Civ3 or SMAC?
- Thread starter Paalikles
- Start date
spycatcher34
Emperor
SMAC. The Graphics may suck but it is a solid game. Civ3 has too many problems and just isnt as easy to get in to. 
I think that civ 3 had alot of potential, but they left out sooo many things that would've made it better. For example the SMAC government system, that was awsome. Also in SMAC unit upgrades and training meant alot more. While in civ 3 it doesnt mean enough. ie. i attacked a roman legion with 3 hp, with my cavalry with 5 hp elite, AND LOST!!! The battle occured on open ground too... I think that SMAC has less chance and luck involved in combat than civ 3.
soo... i'll have to say SMAC all the way!!!
soo... i'll have to say SMAC all the way!!!
)player2
Chieftain
The Civ3 AI wins, hands down, and to me that's the most important factor. SMAC was quite dull to the senses; it was visually quite ugly, and the music/sounds didn't draw me in like the previous civs did. SMAC was more complicated and user responsive, which is good for hardcore civers who don't mind the steep learning curve, but it was too tedious for new civers to really get into.
Others have complained about Civ3 being bug ridden, but SMAC was worse when it was first released. The only shining attribute for SMAC was it's inherent MP capability, as I'm a bit irritated at having to pay extra for MP capability in Civ3.
Others have complained about Civ3 being bug ridden, but SMAC was worse when it was first released. The only shining attribute for SMAC was it's inherent MP capability, as I'm a bit irritated at having to pay extra for MP capability in Civ3.
Frodo Bolson
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2001
- Messages
- 120
Alpha Centauri is too much better than any of the other Civilization related games... I could mention the factions, the diplomatic interface (including the global politics), the psi attack of the mind worms (wich would be the equivalent of the barbarians), the posibility to create personalized units, the game achievements in the place of that boring palace, the land aspect (you see a real montain, not a square that says it is a mountain), the background history, etc.
ulik_kel_droma
Chieftain
SMAC was an almost perfect game. I was totally immersed in it. You had so much versatility. The AI was highly engaging if not realistic. The diplomatic options alone make it a better game than Civ3. I am totally lost in a game of SMAC. While I get lost in Civ3 I feel regret. That my time could have been better spent. I feel that the downfall of Civ3 is lack of diplomacy options and taking a step back in advancements made in SMAC. One such instance is upgrading your units. I find it rather redundant to track down every unit you wish to upgrade instead of having one button take care of that unit type. I feel more and more that I should remove Civ3 from my computer and return Alpha Centauri to it's former function. As the time consuming enjoyable experience it has always been.
so inshort .... civ3 is pretty?? ... that makes stratigy games sooo much better
the civ3 AI is better because .... it cheats more? ..... the individual AI doesnt care if IT wins ... rather than that u lose? ... the AI in AC looked after number 1 ... it ... the AI in AC knew if it was getting flogged ... and would beg for your mercy
and i cant think of any bugs in AC that stopped u from completing the game?? ... do tell please?
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
Ummm...you do have that in Civ3. Try selecting the unit you wish to upgrade and press Shift-U.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
I personally think Smac is better, but only because its faster. If they could improve that in Civ3, then I'd actually play it.
But on a side note, Lefty told people not to post these, which was an order from the top of the food chain, so dont be suprised if it gets locked by someone.
But on a side note, Lefty told people not to post these, which was an order from the top of the food chain, so dont be suprised if it gets locked by someone.
Gonadacles
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Messages
- 2
Overall SMAC is a much more enjoyable game primarily because it's actually possible to work to a non-conquest win on just about any map. Civ3 gives you that illusion, but in reality the only way to consistantly win in Civ3 seems to be as a total warmonger.
When I first started playing Civ3 I was very puzzled that it seemed like warmongering was the only sure way to win and I couldn't figure out why that was the case. After getting very bored with Civ3 and going back to SMAC for a while I finally figured out why Civ3 doesn' have the depth that SMAC does: the combat system is heavily biased towards attackers (in comparison to a more balanced SMAC approach).
1) Early mobile units don't have multiple attacks in Civ3. The rover unit in SMAC was so powerful because you could either reach out an touch someone OR stay where you were and attack adjacent enemies twice (if you lived that is). A couple of rovers and a defensive unit could counter-balance a very large attacking army. In Civ3 your mobile units are just faster, which is useful but doesn't lend itself as well to a defensive strategy.
2) In Civ3 conquering the last unit in a square advances the winning unit into that square. Again this is a big strike against defenders since a unit advanced is essentially a unit killed. (Because the weakened unit is now exposed to further counter attack.) In SMAC you can't enter a square unless you kill what's in there and then expend the movement to enter. In SMAC garrisoning an attack unit in your city made sense, in Civ3 you're better off sending that unit out into the field.
Both of these differences meant a defender with relatively few units had a much better chance against a stronger attacker. So why does it matter? Being able to play a defensive military strategy in SMAC made winning by means other than conquering a realistic goal on almost any map. In Civ3, if you're on a land mass with ANYONE else it seems you're much better off killing everything in sight.
When I first started playing Civ3 I was very puzzled that it seemed like warmongering was the only sure way to win and I couldn't figure out why that was the case. After getting very bored with Civ3 and going back to SMAC for a while I finally figured out why Civ3 doesn' have the depth that SMAC does: the combat system is heavily biased towards attackers (in comparison to a more balanced SMAC approach).
1) Early mobile units don't have multiple attacks in Civ3. The rover unit in SMAC was so powerful because you could either reach out an touch someone OR stay where you were and attack adjacent enemies twice (if you lived that is). A couple of rovers and a defensive unit could counter-balance a very large attacking army. In Civ3 your mobile units are just faster, which is useful but doesn't lend itself as well to a defensive strategy.
2) In Civ3 conquering the last unit in a square advances the winning unit into that square. Again this is a big strike against defenders since a unit advanced is essentially a unit killed. (Because the weakened unit is now exposed to further counter attack.) In SMAC you can't enter a square unless you kill what's in there and then expend the movement to enter. In SMAC garrisoning an attack unit in your city made sense, in Civ3 you're better off sending that unit out into the field.
Both of these differences meant a defender with relatively few units had a much better chance against a stronger attacker. So why does it matter? Being able to play a defensive military strategy in SMAC made winning by means other than conquering a realistic goal on almost any map. In Civ3, if you're on a land mass with ANYONE else it seems you're much better off killing everything in sight.
I voted for SMAC although I've never played it. Although Civ3 is much better with the latest patch, it still lacks the one more turn feeling of Civ1 and Civ2. I've gathered that SMAC is a more immersive experience from those who also find Civ3 to be lacking, so I plan to give it a try shortly.
and that pleases the masses :'(Ogie Oglethorpe
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2002
- Messages
- 27
Smac = Gameplay, intricacies, strategy, diplomacy, more governments, more units (customizable), more faction personality, immersability, OTOH complex so learning curve is high. (back when released there was so much forum activity around SMAC that learning the game was fairly easy. Now adays newcomers have to kinna fend for themselves so the learning curve now is much greater than when initially resleased)
Civ3 = Eye candy, great starter game for those who are new to the CIV genre, some attempts at new game features culture and resources (each of which are of questionable implementation).
Each have some merits but without question my fav is SMAC.
P.S. For any of those who have interest in taking up SMAC, feel free to post question etc. in the forum they will be answered.
PPS. Selous below. I agree long timers used to CIV concpets will find the learning curve relatively short. OTOH newcomers with no CIV backaground will prolly be extremely daunted as IMHo SMAC is the most complex of the CIV-like offereings to date.
PPPS. Interestingthat the comments and polls show SMAC doing so well. I fully expected in a CIV forum that SMAC would fared miserably. Although CIV3 leads in this polling I think the results show very favorably for SMAC (considering the forum the poll was placed in).
Civ3 = Eye candy, great starter game for those who are new to the CIV genre, some attempts at new game features culture and resources (each of which are of questionable implementation).
Each have some merits but without question my fav is SMAC.
P.S. For any of those who have interest in taking up SMAC, feel free to post question etc. in the forum they will be answered.
PPS. Selous below. I agree long timers used to CIV concpets will find the learning curve relatively short. OTOH newcomers with no CIV backaground will prolly be extremely daunted as IMHo SMAC is the most complex of the CIV-like offereings to date.
PPPS. Interestingthat the comments and polls show SMAC doing so well. I fully expected in a CIV forum that SMAC would fared miserably. Although CIV3 leads in this polling I think the results show very favorably for SMAC (considering the forum the poll was placed in).
so for any fan of civ2 would have no real problem adaptingd3dash
Lord of the Dust Mites
I would have to say I like features from both of them.
One thing I do say for Civ3 is the graphics are alot better, now alot of you say that graphics don't mean squat, but I disagree. I could go play stars wich is a text based stratagy, but it doesn't draw me into it the same way.
I haven't played SMAC too much, but I like the diplo model, and the natural wonders and so on.
I think with the XP of CIV3 if they include real scenario ability ala civ2, then the votes will go toward civ3, but as it stands now, the my vote leans more toward SMAC.
Civ3 has soooooo much potential, and if XP includes alot of what people are hopeing it will then Civ3 will be amazing.
I just hope they listen to us.
P.S. Civ3 is not a war game, no more than real life is a war game.
One thing I do say for Civ3 is the graphics are alot better, now alot of you say that graphics don't mean squat, but I disagree. I could go play stars wich is a text based stratagy, but it doesn't draw me into it the same way.
I haven't played SMAC too much, but I like the diplo model, and the natural wonders and so on.
I think with the XP of CIV3 if they include real scenario ability ala civ2, then the votes will go toward civ3, but as it stands now, the my vote leans more toward SMAC.
Civ3 has soooooo much potential, and if XP includes alot of what people are hopeing it will then Civ3 will be amazing.
I just hope they listen to us.
P.S. Civ3 is not a war game, no more than real life is a war game.
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
In totally non-relative terms, SMAC is the best civ-type game. Atmospherically speaking, it is a masterpiece, and the game itslef is very thoughtful.
After that, I would put call to power 2, which is superior to civ3 in many respects: combat system, editor, number of civs, etc.
Then I would say civ3, a very lazilly put together game. Apart from the diplomatic options and few other things, it is inferior to the other two despite having the opportunity provided by time to improve upon them both.
However, because the average Joe doesn't bother to interest or involve himself in games which don't have a big name, civ3 is more popular and will make lots more money.
After that, I would put call to power 2, which is superior to civ3 in many respects: combat system, editor, number of civs, etc.
Then I would say civ3, a very lazilly put together game. Apart from the diplomatic options and few other things, it is inferior to the other two despite having the opportunity provided by time to improve upon them both.
However, because the average Joe doesn't bother to interest or involve himself in games which don't have a big name, civ3 is more popular and will make lots more money.
Similar threads
