Wodan
Deity
If you haven't played SMAC, then don't vote of course.
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Is CivIV better than SMAC?
- Thread starter Wodan
- Start date
Wodan
Deity
Ugh why?
When I first got SMAC the "perspective" terrain really threw me. But, it grew on me.
I also liked the personalities of the leaders.
The artillery system was better than Civ3 and better than Civ4. Not saying it ws perfect, but its flaws were better than Civ's flaws.
I also liked how the "barbarians" got worse as the game went along (In Civ they get easier).
Wodan
When I first got SMAC the "perspective" terrain really threw me. But, it grew on me.
I also liked the personalities of the leaders.
The artillery system was better than Civ3 and better than Civ4. Not saying it ws perfect, but its flaws were better than Civ's flaws.
I also liked how the "barbarians" got worse as the game went along (In Civ they get easier).
Wodan
AfterShafter
Deity
Tough to say. I'd still say that SMAC was superior in more than a few ways... The inclusion of borders, culture, religion, great people, and the resource system are nothing to scoff at though (and probably a few things I'm forgetting too).
The single thing which I miss most about SMAC though, and which I felt added so much to the game, was the breadth of the tech tree. You could go through the entire game ignoring almost complete branches of the tech tree. As a result, by the end of things, you could have a few civs facing off which had completely different technology bases by the end of the game. In Civ, everyone ends up doing pretty much the same thing, and you can only get so far away before you'll end up researching the same thing as other people. Civ IV took a huge step towards allowing distinction, but the subject material binds it to some degree, in a way that SMAC's doesn't.
Very tough call between them... I'd almost call it a draw.
The single thing which I miss most about SMAC though, and which I felt added so much to the game, was the breadth of the tech tree. You could go through the entire game ignoring almost complete branches of the tech tree. As a result, by the end of things, you could have a few civs facing off which had completely different technology bases by the end of the game. In Civ, everyone ends up doing pretty much the same thing, and you can only get so far away before you'll end up researching the same thing as other people. Civ IV took a huge step towards allowing distinction, but the subject material binds it to some degree, in a way that SMAC's doesn't.
Very tough call between them... I'd almost call it a draw.
It's hard to say, since I realy do love CIV, but "No, SMAC is better in all ways"
Every single change, or twist seems/feels like a knock off from SMAC
Why don't they do a remake of SMAC or SMAC CIV style, that'd be fun
for example :
that's my 2 cents
Every single change, or twist seems/feels like a knock off from SMAC
Why don't they do a remake of SMAC or SMAC CIV style, that'd be fun
for example :
- SMAC doesn't realy work with a timer, that you're bound to reach when you're at your peak
- instead they implemented a larger time, and a race to ascention
- SMAC has a beter balanced diplomacy menu (you can go and do the same things as the oppent)
- when an enemy or friend capitulates to you in SMAC, you've got a reason to accept since it's worth something (gold, maps, tech, troops)
- in SMAC you're also able to raise the ground, and by that means connect islands to the mainland, or create shortcuts (kinda the reversed thing of digging a canal)
- a nuke in SMAC leaves a hole in the ground and no more city, CIV just halfs the population and polutes the suroundings (which are way to easy to clean up)
- SMAC allows you to set what the cities building priorities are (explore, discover, build, conquer) , CIV allows you to have automate it trough a governor, but can't cope with your needs (building & troops)
- SMAC has been released in 1999, and still amases me today, on how good the gameplay is
that's my 2 cents
Alpha Centauri was admirable in many technical/feature areas, but I got bored with it fairly early. Even though it had features that Civ4 still doesn't have, I didn't feel it had nearly as much replay value as Civ4 does. And my impression was that customizable units sound better in theory than they were in implementation... everything ends up being generic and a little silly-looking. Had some darn cool concepts, though. I'd certainly like to see an updated version using the Gamebryo engine.
Panda
Metal head
SMAC was great when it came out, and I would buy an update of it. But I won't give up Civ4 for SMAC.
marioflag
History Addict
The simple fact that there are people like me which sometimes has the need to play a game of 7 years ago with that crappy graphic says anything in my opinion.
CIV4 is the best game i have played in the last 4-5 years and this sequel is a lot better than what CIV3 was but it is not comparable to the greatness of SMAC.
First of all SMAC has 7 years today but it has a lot of features which a game like CIV4 hasn't.
-In SMAC you had only 7 factions while in CIV4 you have 18 civs but SMAC factions and leaders had a lot more personality than in CIV4.Montezuma can be a big bastard but i will never hate him like i hated Sister Miriam, I have never felt again the same joy when i burned all the cities of the believers.
Morgan,Pravin Lal,Sister Miriam,Colonel Santiago,Lady Deirdre,President Yang,Provost Zakharov have no comparison to Alexander,Montezuma,Julius Caesar and so on
-UN is not as good as Security council in SMAC.You could also bribe other civs to vote for what you wanted
-Mindworms were a serious danger also in later stages and frankly were more funny tha those barbs.In SMAC you could also capture these worms and use them as weapon
-Espionage was a lot better in SMAC than in any other CIV game
-SMAC was less politically correct than all civ game so you could use agents to do a genetic terrorist act,you could use nerve gas,kill scientist,try to create a war between civs things which are not in Civ4 and frankly all this features were really great
-vassal state was already implemented in SMAC while we had o wait for an expansion now
-wonders video of CIV4 are not comparable to that of SMAC whcih are the best i have seen in any game
-tech tree was longer
- Ascent to transcendence was really funny
-unit workshop is better than premade units but perhaps it's just my opinion
-the immersivity in SMAC was greater, there were some piece of narration in game, diplomacy view was really good with photos of leaders, and photos of HQ, some videos were narrated, and for every tech there was a good description,all the factions had a different architecture
-Atom Bombs were really atom bombs
Civ4 has a lot of new features like religion,maiteinance cost instead of corruption,GP,UU and a better graphic but to be honest we are speaking about 2 games which have 6 years of difference i could play SMAC if my memory deserve on my pentium 100mhz while today i,m playing with an AMD 3500 and except for graphic i haven,t seen so much new features which improve so much gameplay in comparison to SMAC.
Summarizing CIV4 is a great game probably the best game in the last years but if CIV4 is great SMAC is the greatest and was probably too much advanced for its time, if the high levels of SMAC were maintained today CIV4 should hav instead of 18 civs 50 civs with tons of units, tons of gameplay concepts.
Do you really think that CIV4 is so revolutionary like SMAC was for its time and you will be playing CIV4 in 2013?I'm sure you will not
CIV4 is the best game i have played in the last 4-5 years and this sequel is a lot better than what CIV3 was but it is not comparable to the greatness of SMAC.
First of all SMAC has 7 years today but it has a lot of features which a game like CIV4 hasn't.
-In SMAC you had only 7 factions while in CIV4 you have 18 civs but SMAC factions and leaders had a lot more personality than in CIV4.Montezuma can be a big bastard but i will never hate him like i hated Sister Miriam, I have never felt again the same joy when i burned all the cities of the believers.
Morgan,Pravin Lal,Sister Miriam,Colonel Santiago,Lady Deirdre,President Yang,Provost Zakharov have no comparison to Alexander,Montezuma,Julius Caesar and so on
-UN is not as good as Security council in SMAC.You could also bribe other civs to vote for what you wanted
-Mindworms were a serious danger also in later stages and frankly were more funny tha those barbs.In SMAC you could also capture these worms and use them as weapon
-Espionage was a lot better in SMAC than in any other CIV game
-SMAC was less politically correct than all civ game so you could use agents to do a genetic terrorist act,you could use nerve gas,kill scientist,try to create a war between civs things which are not in Civ4 and frankly all this features were really great
-vassal state was already implemented in SMAC while we had o wait for an expansion now
-wonders video of CIV4 are not comparable to that of SMAC whcih are the best i have seen in any game
-tech tree was longer
- Ascent to transcendence was really funny
-unit workshop is better than premade units but perhaps it's just my opinion
-the immersivity in SMAC was greater, there were some piece of narration in game, diplomacy view was really good with photos of leaders, and photos of HQ, some videos were narrated, and for every tech there was a good description,all the factions had a different architecture
-Atom Bombs were really atom bombs
Civ4 has a lot of new features like religion,maiteinance cost instead of corruption,GP,UU and a better graphic but to be honest we are speaking about 2 games which have 6 years of difference i could play SMAC if my memory deserve on my pentium 100mhz while today i,m playing with an AMD 3500 and except for graphic i haven,t seen so much new features which improve so much gameplay in comparison to SMAC.
Summarizing CIV4 is a great game probably the best game in the last years but if CIV4 is great SMAC is the greatest and was probably too much advanced for its time, if the high levels of SMAC were maintained today CIV4 should hav instead of 18 civs 50 civs with tons of units, tons of gameplay concepts.
Do you really think that CIV4 is so revolutionary like SMAC was for its time and you will be playing CIV4 in 2013?I'm sure you will not
MrCynical
Deity
I was never all that fond of SMAC, possibly because I'd already played Civ 2 and numerous modified versions of it a lot. SMAC never really felt like a complete new game in its own right, just like one of the larger mods for Civ 2. True it had a few good new features, but it also had immensely irritating ones like the design workshop. The attention to balance in the game also left a lot to be desired, as could be seen in the ridiculous levels of terraforming permitted.
I could see some arguments for SMAC being better than Civ 2, but all the features worth salvaging are now present in Civ 4. Also all the terrible ideas (or at least, terribly implemented ideas) like the design workshop are gone. I regard Civ 4 without question as better than SMAC.
I could see some arguments for SMAC being better than Civ 2, but all the features worth salvaging are now present in Civ 4. Also all the terrible ideas (or at least, terribly implemented ideas) like the design workshop are gone. I regard Civ 4 without question as better than SMAC.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,272
Oh yeah, leaders personnality were a-we-some !
There was the unit creation, and the worms that made the game much more dynamic. Plus you could choose how to deal with land in different ways by choosing the factions + techs. (I.E. you could have plenty forests or raze them)
In Civ 4 however, the religion is an interesting add for diplomacy. Culture victory is easier and deeper. The AI in Civ4 is more agressive, it really builds a lot of units so that you have to catch up with it every build is important.
I'm probably forgetting some things in both.
There was the unit creation, and the worms that made the game much more dynamic. Plus you could choose how to deal with land in different ways by choosing the factions + techs. (I.E. you could have plenty forests or raze them)
In Civ 4 however, the religion is an interesting add for diplomacy. Culture victory is easier and deeper. The AI in Civ4 is more agressive, it really builds a lot of units so that you have to catch up with it every build is important.
I'm probably forgetting some things in both.
Proteus
King
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 714
SMAC hat good things in it,
for example the ability to create your own units by choosing modules for weapons, propulsion etc.
(which IMHO could work for Civ IV, too, for example with: "Armor" (Bronze/Iron/Tank Armor...), "Weapons" (Sword, Musket/Rifle...), "Propulsion" (Foot, Mounted, Chariot, motorized...) with for example certain weapons and armors only be usable for certain types of propulsion; combined with the resource system it would IMHO make for a very interesting expansion of the original game)
and the terraforming-system of SMAC, which is better than Civ IV, with Hills affecting the fertility of the areas before and behind them etc.
But overall IMHO Civ IV can be considered to be the better system.
for example the ability to create your own units by choosing modules for weapons, propulsion etc.
(which IMHO could work for Civ IV, too, for example with: "Armor" (Bronze/Iron/Tank Armor...), "Weapons" (Sword, Musket/Rifle...), "Propulsion" (Foot, Mounted, Chariot, motorized...) with for example certain weapons and armors only be usable for certain types of propulsion; combined with the resource system it would IMHO make for a very interesting expansion of the original game)
and the terraforming-system of SMAC, which is better than Civ IV, with Hills affecting the fertility of the areas before and behind them etc.
But overall IMHO Civ IV can be considered to be the better system.
ferenginar
Grand Nagus
I found SMAC annoying to the point of being unplayable.
Oh, how I wish that there will be SMAC II before Civ5. Wouldn't even need much new features, just better implementation on old ones. Take unit design workshop, for example. Awesome idea made annoying by interface. I found myself wishing there was some way to edit those designs the engineers recommended, because I always built same kind of garrison units every time and it would have been handy to have them predesigned. Perhaps there was a way, but I never found it.
Waaaaaahhhhhh. I want to change my vote.
I'd put the two games on about even footing, at least for the things that I consider most important.
CivIV generates more variety in gameplay in the sense that type of map can/will cause you to play the same civ in different ways. For example, I'm currently taking Shaka to a cultural victory. A small continent start (with one other civ that I wiped out early), combined with easy access to both stone and marble, made settling into a peacenik cultural game about the best bet.
SMAC got it's variety from the distinctly different factions and a tech tree that encouraged some deep divisions. That was especially true if you really tried to role play your faction (e.g. heavily focus on Build techs for Morgan) and used blind research.
CivIV wins hands down for variety of strategies, though (and not just the map driven example I gave above).
SMAC had that dual warfare type thing (i.e. psy and conventional) that Civ will never have. SMAC should have balanced it better so that psy could remain dominate in the mid/late game. But the whole native life form attacks lead to some really neat wars where my Planet Cult Demon Boils would face off against convential arms that were 2 generations ahead of what I knew how to build. Civ will never be able to provide something like that, do to it having to have some basis in the reality of this world.
I'd put the two games on about even footing, at least for the things that I consider most important.
CivIV generates more variety in gameplay in the sense that type of map can/will cause you to play the same civ in different ways. For example, I'm currently taking Shaka to a cultural victory. A small continent start (with one other civ that I wiped out early), combined with easy access to both stone and marble, made settling into a peacenik cultural game about the best bet.
SMAC got it's variety from the distinctly different factions and a tech tree that encouraged some deep divisions. That was especially true if you really tried to role play your faction (e.g. heavily focus on Build techs for Morgan) and used blind research.
CivIV wins hands down for variety of strategies, though (and not just the map driven example I gave above).
SMAC had that dual warfare type thing (i.e. psy and conventional) that Civ will never have. SMAC should have balanced it better so that psy could remain dominate in the mid/late game. But the whole native life form attacks lead to some really neat wars where my Planet Cult Demon Boils would face off against convential arms that were 2 generations ahead of what I knew how to build. Civ will never be able to provide something like that, do to it having to have some basis in the reality of this world.
Stuie
Laudir Agus Mir
marioflag said:
MrCynical said:
Interesting juxtaposition: one post calls it "revolutionary" and the next compares it to a Civ2 mod (which is more accurate in my opinion).
SMAC's AI sucks big time and the design workshop is needless crap. It really felt like Civ2 with a graphics overhaul. Sure it was fun back in the day, but once I moved on I never went back.
Civ 4, on the other hand, keeps bringing me back even if I take an occasional break to play some other game; few games ever do that for me. So for my money, Civ4 is far superior.
The design workshop was great! The best part about it was the fact that you never had to deal with it if you didn't want. Those of you who found it annoying could have played the game forever without bothering with it one iota. I still play SMAC and sometimes I design units and sometimes I play with the default units.
Supply convoys were great. Why they did away with those, I'll never know.
I prefer zones of control. Civ4 doesn't have that.
As mentioned above, the AI personalities really elicited strong responses. Miriam must die!
The tech tree was much more broad and allowed you to customize your advancement to a much greater degree. I appreciated the versatility.
Being able to alter and permanently affect the planet was fun and useful. Turning an opponent's area into a desert was almost as much fun as melting the polar caps and watching your opponent's lose cities where they hadn't built a pressure dome yet. Planting fungus once you had the appropriate techs to control it was a great form of warfare against your closest enemies. Border control was a bit more involved than just a culture-per-turn figure.
Nerve stapling! Enough said
I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but just off the top of my head, these are concepts I wish Civ4 had somehow included - especially the terrain alterations. Civ4 doesn't really allow much in the way of modifying your surroundings. You mean I can't blast through that mountain range, despite the fact that I have researched Gunpowder, Steel, Replaceable Parts, and Railroad? Come on!!!!
Supply convoys were great. Why they did away with those, I'll never know.
I prefer zones of control. Civ4 doesn't have that.
As mentioned above, the AI personalities really elicited strong responses. Miriam must die!
The tech tree was much more broad and allowed you to customize your advancement to a much greater degree. I appreciated the versatility.
Being able to alter and permanently affect the planet was fun and useful. Turning an opponent's area into a desert was almost as much fun as melting the polar caps and watching your opponent's lose cities where they hadn't built a pressure dome yet. Planting fungus once you had the appropriate techs to control it was a great form of warfare against your closest enemies. Border control was a bit more involved than just a culture-per-turn figure.
Nerve stapling! Enough said
I'm sure I'm forgetting some things, but just off the top of my head, these are concepts I wish Civ4 had somehow included - especially the terrain alterations. Civ4 doesn't really allow much in the way of modifying your surroundings. You mean I can't blast through that mountain range, despite the fact that I have researched Gunpowder, Steel, Replaceable Parts, and Railroad? Come on!!!!
Mr. Civtastic
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 488
Ive never fully understood the love affair with smac. The graphics were ugly, the "music" was lacking, the workshop was clunky.
The concept was cool and dumb to me at the same time. Why would they send all these people to AC if they didnt get along in the first place? I just dont believe if we had some people stranded on a new PLANET, they wouldnt bond together for survival...at least at first.
The true measuring stick for me is the test of time. Do I ever want to play civ 3? Not at all. Do I ever want to play SMAC? I'd like to look at the tech tree again, but there is no way I would want to play through it. Do I ever want to play civ 2? Sometimes, I actually do.
The concept was cool and dumb to me at the same time. Why would they send all these people to AC if they didnt get along in the first place? I just dont believe if we had some people stranded on a new PLANET, they wouldnt bond together for survival...at least at first.
The true measuring stick for me is the test of time. Do I ever want to play civ 3? Not at all. Do I ever want to play SMAC? I'd like to look at the tech tree again, but there is no way I would want to play through it. Do I ever want to play civ 2? Sometimes, I actually do.
enchanter100
Warlord
Planetbusters and Drowning because they didn't have pressure domes, those were great! I really wish civ4 nukes were like that or had the ability to change terrain. The unit workshop was great and NO other game had movies like alpha. I can go back and watch them now and I am still intrigued. I still also find myself repeating sayings and tech advancements that the text would say. "it is every citizens final duty to go into the tanks".. I liked morgans "I don't plan on living forever, maybe a few thousand years." Finally my wife used to hate me playing it because of the "Nutrient Resources".... Amazing game that really got me into it.. cIV Doesn't compare. Alpha>civ4
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
SMAC has a few things I like EXCEPT that the AI couldn't use them.
Civ 4 is better because they went by the rule -- if the AI won't be able to use it, we won't put it in.
Civ 4 is better because they went by the rule -- if the AI won't be able to use it, we won't put it in.
I have to go with CIV4, but let me tell you SMAC is really good, really good. Unfortunately, the graphics are ugly in that game, just plain ugly. I truely loved that unit workshop. Now if they ever release a SMAC2 then CIV4 could have a challenger
