101 ways SMAC/X is better than Civ4

[beetle]

I do not know if we really can get to over a hundred, but it will be fun to try!

I suggest one reason per post, and a new Title (starting with the new number) each time you think of something.

Use the ”Go Advance” button to get the option to add a title.

 

[beetle]

Okay, this might seem petty. But it is the number one reason I felt sick to my stomach for shelling out early for Civ 3. I do not play many games, and certainly I do not feel the least bad about not being at the highest level of play with any of them. But Civ 2 and SMAC/X were different.

At the highest difficulty setting, I would not win all the time, but it was challenging, and I didn’t need to rely on exploits. And yeah, it is a game, so playing is the main thing, but if I cannot win at the most difficult setting, I feel like I am wasting my time. (Which no doubt I am, but I hardly need the game to throw that in my face!)

I am not the only one who feels this way, it was a frequent complaint about Civ3. Amazingly, the problem was only partially corrected in Civ4. It makes no sense, since SMAC/X had the balance right. And if SMAC/X was too easy for you, there were lots of ways to buff it up. Making the game unwinnable out of the box at the highest difficulty setting is the wrong way to go. It is not the main thing stopping me from buying Civ4, but it is the biggest disappointment for me.

 

[beetle]

Like some guys said above, AC was indeed advanced. Even Civ 4 have many features that Alpha Centauri still did better. Civics, for example. They were even more important in AC.

SMAC has a 4x4 grid for SE and Civ4 a 5x5 for Civics. (Civ3 omitted this feature entirely.) So Sid finally got it right, right? Wrong!

For the most part, the Civics progress. That is, the most recent choice is almost better than the ones that came before, and this is true in each of the five categories. (There are exceptions, but they tend to be isolated and time limited.)

The Civics are all universally positive, varying only in how much upkeep (money) they require. The Civics in one category have little relation with those in another. (There are some combinations that result in minor synergy.) The leaders will mention civic choices in dialogs and there is small influence on relations, but this effect is incidental compared to the effect on your society, so that aspect only very rarely influences a player’s choice.

Now, compare this to SMAC were SE is really at the core of the game.

Each choice, beyond the most primitive, has a negative aspect. A player makes choices across categories to balance effects. SE choices often reflect the core style of play (builder versus war monger versus tech pursuit). The wise player will also make SE choices to influence AI personalities, who will declare war for this reason alone!

 

[Sanctum]

It had to be said. But yeah, in SMAC it takes a second to generate a new game and right after clicking the 'end turn' button, you'd be in the next turn. In civ 4 it takes like 10 minutes to generate a game and depending on the age, sometimes a few minutes to end a turn.

 

[beetle]

003: You [Don’t] Need a Super Computer to Play it!

You’ve hit upon the main reason I have not wasted my money (and huge amounts of time) with Civ4! The system requirements are insane. The best PowerBook Apple ever sold does not meet the minimum recommended specs!

From the chatter on game forums, one might think that most people buy computers just to play games, but that is actually minority behavior. It makes a little sense for people hooked on the latest 3D shooter, or even virtual immersive environments like WoW. But a turn based strategy game?

And why not offer a mode that provides the interesting game play without the distracting eye candy? Civ4 would be just as strong (or is it just as weak) with Civ2 2D tiles. I can think of only two reasons: vanity or incompetence, probably both.

Vanity: The developers will allow only a visually beautiful game to have their name on it. They are willing to limit their market to a quarter of its potential size in the name of ensuring the play experience is up to designers artistic standards. (Is Firaxis publicly held? The choices do not seem fiscally prudent to me.) Only the ”right people” get to play Civ4. If Firaxis made money from the sale of video cards, this strategy could be defended. (Maybe Sid is heavily invested in ATI and nVidia?)

Incompetence: Civ4 is hugely bloated (2+ GB!) and slow because the developers cannot do better than that. The latest hardware makes up for the sloppy programming. This is actually a very common trend with contemporary software. Some days I miss the 640K limitation!

 

[mrwhite89]

I always loved that not only could the formers lay down farms and mines, but that they could raise and lower the land which could alter the terrain from arid to rainy and vice versa. In Civ4, the land is how it lays.

 

[vyeh]

The AI's care about ideology. There is a big difference talking to Yang and talking to Morgan.

It makes a little sense for people hooked on the latest 3D shooter, or even virtual immersive environments like WoW. But a turn based strategy game?

And why not offer a mode that provides the interesting game play without the distracting eye candy? Civ4 would be just as strong (or is it just as weak) with Civ2 2D tiles. I can think of only two reasons: vanity or incompetence, probably both.

Vanity: The developers will allow only a visually beautiful game to have their name on it. They are willing to limit their market to a quarter of its potential size in the name of ensuring the play experience is up to designers artistic standards. (Is Firaxis publicly held? The choices do not seem fiscally prudent to me.) Only the ”right people” get to play Civ4. If Firaxis made money from the sale of video cards, this strategy could be defended. (Maybe Sid is heavily invested in ATI and nVidia?)

Incompetence: Civ4 is hugely bloated (2+ GB!) and slow because the developers cannot do better than that. The latest hardware makes up for the sloppy programming. This is actually a very common trend with contemporary software. Some days I miss the 640K limitation!

It would have been nice if we could have had the choice of static eye candy (I think the reason for the hughe system requirements is to have waves, etc.) and be able to run Civ 4 on an older computer.

This would have required alternate graphics or someway to stop the waves.

Since Civ 4 is the best selling game, I don't think Firaxis is concerned about the lost market.

 

[beetle]

Since Civ 4 is the best selling game, I don't think Firaxis is concerned about the lost market.

Consider what percentage of families have computer now as compared to when Civ2 came out.

Sure, Civ4 is quite successful, but I maintain that it would sell more and/or not cause as much heart ache if it had more modest requirements. (And since it is a turn-based strategy game, the over-the top specs are really inexcuseable.) The game mechanics have been dumbed down enough for mass appeal, one would have thought the hardware requirements would have been similarly constrained.

 

[vyeh]

The game mechanics have been dumbed down enough for mass appeal, one would have thought the hardware requirements would have been similarly constrained.

The dumber the game, the more important CPU intensive eye candy is.

 

[beetle]

The dumber the game, the more important CPU intensive eye candy is.

LOL. That is actually a good observation!

 

[Evil Twin]

My god. Would you all like some cheese to go with your whine?
First of all if any of you had actually played Civ IV you'd know it has graphical and resolution options that improve performance.

Secondly.. you're all raging hypocrites. Yeah it needs a better PC than Alpha Centauri. Well guess what? My old 80486sx with a whopping 8mb of RAM can play Civilization and Civ II just fine. Can it play Alpha Centauri? No!
Oh my god Alpha Centauri is a bloated graphic whore game made by vain incompitent developers!
Or, you know, not. Get off your high horses before you fall off.

 

[beetle]

My god. Would you all like some cheese to go with your whine?

Thanks for bringing the cheese!

First of all if any of you had actually played Civ IV…

I have played Civ IV. The disappointment inspired me to start this thread.

…you'd know it has graphical and resolution options that improve performance.

I only got to try it with the minimal graphics settings. The eye candy is distracting, adds almost nothing to the play value after first impressions, and bog down performance. All for a turned base tile game? It makes no sense. There is no option to disable all the nonsense.

Secondly.. you're all raging hypocrites.

That word does not mean what I think you think it means.

Yeah it needs a better PC than Alpha Centauri. Well guess what? My old 80486sx with a whopping 8mb of RAM can play Civilization and Civ II just fine. Can it play Alpha Centauri? No! Oh my god Alpha Centauri is a bloated graphic whore game made by vain incompitent developers!

Alpha Centauri played fine on contemporary computers available at the time it was released.

Or, you know, not. Get off your high horses before you fall off.

The bloated hardware requirements is one item out of a hundred things that are weak with Civ 4. If the Civ4 game mechanics had caught up to what we had ten years ago with SMAC, there would be less complaining about a turned based strategy game being a year (two for laptops) ahead of basic business machines in order to be useable. I understand there are are serious gamer types who constantly upgrade their computers just to play the latest, but the Civilization series has never been in that category and is attractive to a wider audience. It is clear that the developers put their interests (the 3d globe model) ahead of customers (meaningful civics, AI personalities).

 

[vyeh]

Moderator, Evil_Twin is starting a flame war.

 

[Evil Twin]

Alpha Centauri played fine on contemporary computers available at the time it was released.

So does Civ IV. It's not Firaxis' problem if you insist on using some steam-powered computer from a decade ago to play modern games.

 

[beetle]

I think vyeh may be correct, that Evil Twin is just trolling. At the very least, Evil Twin is mistaken. Civ4 did not play fine on contemporary computers available at the time it was released.

So does Civ IV. It's not Firaxis' problem if you insist on using some steam-powered computer from a decade ago to play modern games.

Even Wikipedia mentions the problem! The issue on the Mac side of the house was worse, CFC went so far as to characterise the requirements as “insane”. The month (June 2006) Civ4 for Mac shipped coincided with Intel Core Mac Mini and portables becoming available. For the majority of folks, in order to play Civ4 as advertised, they needed a new computer!

 

[idle]

I still can't play maps bigger than Standard in Civ4, and I couldn't play Civ3 on max settings when it came out either.

But I think you're wrong about how important the fancy graphics are for Civ4. You see, if Civ4 had simple graphics (like Civ2 for example) only the hardcore strategy players would buy it. The market would be minimal. Let's face it, the 3D graphics bring in the crowd, even if the graphics aren't top of the line. At least the younger players would probably not go for it, and so an important group for the future of both the Civ series and turn based strategy in general would be in jeopardy. "Recruiting" new strategy gamers is vital for the survival of the genre. Then again, maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on this.

That said, the game isn't exactly streamlined and optimized, even if it's gotten better with the two expansions. There's a bit of a lag after you press a command for the animations to finish, and this adds up to quite a bit of waiting in a turn of warfare.

I love SMAC and would love a second version, but I'm not sure EA would allow this to happen.

 

[beetle]

I played Civ4 using a borrowed copy. I bought Civ3 early, and vowed not to be taken for ride by Firaxis again!

But I think you're wrong about how important the fancy graphics are for Civ4. You see, if Civ4 had simple graphics (like Civ2 for example) only the hardcore strategy players would buy it.

The hardcore strategy players have only passing interest in Civ4, it is too simple. The graphics were important for impressing reviewers and hardcore (FPS/MMORP) gamers (the ones that keep with the latest video cards). The buzz and the flash did provide mass appeal.

The market would be minimal. Let's face it, the 3D graphics bring in the crowd, even if the graphics aren't top of the line. At least the younger players would probably not go for it, and so an important group for the future of both the Civ series and turn based strategy in general would be in jeopardy. "Recruiting" new strategy gamers is vital for the survival of the genre. Then again, maybe I'm putting too much emphasis on this.

I do not disagree with you. The Civilization series has broad attraction, including the more casual gamers. These folks raised a bit of a ruckus at the Civ4 launch, as well they should have: they were the targeted market, but their computers were typically not sufficient. Frankly, I think Firaxis got off easy in not catching more grief than they did.

That said, the game isn't exactly streamlined and optimized, even if it's gotten better with the two expansions. There's a bit of a lag after you press a command for the animations to finish, and this adds up to quite a bit of waiting in a turn of warfare.

Owing to Windows malware (and the general lack of mainstream user sophistication), these causal users have little choice but to upgrade their computers every two years! So they should be good to play Civ4 now.

 

[Slaughter]

Frankly, I see when people are right complaing about uber l33t graphix, but this time I don't think it's right. My god, it's 2007, get over it! Your nineties computer is not going to hold out! Buy a computer and get over it! If the turns are too delaying, you can weaken the graphics! Ah, please...

 

[vyeh]

In Civ4 there is the promotion system which allows units to be specialized. in SMAC there is a unit workshop which allows units to be specialized. Does it make sense that units have to go through combat to learn how to defend city walls?

The Civilization series has broad attraction, including the more casual gamers. These folks raised a bit of a ruckus at the Civ4 launch, as well they should have: they were the targeted market, but their computers were typically not sufficient. Frankly, I think Firaxis got off easy in not catching more grief than they did.



Owing to Windows malware (and the general lack of mainstream user sophistication), these causal users have little choice but to upgrade their computers every two years! So they should be good to play Civ4 now.

The mass market likes eye candy and dumb down strategy. Who are we to complain? There's always SMAC.

I also like Spaceward Ho! it is a good strategy based game with a different philosophy than SMAC. It has simple rules, a very clean interface and no bugs.

 

[Slaughter]

In Civ4 there is the promotion system which allows units to be specialized. in SMAC there is a unit workshop which allows units to be specialized. Does it make sense that units have to go through combat to learn how to defend city walls?

I kinda like the promotions. Combined with the workshop that SMAC have, I think we could have more interesting combats and such.

Also, I would like to see that each faction in a future SMAC 2 has Unique Weapons, Unique Armors, Unique Buildings, Unique Chassises, Unique Promotions and Unique Abilities for each faction!
I would love even more distinctions between each faction so, that in a certain way NO FACTION IS EQUAL TO THE OTHER, but the game can still be fair for all of them! I think the original Alpha Centauri archieved a good lot of distinction and fairness, and each faction is good and unique:

Gains are ecollogical and get mind worms and efficient grow, bessides good fungus.

Believers are great warmongers but got slow research and are a little bad in ecollogy!

Morganites are bad war mongers, but playing well, you can become easily rich! And you have to watch out for the Gaians!

Spartans are the ultimate warmongers. Build a army and crush someone, it's what are you good with!

Peacekeepers aren't champions of efficiency, but can use the planetary concil to their liking, got extra talents and a bigger city early limit!

The University got big ethnical and security problems, but they can easily walk over anyone with better weapons than anyone else!

The Hive does get some economic problems, but with growth and industry and a immunity to the penalties of planed economies and police states, you can have a nicely industrial police state with booming growth!