Comparing Civ 5 to Alpha Centauri

[reddishrecue]

Someone here mentioned that the fighters used to scramble to protect cities in civilization 2 when attacked by other aerial units. This scrambling of fighters still happens in civilization 5 when the fighter unit is put to the intercept mission while in a city. The only difference is that now the aerial units don't fight to death and instead take partial damage gradually.

 

[Autoclave]

I feel like the supply crawlers needed some sort of limiting factor (like number of crawlers per base and so on). Being able to spam them to infinity does not enforce making hard choices. The trade routes in Civ 5 are quite well balanced in my opinion.

 

[Wodan]

It's called planetfall. I did not try it.

Yeah. Very worthwhile if you still have civ4 installed.

 

[klorius]

Hexes vs squares: seems to be a clear improvement, but if they really did want to simulate a planet it would involve a 3D globe map that was widest at the equator. Would take some working out though.

1UPT vs stacks: never understood why the solution to stacking was to go to the opposite extreme of 1UPT. What about limiting it to a number, with buffs for policies/generals/techs? (e.g. 1UPT at the start of the game, then increasing for techs like Military Tradition, policies like Honour, or just for the presence of a general? or even just reducing combat strength for 'overcrowding', simulating disorganisation?)
Mostly, it makes no sense for me to impose a tactical limitation on what is a global strategic map. (This is more Civ4 vs Civ5 though.)

Tech: SMAC/X actually made more sense to me in the inability to choose your techs; directed research always seemed somewhat odd for ancient civilisations. Obviously, though, making it not decided by the players certainly removes an interesting and important decision.

 

[Wodan]

Hexes vs squares: seems to be a clear improvement, but if they really did want to simulate a planet it would involve a 3D globe map that was widest at the equator. Would take some working out though.

The math for that is actually nontrivial and, for a true globe, requires some modifications (you can't have a true hex grid, there have to be some pentagrams mixed in). Honestly, it's not worth it for a game... the effort would be much better spent on other game features such as improved AI.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

Um... you really can't compare the two- SMAC came out 15 years ago, Civ 5 came out recently enough that they're still removing the bugs from it. What's next, comparing Grand Theft Auto Five vs. Pong?

I think SMAC was better considering the limitations of computers at the time. It was a quick study with lots of strategic options leading to tons of replay value. Most importantly, the design flaws that it had were infinitesimally small in comparison to the irritation level of Civ5's flaws. But again, I'd rather drive a 2014 Hyundai (Civ5) than a 1999 Mercedes (SMAC).

One thing annoying about both games was the balance among strategic choices. Both seemed to have a "right" way to city-scape. In Civ5 it's tradition tall-narrow, in SMAC it was treefarm and hybrid forest->forest every tile->ICS (except for the hippie chick, who did better with red fungus ICS) Would have added a lot of replay value to both games if the empire-building options were more balanced.

 

[beetle]

Um... you really can't compare the two- SMAC came out 15 years ago, Civ 5 came out recently enough that they're still removing the bugs from it... I think SMAC was better considering the limitations of computers at the time.

What I find remarkable is how well SMAC has held up. I think SMAC is better than Civ 3 or 4 and competitive with Civ 5 even without considering the limitations!

It was a quick study with lots of strategic options leading to tons of replay value. Most importantly, the design flaws that it had were infinitesimally small in comparison to the irritation level of Civ5's flaws. But again, I'd rather drive a 2014 Hyundai (Civ5) than a 1999 Mercedes (SMAC).

I think very many people might pick the 99 Mercedes over the 15 Hyundai!

One thing annoying about both games was the balance among strategic choices. Both seemed to have a "right" way to city-scape. In Civ5 it's tradition tall-narrow, in SMAC it was treefarm and hybrid forest->forest every tile->ICS (except for the hippie chick, who did better with red fungus ICS) Would have added a lot of replay value to both games if the empire-building options were more balanced.

ICS and forests were OP, but one could still win pretty reliably (at the most difficult setting) without those exploits. It was more fun if one didn’t abuse supply crawlers either. I agree with you that the Civ 5 empire-building options are limited, and there seems to be pretty much only one way to win at deity, no matter what Civ you play. SMAC, on the other hand, does not have this defect IMHO.

 

[beetle]

The math for that is actually nontrivial and, for a true globe, requires some modifications (you can't have a true hex grid, there have to be some pentagrams mixed in). Honestly, it's not worth it for a game... the effort would be much better spent on other game features such as improved AI.

You make a good point about tiling a sphere. Still, I would love for Civ 6 to do a little better. I am tired worlds that either a cylinder or a torus. Expectations are low, and 6 only has to do better than 5, but I am crediting SMAC with raising the bar with having elevation as a tile attribute.

 

[Wodan]

You make a good point about tiling a sphere. Still, I would love for Civ 6 to do a little better. I am tired worlds that either a cylinder or a torus. Expectations are low, and 6 only has to do better than 5, but I am crediting SMAC with raising the bar with having elevation as a tile attribute.

They could possibly do a hex globe with polar regions excluded (an impassible, irregularly shaped area). Even so, the hexagons wouldn't be perfectly shaped... they would get elongated the closer to the poles you are. GUI unit positioning would have to be in the centerpoint of the hex. Or something like that.

Like I said, it would get kind of messy. But, it's possibly do-able.

edit: An idea I has a couple of years ago, when this was first discussed (thread's on CFC here somewhere) is that the imperfect grid would just be in memory. When it's displayed for the user, it's always centered on the current viewing point (and uses perfectly shaped hexes). Since any slight imperfections to map the visual appearance to the grid in system memory don't get too out of whack until you get far away from the visual point, it might be a clean way of doing it.

 

[beetle]

I hope they don’t simply make the polar regions impassible, because that would be exactly what we have now with the cylindrical maps! One major reason for doing this work is to make “over the top” movement possible. I agree with you that the perspective issue could be finessed, much like the mini-map cursor is a trapezoid with the current UI. Do people complain about that?

 

[Fifteenpiece]

I miss nerve stapling the populace to make them more compliant

And planting forests

And dodging the mind worms

And deforming terrain with a planet buster

Seriously comparing the two games is comparing a ground breaking game from 15 years ago with its modern analog. The only meaningful thing to say is I am grateful for SMAC, those were some good times

 

[TheCabal]

....only meaningful thing to say is I am grateful for SMAC, those were some good times.

Still are good times.
Firaxis Games today feel like streamlined colorful books for children with happy sweet faces everywhere. Too bad almost every game-series got "KISS"ed. (Keep it simple stupid)

 

[EpsilonEridani]

SMAC was really excellent with the weapon factory, the social system, the united nations, the terraforming system, the nukes that could instantly erase several cities at once... The psychopathic scientists and the ecoterrorists were my favorite civs. There were some flaws of course, the best thing has an ecoterrorist was to pollute like hell to speed up the growth of fungi.

The main trouble was that many wonders were so powerful that building them was instantly changing a deity-game into a sandbox, like the one giving you all techs discovered by any other civ or the one triggering a permament pop increase in all cities

 

[cinattra]

still are good times.
Firaxis games today feel like streamlined colorful books for children with happy sweet faces everywhere. Too bad almost every game-series got "kiss"ed. (keep it simple stupid)

ditto!

 

[Wodan]

Firaxis Games today feel like streamlined colorful books for children with happy sweet faces everywhere. Too bad almost every game-series got "KISS"ed. (Keep it simple stupid)

A bit confused... what, exactly, is your criticism of games today? What they look like (kid's books) or that their functionality is streamlined and less complex (KISS)? Or, is KISS referring to a less complex storyline? Because those are 3 very different things.