101 ways SMAC/X is better than Civ4

[beetle]

My god, it's 2007, get over it! Your nineties computer is not going to hold out!

The complaint is that new model computer systems first available in October 2005 were not sufficient for a turn-based strategy game released in June 2006. If one’s timing was very poor, one could purchase a new Mac in May 2006 that would not meet the minimum specs for Civ4. Insisting on running Unix does amplify the decrepit state of the Firaxis development life cycle. Presumably, things were not this extremely bad for the Windows users!

If the turns are too delaying, you can weaken the graphics!

Even with the graphics set to the weakest level, a (Windows or Mac) machine that meets only the minimum required specifications (which is what the non-hardcore crowd has at best) results in interminable churn between turns.

I submit that it is less than honest for Firaxis to market to a mainstream audience. In significant ways, it would also be better if they did not bother with the Mac port at all.

 

[beetle]

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?

Trying to give credit where it is due, Civ4 allows some units to automatically have some abilities (like bombard and amphibious) but the workshop is so much more robust. I also like some of the abilities (like first strike and retreat) which SMAC lacks.

A Civ4 has to work long and hard to get even +30%. Moral in SMAC varies a unit from -16% to +50%.

A Civ4 unit always has a fixed number of hit points. SMAC has up to a 4x multiplier.

A Civ4 unit has the same attack and defensive value (plus modifiers) whereas it is common for Civ4 units to have strong attach and weak defense (or vice versa).

Civ4 boasts one unique unit per faction. A SMAC player can field multiple unique units.

I meant this post to be a mere “me too” but I think it warrants multiple reasons towards the count to 101. That will have to wait.

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.

Now there is a game I have not thought of in years! Thanks for the reminder that there are still some game developers that marginalize the Windows users!

 

[vyeh]

SMAC/X's special abilities are much more than the combat promotions of Civ4. E.g. superformers.

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...!

The factions are unique because of ideology. As such, they choose not to adopt a specific ideology (which can't be overridden by the player) and they choose specific ideologies (which can be overridden by the player). Since they all came from the Unity, it doesn't make sense that they can't build certain weapons, armor, buildings etc.

 

[idle]

What I would really like in Civ is that you have a type of unit, and as you progress up the tech tree, these units get better and better.

For example (note that these are not real values, and at least need to be balanced):

• Warrior (pre-metal melee), Str. 2, +50% vs. melee
• Spearman, Str. 2, +100% vs. mounted
• Chariot (mounted), Str. 2, +50% vs. melee
• Archer (ranged), Str. 2, +25% hills defence, city defence.

___

So, when you discover Bronze working you get higher strength (due to better weaponry) and new units:

• Axeman, str. 5, +10% vs. city attack
• Swordsmen, str. 5, +50% vs. melee
• Spearman, str. 4, +100 vs. mounted
• Archer, str. 4, +25% hills defence, city defence. (better arrowheads)

___

With horseback riding (and archery)

• Horse Archer, str. 5, (the bonuses of todays Civ4)

You could even introduce mounted spearmen (like horsemen in Civ3)
___

When Iron Working comes in, all units get a +1 str. bonus.

This would change when gunpowder comes in, but you could apply the same principle. Rifling is better than flintlocks, etc.

Plus, you could keep the current promotion system (with some tweaking).

(Note: the reason why I switched axemen and swordsmen is that it just feels wrong the way it is in Civ4 today - the swordsman is a better melee fighter than axemen, while the axeman are more of a (city) raider.

 

[Evil Twin]

The complaint is that new model computer systems first available in October 2005 were not sufficient for a turn-based strategy game released in June 2006. If one’s timing was very poor, one could purchase a new Mac in May 2006 that would not meet the minimum specs for Civ4. Insisting on running Unix does amplify the decrepit state of the Firaxis development life cycle. Presumably, things were not this extremely bad for the Windows users!

Good god, you're complaining about Macs?
To paraphrase something you can often say in Alpha Centauri, "your computer format is no longer significant".
You got the Betamax of computers. Deal with it. Either get a real comp or stop gibbering on about Civ 4 being unreasonably demanding.

 

[Evil Twin]

Since they all came from the Unity, it doesn't make sense that they can't build certain weapons, armor, buildings etc.

It would however make sense that as the decades passed the factions would come up with unique units. Gaians could have more biological type units to compliment their mind worms, Morgans could have tanks that serve as portable strip miners or something, etc.

.. besides, in Alien Crossfire, seeing the aliens running around with human style ships and tanks was just plain silly.

 

[beetle]

Since they all came from the Unity, it doesn't make sense that they can't build certain weapons, armor, buildings etc.

I agree in general. The Civ3/4 Unique Units is a poor substitute for the Workshop. But since not every integer value is used for attack and defense, there could be enough room for each faction to have a minor (single point strength) advantage at certain spots in the workshop. I don’t see room for unique chassis per faction, let alone unique land/air/sea units.

 

[Stexe]

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.

I really do not understand this post at all. I do feel that SMAC is better than Civ4, mainly because of the atmosphere and ingenuity of crafting units and such, but how does difficulty have anything to do with Civ4 being worse than SMAC?

You say that you think a game is a waste if you can't beat it at the hardest difficulty, why do you say that? If a game is "winnable" out of the box at the highest difficulty setting, there is no room for improvement or advancement. The game because boring and trite. The AI in Civ4 is actually good, while most of the AI in SMAC was pretty lame until patches came out (mass producing bombarding units), while even then the AI was pretty dumb.

I do not like how the difficulty in Civ4 games rely on giving bonuses to the computer, and not simply better playing, but that was the case with SMAC as well.

The highest difficulty of a game should be damn close to impossible, that way you can always strive to reach it and there is always ways to improve. If you can beat the highest difficulty consistantly (maybe not all the time but more than 50%), then I feel there is no reason to play the game anymore.

Want to explain your reasoning?

 

[Stexe]

The complaint is that new model computer systems first available in October 2005 were not sufficient for a turn-based strategy game released in June 2006. If one’s timing was very poor, one could purchase a new Mac in May 2006 that would not meet the minimum specs for Civ4. Insisting on running Unix does amplify the decrepit state of the Firaxis development life cycle. Presumably, things were not this extremely bad for the Windows users!



Even with the graphics set to the weakest level, a (Windows or Mac) machine that meets only the minimum required specifications (which is what the non-hardcore crowd has at best) results in interminable churn between turns.

I submit that it is less than honest for Firaxis to market to a mainstream audience. In significant ways, it would also be better if they did not bother with the Mac port at all.

I'm on a pretty old computer (read 5 years old) and I don't have that many problems with loading time for Civ4. Late game if I don't clear the cache and I have a large map going it can take a few min to load, but that's about it. The starting generation of a map takes me awhile, about 5 min (close to the entire intro narration), but it isn't that bad. I had a lot of loading problems with SMAC back in the day, especially late game when AI would run around in circles on magtubes for an entire minute.

 

[Lurking Liu]

My computer is not only ancient, but also a Dell. I win for the sucky computer department, alright? I have no problems playing Large Marathon maps in Civ4, not even with the multiple expansions. Your problem is that you're using a Mac. I'm not a PC-gamer who's going to piss all over the Mac and say it's a piece of crap, because it's not--Apple makes the best computers you could want... If you're doing real work on it. But if you want to play games, you get a gaming PC; not a Mac.

Regardless, as much as it pains me to do this, I have to agree with EvilTwin. Everyone hates the Believers, so why are you emulating them? SMAC's a great game, and ten years after the fact it's still as fresh as ever. It has its flaws, though. I'm not even talking graphically or audibly, because those are obviously going to suffer with a decade of advancement.

Some of the Social Engineering choices are just stupid. Free Market? Fundamentalism?

Ever wonder why Morgan, as AI or in the hands of a novice, gets beaten in 90% of the games? The factions are NOT balanced.

The Workshop, the single most innovative thing in the game in my opinon (as a devoted fan, mind you), is insufficient. Whoever said each faction is filled with unique units is smoking the doobies. Stop getting high, it's bad for you. Every faction has equal access to every unit, provided they get the tech. Moreover, what's the difference between an Impact Rover and a Chaos Rover except +2 strength? Nothing. Units get bigger over time, but that's it. What makes a Morganite Chaos Needlejet any different from a Believer one? These are *NOT* Unique Units.

You only need armor to defeat an attacker. What the hell is that? You can be armed with hand weapons but because you have Spidersilk Armor, you're an even match for someone with a Partical Impactor. Really? That's how it works? Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, scissors beat PARTICAL PROJECTING RANGED WEAPON? I understand why this is from a game-balance perspective (hasty attacks, Base Defense with Perimiters and Tachyon Fields, etc) but from the point of view of realism, this is worse than the spearman beating a tank because at least that only happens one in a million times, as opposed to roughly evenly. Needlejets don't even need armor, they can just attack until the cows come home because no one ever thinks to throw a freaking rock at it. A rifle can, if lucky, take down a Spitfire. In the future, why can't a Fusion Laser take down a 12/1 Needlejet?

There are flaws with SMAC just as there are with Civ4, they're both good games. Listening to people complain here reminds me of Weezer fans. No one hates Weezer quite like an old-school Weezer fan, and no one hates Weezer fans more than someone who bought Pinkerton.

 

[vyeh]

Some of the Social Engineering choices are just stupid. Free Market? Fundamentalism?

Stupid? Depends on the situation. If you're in buiding mode, that +1 energy per square can be very helpful.

Ever wonder why Morgan, as AI or in the hands of a novice, gets beaten in 90% of the games? The factions are NOT balanced.

Balanced is overrated. Having different factions which require different playing styles promotes greater playability. An expert player who has mastered PK, Uni might relsih the challenge of playing Morgan.

The Workshop, the single most innovative thing in the game in my opinon (as a devoted fan, mind you), is insufficient. Whoever said each faction is filled with unique units is smoking the doobies. Stop getting high, it's bad for you. Every faction has equal access to every unit, provided they get the tech. Moreover, what's the difference between an Impact Rover and a Chaos Rover except +2 strength? Nothing. Units get bigger over time, but that's it. What makes a Morganite Chaos Needlejet any different from a Believer one? These are *NOT* Unique Units.

I think every faction should have equal access to every unit. They all started on the Unity, they can actively probe other factions, and science, particularly advanced science, is an equalizer. While I can see a rationale for unique units among ancient people in the Civ series (monopoly over horses that can carry armored knights, a warrior culture developed over a thousand years), it is harder to see the different ideologies of SMAC leading to unique units over a span of 300 or 400 years (the game ends in 2400 or 2500 depending on the difficulty level).

You only need armor to defeat an attacker. What the hell is that? You can be armed with hand weapons but because you have Spidersilk Armor, you're an even match for someone with a Partical Impactor. Really? That's how it works? Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, scissors beat PARTICAL PROJECTING RANGED WEAPON? I understand why this is from a game-balance perspective (hasty attacks, Base Defense with Perimiters and Tachyon Fields, etc) but from the point of view of realism, this is worse than the spearman beating a tank because at least that only happens one in a million times, as opposed to roughly evenly. Needlejets don't even need armor, they can just attack until the cows come home because no one ever thinks to throw a freaking rock at it. A rifle can, if lucky, take down a Spitfire. In the future, why can't a Fusion Laser take down a 12/1 Needlejet?

On the one hand, you're arguing that it doesn't make sense for a heavily armored unit to beat a heavily armed attacker, but then you want needlejets to be heavily armored to beat a heavily armed attacker. It seems that needlejets are closest to Civ4, with effectively only one combat factor. The simple answer to you question, is that occasionally, when a 12/1 needlejet attacks a fusion laser (at 6-1) or vice versa (also at 6-1), the laser gets lucky. What really happens when the laser attacks the needlejet is that the needlejet pilot notices a laser is painting his aircraft and counterattacks the laser. He doesn't just let the armor bear the brunt of the laser.

There are flaws with SMAC just as there are with Civ4, they're both good games. Listening to people complain here reminds me of Weezer fans. No one hates Weezer quite like an old-school Weezer fan, and no one hates Weezer fans more than someone who bought Pinkerton.

You're free to complain about SMAC. We complain about the bugs and some want unique units, etc. If you don't want to listen to people complain, you can simply avoid this thread in the future.

 

[Lurking Liu]

It's not so much the complaining that sets me off as the self-assured, nearly circle-jerk fashion in which this thread has been conducted up to this point.

 

[The_Reckoning]

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?

Actually, it would make more sense if units developed a PSI resistance after fighting mindworms. What doesn't make sense is how you can have units better at defending a city after, say, killing some lions.

 

[Flygon]

I can list one way SMAC/X is better then Civ 4.

I can sell my copy for $100 on E-Bay.

 

[beetle]

Sorry to be so tardy about getting back to this post, I kept procrastinating unit I had time to respond properly. Well, that is obviously not happening, so this is still off the cuff.

I really do not understand this post at all. I do feel that SMAC is better than Civ4, mainly because of the atmosphere and ingenuity of crafting units and such, but how does difficulty have anything to do with Civ4 being worse than SMAC?

I think I honest in that is something of a pet peeve. None of the Civilization games prior to III were unplayable at the highest difficulty settings, so my expectations inherited from that. It comes down to having certain expectations, like play testing, for basic quality assurance. I only had modest hope that IV would improve from III; it is keeping with Firaxis tradition to repeat bad design choices in an effort to repudiate deep flaws.

You say that you think a game is a waste if you can't beat it at the hardest difficulty, why do you say that?

I only feel this way about certain genres. Certainly if a game has a difficulty setting labeled “impossible” then I feel no ill will when I loose playing!

If a game is “winnable” out of the box at the highest difficulty setting, there is no room for improvement or advancement. The game [becomes] boring and trite.

You are mistaken, at least for complex games, although there is something to your point in general. Suppose Civ3 and 4 were too easy at the most difficulty setting. The AIs can be allied. There has to be dozen other ways to make the game harder.

The AI in Civ4 is actually good, while most of the AI in SMAC was pretty lame until patches came out (mass producing bombarding units), while even then the AI was pretty dumb.

I have no objection to the AI outsmarting me. I find no evidence, not even antidotal, that the AI gets smarter as the difficulty level increases. You seen to acknowledge this in your next statement.

I do not like how the difficulty in Civ4 games rely on giving bonuses to the computer, and not simply better playing, but that was the case with SMAC as well.

I believe the faction AI become more difficult to placate as the difficulty increases. The main adjustment in SMAC is how much (or how little) the AI must work to keep its citizens happy. This mechanic alone was enough to provide a full range of game play, without making the easiest level trivial or the hardest impossible.

The highest difficulty of a game should be damn close to impossible, that way you can always strive to reach it and there is always ways to improve.

Obviously we disagree. I think evidence is on my side as I think it fair to characterize most games as generally having three levels (easy/normal/hard) and if there is an extremely difficult level, it is named such.

If you can beat the highest difficulty consistantly (maybe not all the time but more than 50%), then I feel there is no reason to play the game anymore.

This is one of the more compelling aspects of SMAC. Even after one can beat it consistently, there continues to be ways to keep it interesting. The designers of Civ3 could not guarantee this, so they merely made the hardest levels impossible. CFC GOTM filled in the void.

Want to explain your reasoning?

Well, is this enough for you? The biggest thing that stuck in my craw was feeling like I was a beta tester who paid full price for the privilege. Firaxis admitted only paying attention to the play balance of the medium setting. Patch after patch tweaked down the extremes of play at the other levels, but to this day the most difficult setting remains impossible (except for certain gimmick maps).

 

[The_Reckoning]

Look beetle, your problem with the hardest difficulty being too hard is ******ed. It's like complaining that the loudest setting on your speakers is too loud, because you like the feeling of turning it on full blast. Or saying the top speed of your car is too fast, and therefore it's an inferior car.

I totally agree, though, if you mean that they should put more work into AI rather than giving them bonuses. But Civ4 is better than SMAC in this respect. I mean, look on the forums! There are mods for massive boosts to the AI's faction bonuses, to make it harder. That's exactly what the highest levels on Civ4 do, and the mods prove that people want that option.

 

[beetle]

Look beetle, your problem with the hardest difficulty being too hard is ******ed.

I though I was pretty articulate. My problem is with: (1) the hardest difficulty being impossible; (2) impossible levels not being labeled as such; and (3) working out the game balance after shipping rather than in play testing.

I totally agree, though, if you mean that they should put more work into AI rather than giving them bonuses.

This is part (4) of why this is my biggest reason why SMACX is better than Civ3/4. If it had been corrected between Civ3 and Civ4, I might have forgiven all the other flaws.

But Civ4 is better than SMAC in this respect. I mean, look on the forums! There are mods for massive boosts to the AI's faction bonuses, to make it harder. That's exactly what the highest levels on Civ4 do, and the mods prove that people want that option.

Your assertion is wrong at least two different ways. People are not getting much play value out of Civ3/4 because of the higher difficulty levels! It is the variety of mods and scenarios, the difficulty setting throughout which people tend to leave static.

The longevity value of SMACX is well demonstrated, so this cannot be counted much of a flaw. (People may be playing Civ5 or 6 in ten years, but I doubt that Civ4 fans will be as active then as SMACX fans are now.) The flexibility of SMACX mods also proves by demonstration that out-of-box extreme (let alone impossible) difficulty levels are not necessary for a game to be successful.

Please name two 4X games (besides Civ3/4) that have impossible difficulty settings. Please name even one (besides Civ3/4) that has the impossible level with a misleading label.

 

[The_Reckoning]

If it's impossible for you, then it's your own problem. It's merely an option. They're not forcing you to play it. It in itself cannot be construed as a bad thing, unless you argue the angle that they could hav put dev. time into something else.

 

[beetle]

If it's impossible for you, then it's your own problem.

The upper levels of Civ3/4 are impossible for everyone not just me. Have you played the game? Have you read the Civ3/4 forums at all?

It's merely an option.

There is some truth to that, but I think I have laid out a fairly objective and convincing case that, at least in the case of Civ3/4, it is just poor design.

 

[beetle]

I can list one way SMAC/X is better then Civ 4. I can sell my copy for $100 on E-Bay.

LOL, how much does a Civ3 disc go for nowadays?