I Want Alpha Centauri Model Back!

Why should civ3 and civ4 follow the civ2 style again?Alpha centauri model was much better.And to explain what I mean: In Alpha Centauri the terrain wasn't grassland, plains, etc, but was characterized as: Acid(0 food),Moist(1 food), Rainy(2 food) and Flat(0 shields),Rolling(1 shield),Rocky(2 shields).Meanwhile,you had the ability to change the terrain as you want(raise/lower altitude,build condesters(which fertilize the ground) or echelon mirrors (increase energy-the alpha centauri's name for commerce),and many more). You could build sea improvements,even colonize the sea.But above all,you could design your own units instead of having the models ready.The same goes for goverment:You had 3 choises for each of the four systems (politics,economy,value,future society),recieving positive and negative effects for each one of them (ex.democratic politics spur up population growth and reduce corruption,but unit support becomes more expensive).You had many, most important diplomatic and espionage abilities,like asking a civ to stop aggresions with another, the enemy could surrender,giving you all of his cash and techs and being your permanent ally, for diplomacy,you could steal cash,increase unhappiness and destroy buildings,for espionage,while you could make a paratrooper spy(called drop probe team),going everywhere on the planet(no limit for drop),so it was done immediately.You could "infiltrate datalinks" and know everything about him for all the time!
You could launch satellites,you could do a spy job and blame another.And so many more abilities!Shouldn't they be on civ4?

I voted no, but it is a qualified no.

No to the unit editor : as others have detailed in the past, it's simply a source of imbalance as any human player can come up with unit design that are infinitely superior to what the AI can cook up. In addition after a few try you'll always know which unit is the most powerful and always design the same unit, making things boring.

Yes to an alternate variation of the AC terrain type system, or rather an hybrid of the two existing one. I do NOT feel that the terrain type should be based on abstract concepts such as soil type. Rather it should keep its current existence as terrain types, BUT hills and mountains should be supressed as terrains, to be replaced by an elevation system as used in AC. That way forested mountains could well be in. (each level of elevation should however represent a lot of room - say elevation 5 is the hightest it get, and that's everest-sized.

Many of the spy options you describe (infiltrate datalink, for one) only make sense in a modern or post-modern setting, and the same go with the infinite-paradrop drones. So that's another thing I think should be kept limited.

OTOH "Rocky" would be added as a terrain type to cover for mountains.

No to the Unit Workshop; it just doesn't work as well in Civ.

Emphatic yes to Social Engineering.

Emphatic yes to "Probe Team" spies.

And the terrain should be a combination of Alpha Centauri and Civ, using elevation, forestation, wetness, rockiness, etc.

I voted yes, but i have some doubts. Not everyone playing CIV has the feeling what was it like to play SMAC. It's a different game, a different world.
However, I noticed that people tend to look down on SMAC model of CIV-like game becuase they think that model cannot be implemented into CIV.

They are wrong.

CIV's "I can rule Earth" is a fake, an overstretched vision of CIV. SMAC didn't suffer from these "mirages". Years (turns) were logical, techs were numerous, and terrain was adapted to gameplay, not to realism.

And to call CIV3 a realistic game, well that's a bold statement.

Maybe a civ4 editor based on smac would not allow you to create perfect copies of the real world. But who cares? As long as it is playable and fun...

No hard feelings you Firaxis developers, but Brian Reynolds was *the* man for this job.
He was a man with vision.

-kirby

I'd rather have them work on an SMAC II (pretty please?)

Anyway, there's too many items for me to just say yes or no. Unit Workshop is likely out (although an Empire Earth-esque unit improvement method, where you could select certain improvements towards select unit attributes with no more than five improvements total, would be nice). What options would be in there? A sword-weilding spearman riding a horse?

As for Social Engineering, that should most definately be included. It's more fun and more realistic. I think that they should keep the current "main government" system with further tailoring via SE. SE options would be limited by government. Changing main governments would require a revolution.

I didn't much like the Spy units in the previous games. The current system is far superior.

Terrain was the way it was in Alpha Centauri because Alpha Centauri was an entirely different planet. Earth's physical features are much more recognizable.

I think terrain should have map elevation. There should be types and covers(forests, jugles).

Unit Workshop doesn't work for Civ(no engineering). You should be able to upgrade units uniquely though.

Social Engineering definitely belongs, but the screeen shouldn't look like there are options missing. that removes the feeling of 'discovery'.

Reserach shoudl be blind again.

I think you should have the AC espinoage options, with the current espionage creation and supoprt.

Satellites and space program should have more depth, huge budget issues in their heyday.

Growth and developement should be a lot harsher in early game, like it was in SMAC.

Mewtarthio said:

I'd rather have them work on an SMAC II (pretty please?)

Click to expand...

Amen brother. Unfortunatley if you read the Powerpoint on marketing, SMAC attracted way to small a market.

Yes, It was too perfect

Anyway, If Firaxis finds the SMAC not profitable, can we buy the rights to it then, for a lower price?



-kirby

Mewtarthio said:

I didn't much like the Spy units in the previous games. The current system is far superior.

Click to expand...

I disagree with that. I don't think Civ3 espionage is superior, for the following reasons:
a)It is available in the time of the game that drop pods would be available at Alpha Centauri.
b)The missions are far less that Alpha Centauri's.
c)Above all: Civ3 spy missions cost so much that they are useless for poor nations. On the contrary, most Alpha Centauri missions were free.

However, I agree that Spy units are definetely far inferior compaired to Civ3 system, but not under Alpha Centauri's rules.

Cuivienen said:

No to the Unit Workshop; it just doesn't work as well in Civ.

Click to expand...

Why not? It could be somehow like this: Arms: Plain bow: attack 2, no defence bonus, bombardment 1, wooden spear, attack 1- defence 2. Armor:
Wooden sheild, defence 2, iron sheild, defence 3. Chassis: Infantry (no extra cost), Mounted (cost x2, requires horses, 2 moves), Vehicle(3 moves),etc.
In fact, I was also thinking of seperate weapons construction and unit conscription and training (and capability of arming the unit with whatever you want, even 2 arms simultaneousely, with a penalty in agility for example (How about a new unit property, the "agility", which specifies the chance of retreating if the unit is losing the battle?).

The problems with the Unit Workshop in Civilization can be boiled down to these points:

(1) The term or idea of a workshop. In civ, these weapons just evolved. Swordsmen doesn't mean when the first swords appeared. It means when tactics and practical methods of making swords existed. It also incurs an image of engineering, rather than developement.
(2) In civ, units tend to represent the overall jump from one era of weapons to the next. IN SMAC, weapon and tech progression was a very smooth evolution. You didn't see massive jumps in technology.
(3) AI always gravitated to the same units in SMAC. Most players found the Unit Workshop got boring after a while because of this. I just don't see AI as something they will be fixing the way it would need to be fixed.

I do think they should add more unit special abilites and tactically interesting variants. Maybe even a unique bonus system.

On Espionage:
I think they should take the Civ 3 execution model, but make it a ton cheaper. Espionage should evolve with more abilites over time and use teh SMAC abilites and blame-shifting. Also, don't make it a wonder just to do espionage missions, they sucked enough as it was.

I disagree. I used many specialised units in SMAC. From attack submarines, bombers, specialised defense speeders, police AA units... I had in use at least 50 different variations of units at mid-game. All had their purpose and meaning. As I played SMAC in LAN a lot, my enemies (or friends) were frustrated how could I make such a specialised attack that would just break through defences like knife through butter.

One of my favourite (ingenious?) designs was the submarine resource pod with negate special abilities. I could harvest unclaimed resources on water without fear of being noticed.

And the possibility of spy missions to blame on someone else, the chance of success that was said loud and clear, the ability to steal energy (money) from opponents... Hell, I remember playing several games against Human opponents that I won by using (almost) only spies. Most of them, I won. Not because I was so smart, but because it is unconventional warfare. The only unit that could effectively counter a spy attack was another spy (or the hunter-seeker algorythm). And mine were all Elite...

Don't get me wrong, I liked the Unit Workshop. I am just saying why I think they won't include it or it belongs in Civilization.

I do think they need to expand the types of units you can build once you reach the late-industrial/modern ages. There should be a lot more specialized units for specific attack purposes(not the ***** marines and partroopers).

I agree on espionage, although espionage units seem silly, since they would have been one or two people. Being able to frame others for your dirty work would make diplomatic style victories more interesting. No more mr. nice guy always win.

I voted no, but again qualified. Let me expand:

Emphatic No to Unit Design
No to Probe Teams (Espionage Screen is Better and more realistic)
Emphatic Yes to Social Engineering (indeed, above almost everything else, I'd like to see Social Engineering used in Civ4).
Emphatic Yes to Diplomacy Options
No to Terrain (Civ3 terrain is more realistic for the more complex geography and geology of Earth)
No the the Alpha Centauri setting (you may not have suggested this but just to assert the fact).

I agree that Alpha Centauri had a lot of nice inclusions, but Civ3 is overall a better game. As mentioned though, I do strongly agree with the inclusion of Social Engineerring for Governments rather than just 5-7 Governments you choose between, and the more characterful old Diplomacy options such as coordinating attacks, trade bonuses for peaceful neighbours and blaming espionage should be brought back.

I don't support probe teams either, but the espionage options in Civ 3 just don't compare and are mostly useless. WHat if you married Civ 3s implementation with SMAC flexibility and utility?

I would love to see the SMAC terrain system on a realistic looking earth map. For example, flat and rainy could be grasslands, flat and medium rainfall could be plains, flat and dry could be desert.

I would at least like to see elevation accurately effect rainfall. It added a good strategy to SMAC. Also, elevation shoudl help out artillery more.

I also voted no but qualified:

- No to Unit Workshop!! Although I find it great to design units with special abilities, I find it true that I end up always producing the same 2-3 units with the same abilities, and I spend lots and lots of time "obsoletizing" units I will never use any more. Maybe a simplified version, easier to use would be nice to have
- No to terrains, but yes to terrain system. Mountains with different heights could produce different resources, maybe this option could be toggled on/off
- No to tech tree, I find it one of the great disadvantages of SMAC, it is difficult to relate techs to what they really do
- No to negotiation. CIV 3 negotiation scheme is much much more developed in my opinion.
- Yes to Social Engineering!!! it is much better than CIV model
- Yes to probe teams!
- Yes to ocean colonies!
- Yes to blaming other factions for our spy job

I have played Civ3 and SMAC, and here my two cents...

-No to Unit workshop. I found it time consuming to use.
-No to SMAC's terran system, although concepts in it (like mountain elevation) should be added.
-No to SMAC's dimplacy. Civ3 is far supuior to SMAC, and should only be rinfined (like servatute packs). The AI should not be so tuch about you SE choices.
-Yes/No to SMAC's SE. The SE system. It should be combined with Civ gov't system.
-No to SMAC's spies. They should just improve civ3's spies.
-No to ocean colonies (unhistoricial), but a yes to a civ "ocean terraformer" (to improve coast and sea squares.)

-No to SMAC's dimplacy. Civ3 is far supuior to SMAC, and should only be rinfined (like servatute packs). The AI should not be so tuch about you SE choices.

Click to expand...

I actually liked that part of SMAC discussions, "I wish you would see the folly in letting your citizens vote." Ideological friction has always been a factor in history, especially in the Cold War.