SMAC/AC is better then civ3

[calle-76]

I got civ3 a week ago and i must say i am dissapointed.
I am a HUGE fan of civ1 and civ2 so i had high hopes for civ3.

Unfortunately civ3 lacks depth its just civ2 with nicer graphics and some cultural improvements.

Compare this to smac/ac with its rich storyline amazing unit customisability great politics and nice ingame movies.

If you never played smac you have been missing out on the best strategy game ever.

 

[Bugg]

Give it another week. Also each game is different from the last, which increases longevity. I still have not played even half of the civs yet.

 

[Mike C]

It doesn't matter which civs you play. The bonuses are very transparent and do not impact the gameplay significantly unlike AC.

But AC has a significant advantage over Civ 3 in that I guess the Sid's dev team had more creative latitude to create neat stuff like unique factions, mindworms and the ability to weave a story line into the game.

Its hard to do any of that in Civ 3's setting.

But I have to agree with the poster, the new things brought out in Civ 3 are not good enough to top Alpha Centarui. In terms of depth of gameplay and style, AC is unbeatable.

 

[Rhandom]

I agree whole heartedly.

 

[stravaig]

The customizability of units and social engineering in SMAC was fantastic. Those features would be cool in CivIII, but they'd add a ton of complexity ... I'm okay with CivIII as is, in this respect.

SMAC had some really cool diplomatic options, and the planetary council was a kick. CivIII could /definitely/ benefit from some cool UN options (global warming pact, missle treaties, human rights (anti-city razing)). I really liked being able to coordinate attacks with my allies, too.
The trading table in CivIII is awesome, but I really miss that planetary council.

Honestly, I found the storyline in SMAC to be a bit tedious. Yeah, it was interesting, but I didn't like the feeling that I wasn't making my own history, and that I was stuck in this storyline.
I'm /glad/ CivIII doesn't have a 'storyline' - it would suck if it did. I want to write the story! The history is mine, and unique every time!

The biggest advantage (and what makes the game so replayable for me) is the addition of Resources. I love that you now have an extremely viable reason to go to war! No longer is war based on emotion, or cultural differences, or just territory - there are real, strong, strategic reasons! I dig it.

- Stravaig

 

[nklatt]

I wish a few more things would have been carried forward from SMAC, that's for sure. I don't think you should dismiss the changes that *were* made, though. Maybe Civ IV will be perfect...

 

[57%]

I agree with what you said about resources and the worldwide diplomatic options, but I disagree about the unit design interface in Alpha Centauri. That was miserably tedious. I'm glad they didn't include it in Civ3.

Of course, unit design itself isn't a bad idea, but I didn't like the frustration involved in actually doing it in SMAC.

Originally posted by stravaig
The customizability of units and social engineering in SMAC was fantastic. Those features would be cool in CivIII, but they'd add a ton of complexity ... I'm okay with CivIII as is, in this respect.

SMAC had some really cool diplomatic options, and the planetary council was a kick. CivIII could /definitely/ benefit from some cool UN options (global warming pact, missle treaties, human rights (anti-city razing)). I really liked being able to coordinate attacks with my allies, too.
The trading table in CivIII is awesome, but I really miss that planetary council.

Honestly, I found the storyline in SMAC to be a bit tedious. Yeah, it was interesting, but I didn't like the feeling that I wasn't making my own history, and that I was stuck in this storyline.
I'm /glad/ CivIII doesn't have a 'storyline' - it would suck if it did. I want to write the story! The history is mine, and unique every time!

The biggest advantage (and what makes the game so replayable for me) is the addition of Resources. I love that you now have an extremely viable reason to go to war! No longer is war based on emotion, or cultural differences, or just territory - there are real, strong, strategic reasons! I dig it.

- Stravaig

 

[Bob Hitchen]

Freecell is better than civ3 in its present form. Civ3 is nothing like civ2 for starters things in civ2 were integrated and worked. Civ3 editor just crashes and needs a reboot post patch. I can't play the thing for long it takes too long to get anything done and is utterly predictable. Firaxis and Infogrammes will not be getting any more of my money anytime. Civ series RIP.

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by stravaig
The customizability of units and social engineering in SMAC was fantastic. Those features would be cool in CivIII, but they'd add a ton of complexity ... I'm okay with CivIII as is, in this respect.

I'm not sure they would work the same way either... I mean, your a primitive tribe trying to figure out how to build aqeducts and your future society goal is cybernetics?!

But for sure, Soc Eng is sorely missed.

Originally posted by stravaig
SMAC had some really cool diplomatic options, and the planetary council was a kick. CivIII could /definitely/ benefit from some cool UN options (global warming pact, missle treaties, human rights (anti-city razing)). I really liked being able to coordinate attacks with my allies, too.
The trading table in CivIII is awesome, but I really miss that planetary council.

I only pray that they will add something like this in a patch....I might even be coaxed into buying an expasion if it had this feature .

Originally posted by stravaig
Honestly, I found the storyline in SMAC to be a bit tedious. Yeah, it was interesting, but I didn't like the feeling that I wasn't making my own history, and that I was stuck in this storyline.
I'm /glad/ CivIII doesn't have a 'storyline' - it would suck if it did. I want to write the story! The history is mine, and unique every time!

You are correct in that aspect. But too many times, I feel as if there simply isn't history in the game. It just wasn't something tangible enough because the other AI civs are so lifeless. It goes back to the advantage again that AC has. They could design factions with some actual personality behind it.

Originally posted by stravaig
The biggest advantage (and what makes the game so replayable for me) is the addition of Resources. I love that you now have an extremely viable reason to go to war! No longer is war based on emotion, or cultural differences, or just territory - there are real, strong, strategic reasons! I dig it.

- Stravaig

I wonder if we could coax Sid into making another expansion for Alpha centauri and add in strategic resources and all the other cool stuff we like about Civ 3. Ahh wouldn't life be perfect then!

 

[CivJester]

I would have to disagree with some of the above post about CIV 3. For those of you wanting a CIV 2 clone or a SMAC clone you didnt get it, and I for one am Glad. I have played CIV 2 since it came out, it has always been on my harddrive, the same with SMAC. They are both awsome games, but I say the replayabliity of CIV 3 is the best. I cant use the same old tired startagy each time I play, even if I play the same Civ. With CIV 2 it made on difference what civ you played any stratagy would work with any civ. In SMAC the different factions made a big difference, but you had to do certian startagies with that faction, you couldnt ever win a tech war using the Hive, or a military war using the Univeristy.
With CIV 3 you can play the same Civ 5 different times if you want and have a different statagy each time, or if you try the same stratagy you might have to change due to lack or resourses, or who is next to you. The only thing I would add to Civ 3 is a "world diplomacy screen" like that in SMAC.
Those who dont like Civ 3 were too busy looking for a SMAC clone, CIV 3 ROCKS!

My two cents

 

[GeniX]

Civilization I rocked. Civilization II was boring. It felt drawn-out, and like they took areas gamers said were cool in CivI, and just stretched them.

SMAC was a notch above CivII. Im not fond of futuristic techs - games frustrate me when I have to keep reminding myself that the dual photon gun is better than the multi-chamber plasma coil (names made up to emphasise the stupidity of it all .

SMAC's social engineering was cool, and added quite a nice aspect to the game. However, as with CivII, I found its graphics were all 'integrated'. By that, I mean very similar looking. Thus it took me ages to learn to discern some of the units. Civ3 has a good job on graphics - right from the start everything was easy to discern, and BRIGHTER. No, I will not pull up the brightness on my gfxcard just for SMAC.

SMAC had a storyline. As some have said, a rich storyline. Thats not for me. I like storyline in a game which I think suits having a storyline. Being in charge of a Civilization and taking it through time building cities, wonders, etc. does not need a rich storyline. You are the story line.

UN Council would be a very nice feature to put in Civ3. But, having said all that:

I like Civ3's trade options!
I like Civ3's Cultural additions!
I like Civ3's new unit movement rules
I like Civ3's unit health, and status!
I like Civ3's improved diplomatic relations options!
I like Civ3's 'will you listen to our counter-proposal?' deals!
I like Civ3's settlers no longer do improvements!
I like Civ3's settlers now cost 2 pop!
I like Civ3's nationality of citizens and associated stuff!

I could go on, but I gotta go to work now. Civ3 has outshone my expectations of it, and is quite addictive. Yes, it has issues with speed, and on some machines crashing.

These Im sure will be ironed out. If they dont, then its unfortunate, but I will still support Civ3 - it doesnt crash on my machine

 

[Galen Dietenger]

I concur,SMAC is vastly superior conceptually to Civ3 in all but a few select areas. Anyone that says otherwise is either a SMAK(Sid Meir Ass Kisser) or simply doesnt speak from experince.

SMAC has civ3 beat in
-Graphics (3d terrain)
-Unit design workshop is fabulous(that feature alone is a huge +)
-Combat system vasty superior-Civ3 noob friendly combat system cant compare.
-More interesting tech tree(and not because its Sci-fi based, simply because there more varied and fit together better)
-AI+diplomatic options much more varied and interesting
-Much more detailed reporting options
-Spy options more useful, relevant and logical
-Better Documentation, many game concepts actually WORK as intended and are properly explained.
-AI does not cheat anywhere near as badly as CIV3*
-better game preformance, less tedious than Civ3 tends to be
-social enginerring is a great concept.
-AI faction leaders tend to have more 'flavor' and interacting with them is generally more 'realistic'

Of course like most people I agree Civ3 did introduce a*few* new ideas, namely
-Strategic resources
-culture
-the 'border' concept(tied to culture)-However since the AI blantatly violates borders continuously, the idea gets low marks for sloppy implementation.

Except for the above 2 ideas, (most) everything is Civ3 is either broken, conceptually flawed or just poorly done. I bought civ3 in large part because I was expecting(hopeing) that the powerful concepts and designs introduced in SMAC would be incorporated and expanded upon in Civ3. Well nothing even close to that happened, as one poster put it.

3 steps backward, one step forward, thats Civ3


*This is not to say SMAC was 'perfect' either. I already know that so for all you trollish SMAK's can keep any flames to yourself thank you.

 

[57%]

At least in Civ3, barbarian activity decreases with time. In Alpha Centauri, mindworm activity grew exponentially!

My quitting point in each SMAC game was when I got tired of nothing happening between turns except for five minutes of mindworm attack...

 

[swt1]

I just played a few games of civ 3 but it seems like the AI is much better than in SMAC/SMAX. In SMAC once one figures out that the supply crawler is the most important unit, one can't lose. The AI in SMAC doesn't seem to use them and doesn't terraform to it's advantage very well either.

SMAC also is about conquest where it now seems civ3 is about building a contained empire (haven't finished anough games to be sure about this).

On the otherhand SMAC seems so much more alive than civ3. Civ3 seems kind of sterile. This seems strange as I continue to have an interest in world history and have lost interest in most of science fiction.

I like civ3, will continue to play it and will play just a few more games of SMAC/SMAX. I would like to see SMAC with a better AI. I think the AI in civ3 would be a good starting point.

 

[Cyrai]

It's interesting to note that in both of those games, the air units are/were completely broken. In SMAC, the first person to get air units and produce a couple could dominate everyone. I'm not sure what the case was in C3, because I hadn't gotten that far before the patch, but it was broken again in favor of the AI. Why can't Sid Meirs get airplanes right?

 

[Eliezar]

Alpha Centauri truly was the best game from civ through civ 3 IMO, but at the same time it didn't have the easiness and familiarity of building an empire from a primitive tribe.

I do like both civ 3 and AC more than civ 1 and 2, but both have things that are truly great.

Civ 3:
Culture is a great idea and implemented well
No rushing of wonders is great
Resources add a lot of strategy to the game
Luxeries are done well also

SMAC:
Differing Faction personalities and strategies (morgan builds very few cities and is passive, miriam and lal are hyper aggressive and are always at war with someone, etc)

Customizeable units are awesome, and so is the ability to build a quick building unit and paying to upgrade them to the top of the line model.

Terraforming was amazing and allowed lots of great strats. 1 science city and every other city military? Worked awesome.

Computer opponents being able to be defeated without whiped out. Ever had a slave computer opponent that would then do whatever you wanted?

Social Engineering was great, but really wouldn't work well in Civ 3. However, Civ 3 could have a capitalistic monarchy or a democratic socialism etc.


Anyway, both games are good and Civ 3 is the most challenging out of all of them. Civ 3 Deity is just great 8)

Eliezar

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by 57%

At least in Civ3, barbarian activity decreases with time. In Alpha Centauri, mindworm activity grew exponentially!

I think that was the point though. Planet didn't like ecological damage. Maybe you were being super unfriendly to the environment.

Originally posted by swt1

On the otherhand SMAC seems so much more alive than civ3. Civ3 seems kind of sterile. This seems strange as I continue to have an interest in world history and have lost interest in most of science fiction.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

Sterile, that is exactly the term I was thinking of but couldn't remember.

 

[Sukenis]

SMAC has yet to get old to many of its players. Since it came out it has still kept interest. I am waiting to see if Civ 3 is the same way.

I am also scock that the multiplayer power of SMAC was nto mentioned. While i will admit that unless all players are on a better than dial-up connection the game can be difficult, overall it was sweet.

 

[dogen]

GUYS! stop complaining!!!

CIV3 IS THE GREATEST GAME EVER CREATED, PERIOD!!!


PERIOD!!!!!!!

PERIOD!!!!!!! NO NEED TO CONTINUE!!!!!

 

[arttu19]

Originally posted by GeniX

Civilization I rocked. Civilization II was boring. It felt drawn-out, and like they took areas gamers said were cool in CivI, and just stretched them.

SMAC was a notch above CivII. Im not fond of futuristic techs - games frustrate me when I have to keep reminding myself that the dual photon gun is better than the multi-chamber plasma coil (names made up to emphasise the stupidity of it all .

SMAC's social engineering was cool, and added quite a nice aspect to the game. However, as with CivII, I found its graphics were all 'integrated'. By that, I mean very similar looking. Thus it took me ages to learn to discern some of the units. Civ3 has a good job on graphics - right from the start everything was easy to discern, and BRIGHTER. No, I will not pull up the brightness on my gfxcard just for SMAC.

SMAC had a storyline. As some have said, a rich storyline. Thats not for me. I like storyline in a game which I think suits having a storyline. Being in charge of a Civilization and taking it through time building cities, wonders, etc. does not need a rich storyline. You are the story line.

UN Council would be a very nice feature to put in Civ3. But, having said all that:

I like Civ3's trade options!
I like Civ3's Cultural additions!
I like Civ3's new unit movement rules
I like Civ3's unit health, and status!
I like Civ3's improved diplomatic relations options!
I like Civ3's 'will you listen to our counter-proposal?' deals!
I like Civ3's settlers no longer do improvements!
I like Civ3's settlers now cost 2 pop!
I like Civ3's nationality of citizens and associated stuff!

I could go on, but I gotta go to work now. Civ3 has outshone my expectations of it, and is quite addictive. Yes, it has issues with speed, and on some machines crashing.

These Im sure will be ironed out. If they dont, then its unfortunate, but I will still support Civ3 - it doesnt crash on my machine

I must say that I totally agree with you! Those words were the best yet been said on this forum...



And yes, I think that the Cvilization3 is a good game, regardless of the few bugs in it.