smax after civ3

[King Monkeyman]

I JUST put SMACX in my cd drive this week and was going to start a thread with just this topic. I just want to reiterate what was posted above in general with some of my own observations.

Yes, SMAC is easy. But I really think for me the most significant difference is the speed of the games. The greater mobility, ie, air power that is effective + mobility on enemy roads + airdrops (chop-n-drop). The thing is, things are decided much faster than in civ3, but does the extra time it takes to raze your neighbor actually translate to more strategy? I don't think so. In civ3, I don't remember the endgame ever being anything but boring (well there was the one time my civ was hamstrung by a start alone on a tundra island, catchup all the way, lost launched spaceship 5 turns AFTER retirement).

also like to echo the more agressive bit. I had two submissives by turn 50 I was always a builder before civ3 came out...

one more thing I like about smac: Not being obligated to road/tube(rr) every tile to get their maximum productivity. The road/rr everything bit is BAD game mechanics, no ifs ands or buts.

Just some thoughts,
\
--Kmm

 

[airrahul]

WEll, still, one problem i have with Alpha Centauri (just one problem, otherwise it would be great) is that in diplomacy, there is no "table" like in CIv3 where you can trade a map AND money AND a treay for a technology. Or the ability to sell them units you build (you could have a city building dummied down versions of your best design from a workshop that are then sold to another faction/civ. Acutally, i have some other problems such as the limited number of factions/civs and stuff like that. Also, you should have a resource concept like that of Civ3. However, certain resources like Rubber should be able to be synthetically produced in facilities or planted and harvested.

 

[AceDragon]

I would love for them to come out and do a sequel as I have said many times whether they call it SMAC II or not doesn't make a difference to me, as long as they keep the best of SMAC/Alien Crossfire and add in the improvements CIV 3 makes to turn based strategy. The "deal tables", culture expanding borders, borders, etc..

I would buy it if they decided to make it, hell even pre-order.
I read in the forums that there may be another expansion on Civ 3 thats good, but I want more SMAC.


Firaxis it's time to lay the SMAC down again. I think people are wrong about SMAC, theres a bunch of fans who would buy it.
IE like most of us in this thread, and those out there in *forum lurk mode*

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by airrahul
WEll, still, one problem i have with Alpha Centauri (just one problem, otherwise it would be great) is that in diplomacy, there is no "table" like in CIv3 where you can trade a map AND money AND a treay for a technology. Or the ability to sell them units you build (you could have a city building dummied down versions of your best design from a workshop that are then sold to another faction/civ. Acutally, i have some other problems such as the limited number of factions/civs and stuff like that. Also, you should have a resource concept like that of Civ3. However, certain resources like Rubber should be able to be synthetically produced in facilities or planted and harvested.

But we must remember that SMAC is older then Civ3.
Hopefully Firaxis will listen to the fans and make SMAC 2 a reality.

 

[highstreet]

I could be wrong, but I thought that Civ3 was supposed to be built from the Civ2/SMAC codebase, but then Brian R. left Firaxis so they decided to start Civ3 from scratch, which is why the original release of Civ3 was so raw. Maybe if BR had stayed, Civ3 would have all those cool SMAC features in it.

Of course this could just be a silly rumour I heard somewhere, so if I'm way off, slap me.

Hopefully either Firaxis wakes up and does a SMAC2 or BR gets out of this silly RTS phase and makes a proper sequel (if only in spirit and not in name).

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by highstreet
Hopefully either Firaxis wakes up and does a SMAC2 or BR gets out of this silly RTS phase and makes a proper sequel (if only in spirit and not in name).

I think we can all agree on that.

 

[WickedWombat]

Originally posted by Suki
[plasma]I mean they made an obviously bad user interface, loads of beutiful flashy graphics that add nothing to game play. that is not progress, why do people like it more? civ3 why not just tweek and rebalance SMACK?

No doubt! And why does my military advisor screen take forever to let me cycle between units! Too much eye candy and too little substance in CIV 3.

 

[smalltalk]

SMACX after CIVIII is a really uplifting experience. People have been claiming that the graphics of SMACX are outdated - but I feel the game itself is unmatched in playability and mood.

The SMACX factions are much more different from one another than the CIVIII - Civilizations are. There is a certain flavour to everyone of the factions.

I also like the quotes that come with each new improvement or with a completed wonder. Some quotes are really good, they convey a meaning or a substantial thought.

Diplomacy is far better (maybe except of the bargaining table). Sometime you really can play with the AI.

And unguided research - so I do not enable it often - is a great concept. How could you ever even try to research the wheel for instance, if you don't know of the wheel yet?

Terraforming is a subgame almost of its own, as is the
weapons workshop.

Oh, and have you ever heard anyone claim, that a shard unit lost out to a plasma armored unit?


But if there ever will be a successor to SMACX, I hope it will not not from Firaxis, but from BR.

 

[Plug]

Building Secret Projects was so much better in SMAC. Brilliant and interesting videos that made it seem like an achievement. In comparison, completion of a wonder in Civ 3 is lame.

And I agree with smalltalk, the quotes were sometimes brilliant. In the days before Civ 3 I played SMAC instead of Civ 2 and there were times when the quotes stuck in my mind for so long I would think them at relevant points in the day. The Herman Melville quote about the sea having a 'panting tiger heart' beneath its waves was a great one.

The game had a lot more atmosphere than Civ 3 but I think Civ 3 was a natural progression in many respects. I don't really see SMAC as a diferent game, just a Civ game with a different style and some tweaks. The main game concept is the same. Surely a fantasy Civ is possible. And an AC 2.

 

[Babbler]

* The equivalent of the ONU, where a planetary goverment is choosed and laws that affect everybody are voted. In all other there is only diplomacy between you and 1 other faction at a time.

If SMAC has a fault, it is that there is many choices on the planetary council table. I want to power broker more deals!!!

I would to see a SMAC board game! Could you image it?