow more flexibility in trading (similar to the screen in Civ3), but keep the coordinated diplomacy (such as unit gifting, stopping war against an ally, and coordinating battle plans).

I really like how Civ3 simplified unit support, but the change from gold to shields dramatically affects lots of things, so it probably isn't the best way to do it. If they could think of something, it would be nice, otherwise, they should still with the SMAC method.

Obviously, they should add a lot of voices and videos, just like the first.

Finally, like I sort of said at the top, they have to make sure it is different enough to be considered a new game.

Why do you want a new game? I'd be just as happy if they just 'remade' SMAC. Just jazzed up the interface and fixed any obvious flaws, perhaps got rid of some of the micromanagement ... that sort of stuff, but the story line was great and the original SMAC factions were also great fun and had real adv/disadv ... each one played differently than the others.

Rebalance combat. As is, offense is almost always twice as strong in SMAC as defense is. It means the only place you can possibly defend well is a base, and the attacker almost always has the advantage. The AI is especially vulnerable to this compared to a human player (see the 'Rover Rush'). That's the overall biggest failure of SMAC, IMO: defense sucks unless it's built around the premise of the counterattack.

I agree - for humans, this means you have to have better tactics than 'bring it on!', but for the AI, they need to understand how important it is to counter attack before your bases are surrounded.

I never saw the AI use choppers for "defence", which is, in my humble opinion one of their major strengths!

Greater use for artillery; in SMAC, it's essentially useless, except for maybe getting rid of that pesky laser gunboat that the spartans send to some far flung outpost. Make artillery a necessity on the battlefields of Chiron.

I really, really want the ability to have more than 7 factions in any one game. I never much liked the Aliens, and the Angels were bugged (unless modified), but having the other 11 would have been great!

*wonders about a SMAC mod for Civ4*
*considers it more likely than SMAC2*

Yes, I would also like to have a much larger faction count in each game. That alone would be a huge part of a new game for me.