SMAC vs Civ III

[Ghostwind]

Ok, I am a huge Civ II fan. I've played Civ III for years now, and I love the game, but when it first came out, I was disappointed it wasn't more of an improvement on Civ II. It seemed regressive to me.

Based on some people singing the praises of SMAC I broke it out and installed it on my PC. I've had it for about a year, but since I bought it at a garage sale and it didn't come with a manual, I've never really gotten around to playing.

Tonight I found it has a pdf manual and a tutorial and such on the disk, so I am going to start playing.

My question is, what are the similarities and differences between Civ III and SMAC? I would ask about Civ II instead, but it's been a long time since I played it, even though it remains my favorite game of all time.

Thanks.

~Ghostwind

 

[Ghostwind]

I guess I'm on my own. No biggie.

 

[Shodan]

LOL

Hey Ghost Im here friend, dont be afraid.

Well, I may not be the best person for answering your question, cuase I really didnt like Civ 3, and it felt like a Civ "light" for me - a product aimed more in attracting a new generation than pleasing the hardcore fans, thus instead of being the logical evolution of the series, its more of a "light" version of the Civ formula.

But, shortly:

Smac is more deep strategicaly than Civ 3 in all aspects - diplomacy, combat, terraforming, management, customizability, etc., and makes it possible for a much wider variation of playing styles than Civ 3 (that is overly dependent on the "expand, expand, adinfinitum" style). It also have an engrossing and thought-provoking storyline, even if great part of the players dont care for it. If you dont stick to it (sci-fi is not for everyone), thats ok, cause it is discreet enough to not obstruse the gameplay.

The other important difference lies in the AI.

In Civ 3, the AI is very competitive, but very unrealistic. SMAC on the other hand, have an AI that tries to be more realistic and rational possible, even if it means less competitive. (though playing in Transcendi is quite challenging).

Thus SMAC beneficts from its AI greatly, giving each one of its factions a rationalism, personality, seriousness, and peculiar behavioring (that I never seen till today in another strategy game), unlike Civ 3 civs, that are lighlty different statisticly and almost identical in behavior. Resuming, in SMAC you feel as dealing with another real people, like role-playing a character and intereacting with other unique characters, while in Civ 3 you feel as playing a game of chess with the computer - only the computer controls various civs, and you just control yours.

I hope it helps.

 

[Bart2k4]

Well, I may not be the best person for answering your question, cuase I really didnt like Civ 3, and it felt like a Civ "light" for me - a product aimed more in attracting a new generation than pleasing the hardcore fans, thus instead of being the logical evolution of the series, its more of a "light" version of the Civ formula.

Huh, don't make me laugh. They dumbed down a very good game(civ2) into something less (civ3) and now they are repeating that same formula for civ4, and not suprisingly its getting even more popular. Judging by this progression, every game is gonna' get worse and worse ...

There's no sense arugin about it either, companies primary interest is profit, if they get more of it by dumbing down the games, chances are that they are gonna' do it, its illogical to think otherwise .... Just face it, companies exist to make money.

I guess I'm on my own. No biggie

Don't worry, you don't need a manual.

 

[Ghostwind]

The biggest difficulty I'm having is adapting to all the sci-fi technojargon? Does anyone else have difficulty knowing the difference in terrain? There are all kinds of different shades of red with little bumps on them. Some have lots of minerals, others have some, and yet others are fungus or something...I think. I'm still keeping the tutorial on. I haven't gotten that far in the game yet. I keep starting over. Heh.

It does look interesting though. I'm playing Gaia cause of the hot earth mama.

 

[xalien]

Terrain? That's easy.

Land:
1. Flat (no bumps), no minerals if empty/farm here. Road build bonus (1 turn) if there's no forest. Build forests or boreholes .
2. Rolling (few bumps), 1 mineral if empty/farm here. Build everything but mines.
3. Rocky (lots of bumps), 1 mineral and no food if empty, mine bonus (4 minerals with road), no farms, forests or bases can be built here. Build boreholes if you can, otherwise mine it if you REALLY need minerals.
4. Fungus (red), no resources here until you discover specific techs (which can turn it into very productive square, but that happens very late in a game)

You can level terrain with formers: rocky -> rolling -> flat

Now about moisture:
arid (brown), no food if empty
moist (greenish), 1 food if empty for flat/rolling
rainy (green), 2 food if empty for flat/rolling

A little tip: if you have mineral or energy bonus square put a borehole there if you can. It'll give you 8+2 minerals/energy. In early game with all the restrictions it's a huge boost.

Water(there are some differences between SMAC and SMACX here):
5. Coast/sea (less than 1000m deep), 1 food (3 food, 3 energy with farm/harness or 2 food 1 mineral with farm/mine)
6. Ocean/trench (1000m and more), 1 food and no enhancements can be built here.

 

[Shodan]

The biggest difficulty I'm having is adapting to all the sci-fi technojargon

SMAC techs are based in real futuristic propositions (memetics was left out though). So for a sci-fi enthusiast the technojargon is cohesive/coherent - terraforming, network nodes, cloning vats, cyberethics, neural grafting, digital sentience, etc, always were self explanatory for me.

But at first, it can be confusing. Remember that each tech, instalation, etc, is classified by colors:
green (explore),
white (research),
yellow (build),
conquer (red).

This helps to define its purposes.

 

[Sukenis]

Thus SMAC beneficts from its AI greatly, giving each one of its factions a rationalism, personality, seriousness, and peculiar behavioring (that I never seen till today in another strategy game), unlike Civ 3 civs, that are lighlty different statisticly and almost identical in behavior. Resuming, in SMAC you feel as dealing with another real people, like role-playing a character and intereacting with other unique characters, while in Civ 3 you feel as playing a game of chess with the computer - only the computer controls various civs, and you just control yours.

It is nice having an AI that has a goal other than "To Rule The World!!!". Well, that is the goal of the Hive and Sparta, but that is not the point.

I think the "oddest" thing to learn is that the best way to keep peace with a neighbor is to follow that factions"generic" Social Engeneering goal. If you want to be friendly with the Gians, be a Green Faction. What the University to like you, go with Knowlegde. You know what to expect more than in othe games. The only major downfall with this is that some Social Engeneering choices come later in the game OR are so bad that a certian faction will fight wit you in most every game (sparta & believers). Still, it is less of a flaw than Civ 3 had out of the box.

 

[Phlegmak]

Ok, I am a huge Civ II fan. I've played Civ III for years now, and I love the game, but when it first came out, I was disappointed it wasn't more of an improvement on Civ II. It seemed regressive to me.

Based on some people singing the praises of SMAC I broke it out and installed it on my PC. I've had it for about a year, but since I bought it at a garage sale and it didn't come with a manual, I've never really gotten around to playing.

Tonight I found it has a pdf manual and a tutorial and such on the disk, so I am going to start playing.

My question is, what are the similarities and differences between Civ III and SMAC? I would ask about Civ II instead, but it's been a long time since I played it, even though it remains my favorite game of all time.

Thanks.

~Ghostwind

Alpha Centauri is a futuristic clone of the game Civilization 2. It's identical to Civilization 2 in many respects. Firaxis simply changed most of the names. Technically, very few things are new compared to Civ 2: psi warfare, bombardment, a more detailed unit experience model, custom unit design, and a more complex governmental model are some of those things.

Alpha Centauri is a beautiful game for many reasons. It's pretty (to me), the music is exquisite and it lends the game a horror/sci fi feel, which the story of the game has already. Alpha Centauri is a special game to me, since horror and sci fi are my two favorite fictional genres. Alpha Centauri has a built in story, which is very rich and very very fun for the beginner. Players who've become familiar with the story probably will ignore it after repeated playing.

My biggest disappointments of the game are moddability (it seems to have very little), a few bugs which render my favorite play style very very hard, and a dismally bad AI. The AI is probably the most incompetant in the Civ series -- worse than Civ 2. The play style I referred to above is the repeated use of atrocities. At a certain point in the game, you can commit minor atrocities and it creates the pollution effect. The pollution effect in Alpha Centauri is Planet fighting against you in the form of more fungus and more worms.

 

[Maniac]

My biggest disappointments of the game are moddability (it seems to have very little)

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=134088&pagenumber=1

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

In my opinion

SMAC------------->

It is nice having an AI that has a goal other than "To Rule The World!!!". Well, that is the goal of the Hive and Sparta, but that is not the point.

I've had sparta ahead of me in tceh, if only temporarily.

 

[The Person]

Good ol' SMAC is proof that 3D graphics is not key to a good game.

 

[LupusCanis]

SMAC is ... bluntly put ... Firaxis' best game to date, by a long way.

Civ III is probably their worst.

So ... you know my opinion.

 

[MjM]

Civ 3 > all other Civ/firaxis titles. Especially CIV.

 

[IronJeff]

SMAC is a great game. One thing that is cool is raising/lowering terrain. Basicly with enough units you can reshape the map. It can be fun to connect continents together, or sink an enemies city. etc.

 

[IronJeff]

Now if we could just get a forum for Sid Meyer's railroad tycoon

 

[YNCS]

A little tip: if you have mineral or energy bonus square put a borehole there if you can. It'll give you 8+2 minerals/energy. In early game with all the restrictions it's a huge boost.

No, this is incorrect. A borehole will wipe out any bonuses. A borehole in a non-bonus square will give exactly the same production as a borehole in a bonus square. DO NOT build boreholes in bonus squares, you'll lose the bonus.

 

[Sisonpyh]

Civ 3 > all other Civ/firaxis titles. Especially CIV.

Funniest and most ******ed thing I ever heard.

 

[vyeh]

No, this is incorrect. A borehole will wipe out any bonuses. A borehole in a non-bonus square will give exactly the same production as a borehole in a bonus square. DO NOT build boreholes in bonus squares, you'll lose the bonus.

I'm playing SMAX (the Alien Crossfire Expansion). I do get the mineral and energy bonuses. The only bonus that is wiped out is the nutrient one.

 

[Empiremaker]

Use the unit Workshop

Collateral Damage- every unit in stack takes 3*Reactor damage

Healing out of base- Can heal in enemy territory- but 80% health cap

Social Enginering

Road movement in enemy territory allowed

Artillery Combat

Use the radical terraforming options

Viable ICS

Crawlers

Hurrying Secret Projects

Those are the main ones I can think of right now