the best CIV game

[whstaff]

I finally figured out how to get this game running on my newish vista machine.

This is a truly great game!

It's got so much more depth than of the other "civ" games.

 

[Petek]

I finally figured out how to get this game running on my newish vista machine.

This is a truly great game!

It's got so much more depth than of the other "civ" games.

I doubt that you'll get much disagreement on this forum.

Would you care to share what "tweaks" you employed to get the game running? Thanks.

Petek

 

[whstaff]

just edited the ini file (changed 0 to 1?)--which was much easier to do in XP. I'm not geeky, and it's tricky to do that in vista.

 

[Petek]

Thanks for the information!

Petek

 

[Roller123]

SMAC:

- too much terraforming
- ICS
- no unit groups

SMAC was good, but Civ4 surpasses it.

 

[vyeh]

SMAC:

- too much terraforming

That is a matter of opinion. If by too much terraforming, you mean that with enough advanced technology, you can do almost anything (turn sea squares into land and vice versa, turn arid squares into rainy squares, turns squares into energy or mineral producers), well this is science fiction.

If you mean that there is too much micromanagement, well that is a matter of taste.

- ICS

Again, a matter of opinion. This is science fiction, so why shouldn't there be bases on every fourth square (think of New York City).

- no unit groups

This is nice, but I would actually find grouping formers more useful. So I could take 4 formers and turn it into a single former counter that could perform multiple operations more useful.

SMAC was good, but Civ4 surpasses it.

This could be seen as trolling behavior, coming into a SMAC forum (according to the search engine, this is your first post here) and saying this without specifying the criteria by which you judge Civ4 surpasses SMAC. When Civ4 came out, there were threads in this forum discussing SMAC v. Civ4 and there were quite a few players who felt that SMAC had more atmosphere than Civ4.

 

[Roller123]

That is a matter of opinion. If by too much terraforming, you mean that with enough advanced technology, you can do almost anything (turn sea squares into land and vice versa, turn arid squares into rainy squares, turns squares into energy or mineral producers), well this is science fiction. If you mean that there is too much micromanagement, well that is a matter of taste.

Not science fiction. Fantasy. Nothing else can turn Mariana Trench into Mount Everest in a couple of turns. Too much terraform options makes base placement and terrain features pointless.

Again, a matter of opinion. This is science fiction, so why shouldn't there be bases on every fourth square (think of New York City).

Optimal base placement is one tile apart in every direction, and thanks to overdone terraforming it can be done everywhere. That, or forest/borehole spam regardless of anything too.

This is nice, but I would actually find grouping formers more useful. So I could take 4 formers and turn it into a single former counter that could perform multiple operations more useful.

I am not following. Are you saying formers are not units? Wait let me check... Yep formers are units.

saying this without specifying the criteria by which you judge Civ4 surpasses SMAC

What? I just listed the 3 most significant problems with SMAC, which Civ4 obviously handled much better. (among a multitude of other things)

blah blah blah first post

This has nothing to do with anything. In fact saying that i am wrong because i do not have sufficiently spammed this subforum is trolling. You basically tried to negate every point i made, even though it made no sense at all. Why? One has to live in check with reality, and reality is - SMAC is killed by Civ4. Sorry.

 

[vyeh]

Not science fiction. Fantasy. Nothing else can turn Mariana Trench into Mount Everest in a couple of turns. Too much terraform options makes base placement and terrain features pointless.

If you want to call it fantasy fine. Note that advanced terraforming (like raising and lowering terrran) requires advanced ecological engineering.

Optimal base placement is one tile apart in every direction, and thanks to overdone terraforming it can be done everywhere. That, or forest/borehole spam regardless of anything too.

If you are trying to optimize for maximum production, it is better to space bases far apart (the base square even with recycling tanks isn't as productive as a farm/soil enricher/condensor with plenty of sky hydroponics, nessus mining stations and orbital power transmitters).

You have a very weird attitude. If the optimal terraforming is boreholes every fourth square (they can't be adjacent to each other) and forests elsewhere (by the way forests aren't very optimal if you are using crawlers; a lot of us would take non-borehole squares, optimize for one of the three resources, e.g. farm/soil enricher/consdensor, road and mine on rocky terrain or energy park, plant a crawler on the square harvesting that resource and turn the freed up worker into a specialist for inefficiency-free research, economy or psych), then why would you call it spam? The whole idea of terraforming is to change the map. Take a look at Dubai, where they are creating artificial islands.

I am not following. Are you saying formers are not units? Wait let me check... Yep formers are units.

Unit groups would not help. One of the most significant micromanagement problems is that after clean reactors, one gets a lot of formers and tends to use them in gangs. Say I have eight formers and I want to turn an arid square into a farm/soil enricher/condensor square. I would prefer to deal with one superunit, not group, where I could order it to first build a farm (normally this takes 4 basic former turns), build a soil enricher (8 basic former turns) and build a condensor (12 basic former turns).

My understanding of a unit group is that it moves together. This is useful for combat, but it isn't as useful in the former situation.

Clearly, you were correct when you said you were not following.

What? I just listed the 3 most significant problems with SMAC, which Civ4 obviously handled much better. (among a multitude of other things)

If you said your criteria was a game that you could play without investing a lot of time terraforming, building bases and moving units, then I could agree with you. A lot of us SMAC players think Civ4 was "dumbed down." Nothing wrong with that, but some of us prefer games that allow many, many different ways to play. It is possible to win at the lower levels without much terraforming, bases and military units.

This has nothing to do with anything. In fact saying that i am wrong because i do not have sufficiently spammed this subforum is trolling.

The fact that you quoted me as "blah blah blah first post" is enough to make my point. What I said was "This could be seen as trolling behavior, coming into a SMAC forum (according to the search engine, this is your first post here)..."

I didn't say you were wrong. I said you didn't specify a criteria. You listed three things that you considered wrong. But they can only be wrong measured against some criteria. Nothing wrong with a game that allows almost unlimited options for terraforming or for building bases. There is a group of us, called builders, that value SMAC precisely for that.

And I haven't gone into a Civ 4 forum and said the game has been "dumbed down."

You basically tried to negate every point i made, even though it made no sense at all.

Either you don't understand the points I made or you are pretending not to understand the points. Given the other comments you have made, it is clear that SMAC is not the game for you.

Why? One has to live in check with reality, and reality is - SMAC is killed by Civ4. Sorry.

Some would say this is trolling behavior. Besides this site, there is another site, WePlayCiv that accurately claims to have the largest and friendliest SMAC community.

They were formed less than a year ago and their SMAC activity is greater than their Civ activity.

Read the recent threads. If you dare, engage them in a discussion about the merits of SMAC vs. Civ 4. They do have a newbie friendly policy.

It is pretty clear to me from some of your comments that you don't know enough about SMAC to fairly conclude that Civ 4 surpasses SMAC.

SMAC was an experiment that was conducted after Civ 2. Many features of SMAC were incorporated into Civ 3 and Civ 4. If Civ 4 is a better game than Civ 2, it is because of SMAC. For instance, it is likely the promotion system was an attempt to get some of the unit design workshop in SMAC into Civ 4 and the Civics system in Civ 4 has a strong resemblance to the SMAC social engineering.

It is not my practice to recommend other sites to a person at CFC, but you will find more viewpoints at WePlayCiv (and some agreement on your points as you seem to want someone to agree with your points.)

In my opinion and the opinion of many other skilled SMAC players, the most significant problem is the stupidity of the AI. In my opinion, the second most significant problem is the user interface. Maybe the third is the limits in modding.

I haven't played Civ 4 much (I bought it, tried it and returned to SMAC). I played Civ 2 a lot before I went to SMAC and I found SMAC to be a lot more challenging.

I recommend Vel's SMAC Guide to anyone interested in the complexity of SMAC.

I am not saying SMAC surpasses Civ 4, but I am saying that in some ways, SMAC is more innovative than Civ 4 (e.g. the unit workshop, faction uniqueness).

 

[Roller123]

vyeh

If you are trying to optimize for maximum production, it is better to space bases far apart

You have no idea what youre talking about.

If the optimal terraforming is boreholes every fourth square (they can't be adjacent to each other)

Oh my. They cant be adjacent yes. This makes one borehole every second tile you genius. Fill-in a forest for a regular empire, or a city+condencer for ICS. That about sums it up for all the terraforming options in SMAC.

A lot of us SMAC players think Civ4 was "dumbed down." Nothing wrong with that, but some of us prefer games that allow many, many different ways to play.

Who is "us". You? Civ4 has alot more depth, terraforming, specialists, city placement, great people, tech slingshots, resources, corporations, borders, to name a few. Smac does have some of that too, but as shown in the above terraforming example, it does not require any actual "depth" or strategic thinking. There is always a best option available.

I haven't played Civ 4 much

Im not surprised. Give it a try maybe.

The whole idea of terraforming is to change the map. SMAC was an experiment that was conducted after Civ 2. If Civ 4 is a better game than Civ 2, it is because of SMAC.

Again, i lost you. The above is just some fanboy talk. Clearly you feel some kind of "obligation" to defend a piece of software. Did anyone denied SMAC all the above? No. But Civ4 does things even better and with major improvements.

P. S. If it helps my regdate on apolyton is 2002

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil. No need for name calling or other uncivil behavior. Also, in the future please use the report post button to report untoward posts.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Not science fiction. Fantasy. Nothing else can turn Mariana Trench into Mount Everest in a couple of turns. Too much terraform options makes base placement and terrain features pointless.

Fantasy? Have you ever played Civ II: Test of Time? Be assured, it is definitely IMPOSSIBLE to turn ocean trench into anything in fewer than a couple of dozen turns, even considering that the only units capable of doing so weren't intended to do so in the first place.

I haven't played much SMAC; how many years, game time, are the turns - 20, like the other Civ games? In that case, taking 40 years to do a terraforming project in a science fiction scenario isn't completely out of line.

BTW, even though I haven't played the game much, I've read the novel trilogy, so be assured that I do know what the game is about.

This has nothing to do with anything. In fact saying that i am wrong because i do not have sufficiently spammed this subforum is trolling. You basically tried to negate every point i made, even though it made no sense at all. Why? One has to live in check with reality, and reality is - SMAC is killed by Civ4. Sorry.

Guys, there is a little triangle to the left, under your name/avatar, etc. That is the icon you click to report a post that you think violates the rules (ie. if you think somebody is trolling). Please use it. Forum rules state that if you openly call somebody a troll, you are guilty of trolling yourself.

Please make it easier on yourselves and your moderator, and use it.

 

[Robert Can't]

Just my humble unimportaint point of view.

If you are trying to optimize for maximum production, it is better to space bases far apart

You have no idea what youre talking about.

To get the best production you place your cities far appart so they can "Eat" more squeres. If you doubt this then you obviously haven't played much SMAC.

Oh my. They cant be adjacent yes. This makes one borehole every second tile you genius. Fill-in a forest for a regular empire, or a city+condencer for ICS. That about sums it up for all the terraforming options in SMAC.

Terraforming has many other effects. If you raise a hill it cuts rain to your enemies. If you build borholes and condensors the mindworms come after you. you can raise terrain to deal with rising sea levels (like dykes in Holland) or lower it to save cities and buildings (like the "Moses" in the Venezia) you can raise the seabed to construct cities and mine or farm on the seabed. And scince this is in a science fiction setting anything can happen (for a start one of the main characters in the story is a Planet).

It's got so much more depth than of the other "civ" games.

An importaint point.
Unlike all other civ games ther is a definate story running through it. Stuff happens. Your main charater loses loved ones, goes of on revenges, talks to a sentient planet and much more. This makes it in a way far more superior to the blandness of civ 4.

Im not surprised. Give it a try maybe.

I probably play more civ 4 than SMAC. (Yes I know, I AM defending the latter.) But I allways come back to this game because I honestly think it is much better and gives a more "Realistic" gameplay. (Just my oppinion)

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is one of the really cool functions of SMAC. You can dessign your own Units. in civ 4 you can't say "Oh, I would like an axeman on an elephant coverd in tank armour." But in SMAC you can dessign really cool (like a 'copter probe team), wacky(Gravatetional battle spheres with deep sea radar) and stupid(The Flying Armoured Terraformer Of Doom) Things.

It IS a really good game.

 

[vyeh]

vyeh

You have no idea what youre talking about.

I ran several SMAC demogames at 'poly. I moderate a SMAC forum that focuses on identifying SMAC bugs and a forum for referees (we call them CMN) that set up SMAC multiplaying games on the site that hosts the SMAC Academy. I also trained some referees (CMN) for SMAC.

Oh my. They cant be adjacent yes. This makes one borehole every second tile you genius.

The "you genius" is probably getting close to a personal attack if it is meant sarcastically. I'm interpreting it as a compliment. Thank you. If X represents boreloses, B bases and o other squares, the tightest packing is

XoXoXoXo
oBoBoBoB
XoXoXoXo
oBoBoBoB

Of the 32 squares, 8 are boreholes and 8 are bases. This is what I meant by every fourth square. Only if you look at a single row or a single column would you say you could have a borehole every second square, but that ignores the fact that if a single row had boreholes every second square, the adjacent rows can have no boreholes.

Fill-in a forest for a regular empire, or a city+condencer for ICS. That about sums it up for all the terraforming options in SMAC.

Take a look at Terraforming-Options, options, options in the SMAC Academy.

In addition to all forest, all advanced terraforming, energy park, and sea energy park, there are other terraforming options that depend on how much tech you have:

(1) the all fungus approach!

(2) kelp/tidal harnesses for the sea.

Who is "us". You?

See 101 ways SMAC/X is better than Civ4, Back to SMAC after a long time ... comparisions with Civ4... and Civ 4 vs SMAC

Civ4 has alot more depth, terraforming, specialists, city placement, great people, tech slingshots, resources, corporations, borders, to name a few.

I think there are SMAC players that would contest whether there is a "lot more" depth, terraforming, specialist and borders.

In SMAC you can place bases almost anywhere if your tech is advanced. You can even have sea bases. I don't know what a tech slingshot is. SMAC has a lot of tech, theoretically more powerful than the techs of Civ, e.g. Mind/Machine Interface.

Smac does have some of that too, but as shown in the above terraforming example, it does not require any actual "depth" or strategic thinking. There is always a best option available.

Since there are 4 options in the "Terraforming - options, options, options" and the 2 I mentioned, I don't think your example works. As a very experienced player, I can say there is always a best option available, but it depends on the situation. Take a look at the SMAC demogames at 'poly and the current demogame at WPC, to see that there is a lot of strategic thinking.

Im not surprised. Give it a try maybe.

I already said I did. "I haven't played Civ 4 much (I bought it, tried it and returned to SMAC)."

Again, i lost you. The above is just some fanboy talk. Clearly you feel some kind of "obligation" to defend a piece of software.

If you lost me, how could you say it is "fanboy talk"?

I said, "The whole idea of terraforming is to change the map. SMAC was an experiment that was conducted after Civ 2. If Civ 4 is a better game than Civ 2, it is because of SMAC."

IMO, terraforming changes the terrain, an important element in any game. I don't see how stating that SMAC came between Civ 2 and Civ 4, stating that Civ 4 incorporated elements of SMAC and stating my opinion that if Civ 4 is a better game, it is because of the changes.

And I am not sure how you could claim I feel some kind of "obligation" to defend the software. I stated at the bottom of my last post, three flaws of SMAC: bad AI, bad UI and limited moddibility.

Did anyone denied SMAC all the above? No.

I never said anyone denied SMAC had a lot of terraforming. What does this have to do with what you say?

But Civ4 does things even better and with major improvements.

It is a matter of opinion. You are certainly entitled to it.

P. S. If it helps my regdate on apolyton is 2002

I don't see what that has to do with the discussion. If you told me that you have posted many times in the SMAC section of 'poly, that would make a difference in my thoughts about your knowledge of SMAC.

I haven't played much SMAC; how many years, game time, are the turns - 20, like the other Civ games? In that case, taking 40 years to do a terraforming project in a science fiction scenario isn't completely out of line.

Actually turns are a constant one year throughout the game.

BTW, even though I haven't played the game much, I've read the novel trilogy, so be assured that I do know what the game is about.

It might be more accurate to say that you are aware of the story line.

Guys, there is a little triangle to the left, under your name/avatar, etc. That is the icon you click to report a post that you think violates the rules (ie. if you think somebody is trolling). Please use it. Forum rules state that if you openly call somebody a troll, you are guilty of trolling yourself.

I was saying that coming into a forum dedicated to a game and saying that another game is better without an explanation might be considered by some to be a post for the sake of creating controversy.

I looked at CivFanatics Forum Rules v4.3 and couldn't find the rule. Could you point me to the right document?

I apologize to the CFC moderators. I am a moderator at another site and I find it helpful as a moderator to mention things like this to head off problems.

Please make it easier on yourselves and your moderator, and use it.

Actually, I did communicate with Petek in the CMN private forum seeking his guidance and offering to edit my post if he thought I had exceeded the CFC guidelines in any way.

Just my humble unimportaint point of view.

Your view is not unimportant.

To get the best production you place your cities far appart so they can "Eat" more squeres. If you doubt this then you obviously haven't played much SMAC.

This is especially true with crawlers.

Terraforming has many other effects. If you raise a hill it cuts rain to your enemies. If you build borholes and condensors the mindworms come after you. you can raise terrain to deal with rising sea levels (like dykes in Holland) or lower it to save cities and buildings (like the "Moses" in the Venezia) you can raise the seabed to construct cities and mine or farm on the seabed. And scince this is in a science fiction setting anything can happen (for a start one of the main characters in the story is a Planet).

I believe you have overlooked a major effect of terraforming, global warming, which causes the sea levels to rise!

An importaint point.
Unlike all other civ games ther is a definate story running through it. Stuff happens. Your main charater loses loved ones, goes of on revenges, talks to a sentient planet and much more. This makes it in a way far more superior to the blandness of civ 4.

A lot of SMAC lovers appreciate the story.

I probably play more civ 4 than SMAC. (Yes I know, I AM defending the latter.) But I allways come back to this game because I honestly think it is much better and gives a more "Realistic" gameplay. (Just my oppinion)

I am not saying Civ4 is worse than SMAC. Your attitude is much more open. Both games are good games and they are different.

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is one of the really cool functions of SMAC. You can dessign your own Units. in civ 4 you can't say "Oh, I would like an axeman on an elephant coverd in tank armour." But in SMAC you can dessign really cool (like a 'copter probe team), wacky(Gravatetional battle spheres with deep sea radar) and stupid(The Flying Armoured Terraformer Of Doom) Things.

I did mention the unit workshop.

It IS a really good game.

Thanks.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

SMAC/X is still my favorite game, even all these all these years, but then I am getting too old and fossilized to really get into any new games.

 

[creamcheese]

SMAC:

- too much terraforming
- ICS
- no unit groups

SMAC was good, but Civ4 surpasses it.

IMO, I *LOVE* the ability to terraform everything, that's one of SMAC's majors pluses!

If you don't like ICS, don't use it! You can win on the highest levels without using it, so don't!

Better unit grouping would be nice, but it's not a game killer by any means.

 

[Roller123]

Valka D'Ur
hehehe. Nah, i havent played civ2 much. In Smac 1 turn=1year. As for rules violations vyeh also advertises his site shamelessly, i hope its SMAC related.


Robert Can't

To get the best production you place your cities far appart so they can "Eat" more squeres. If you doubt this then you obviously haven't played much SMAC.

Obviously, out of us two, one doesnt know that every tile can be crawled, so it absolutely doesnt matter how much tiles can be worked to get the best production.

One thing that has not yet been mentioned is one of the really cool functions of SMAC. You can dessign your own Units.

Thats cool and all. But at the end it comes to a handful of proven designs. With about as much variety as Civ4 units. And remember Civ4 units can be customized, with upgrades. With just as much variety.

It IS a really good game.

Hell, cant you fanboys read. Thats what i said at the beginning. But it also IS surpassed by Civ4. As for atmosphere it is really subjective. SMAC's story is good, but i wouldnt say that replaying human history isnt.

vyeh

I ran several SMAC demogames at 'poly.

First postcount. Now demogames. Being a forumspammer doesnt make your posts any better. I see you have done some reading. Good good.

This is what I meant by every fourth square.

Well then do try to formulate things better. Noone here is a mindreader.

(1) the all fungus approach!

Also. All mine approach. All farm approach. All road approach. All -insert thing here- approach. How very "strategic"

In SMAC you can place bases almost anywhere..... SMAC has a lot of tech...

So? Whats your point. Lots of stuff equals depth? Stop joking. Regardless what you fanboys cant seem to realize is that if game A has depth doesnt mean game B doesnt. Why the hell are you even starting a comparison claiming how superior smac is if you even havent played civ4 much, or at all.(your own words). Jeez.

Moderator Action: There's no need to belittle vyeh as you do.
Penalized for flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[vyeh]

Valka D'Ur
hehehe. Nah, i havent played civ2 much. In Smac 1 turn=1year. As for rules violations vyeh also advertises his site shamelessly, i hope its SMAC related.

For the record, WPC is not my site. I haven't logged in since last December, when I was accused of newb-bashing and a co-administrator didn't see a problem. I like CFC because it is heavily moderated.

If you are talking about my signature, it refers to a project on another site. I believe signatures linking to another civ-related sites are specifically allowed and would not be considered shameless advertising, just a way for someone to let other people know where they can find him.

Robert Can't

Obviously, out of us two, one doesnt know that every tile can be crawled, so it absolutely doesnt matter how much tiles can be worked to get the best production.

It is not clear to me that Robert Can't doesn't know about crawlers. And I can't see in a discussion about optimization how it wouldn't matter how many tiles can be worked to get the best production.

I originally stated "If you are trying to optimize for maximum production, it is better to space bases far apart."

You stated: "You have no idea what youre talking about."

Robert Can't stated: "To get the best production you place your cities far appart so they can "Eat" more squeres." (sic)

Even without crawlers, the issue of how many tiles that can be worked to get the best production is critical. You suggest a base square every two linear square (or every fourth square if both dimensions are taken into account).

What Robert and I argue is that it is better to have one base square for every 16 squares rather than every 4 squares because the base square is not as productive as the worked squares, once you have advanced terraforming techniques.

So a statement, "so it absolutely doesnt matter how much tiles can be worked to get the best production," in the context of resource optimization appears illogical.

Thats cool and all. But at the end it comes to a handful of proven designs. With about as much variety as Civ4 units.

Much more than a handful of proven designs. Three type of land chassis, two types of sea chassis, four type of air chassis. 17 weapons and 14 armor. 22 special abilities (although you can't use all special abilities with a given combination of chassis, weapons and armor) and you can use two special abilities after the right tech.

I looked at the BradyGames Official Strategy Guide to Civilization IV and there are only 75 units (some units can only belong to a particular nation, e.g. samurai.)

And remember Civ4 units can be customized, with upgrades. With just as much variety.

There are only 41 promotions (and no promotion can be applied to every type of unit, e.g. accuracy can only be applied to siege units).

So I think the statement "with just as much variety" is factually wrong.

Hell, cant you fanboys read. Thats what i said at the beginning. But it also IS surpassed by Civ4. As for atmosphere it is really subjective. SMAC's story is good, but i wouldnt say that replaying human history isnt.

You said "SMAC is good;" Robert said "It IS a really good game." I think there is a difference between saying something is good and something is really good. Of course, you are entitled to your interpretation. In any case, Robert never said you didn't say SMAC was a good game.

I don't think anyone here is knocking the Civ franchise; some of us think SMAC is better than Civ4.

vyeh

First postcount. Now demogames. Being a forumspammer doesnt make your posts any better. I see you have done some reading. Good good.

I stated: "If you are trying to optimize for maximum production, it is better to space bases far apart."

You stated: "You have no idea what youre talking about."

I stated my credentials: "I ran several SMAC demogames at 'poly. I moderate a SMAC forum that focuses on identifying SMAC bugs and a forum for referees (we call them CMN) that set up SMAC multiplaying games on the site that hosts the SMAC Academy. I also trained some referees (CMN) for SMAC." to show other posters that I do have an idea of what I am talking about.

I'm sorry you consider demogames to be forum spamming. Many players enjoy them and CFC even has a forum devoted to Civ 4 demogames.

As for the possible implication that I am a forumspammer, I have 440 posts, you have 326 and I have been here a year and a half before you.

If my posts are better than yours, it because I choose to cite facts.

Well then do try to formulate things better. Noone here is a mindreader.

Communications is a two way street. As soon as it was clear you misunderstood, I explained.

Also. All mine approach. All farm approach. All road approach. All -insert thing here- approach. How very "strategic"

All mine wouldn't work. Everybody would starve.

All farm would be a problem because of lack of minerals.

Roads don't increase production (unless you have a mine on a rocky square). It may be good for moving your troops and getting terraformers to their squares.

The reason I mention the all fungus approach is that there are "Centauri" techs that increase the production of fungus. There is also two secret projects: The Manifold Harmonics, which increases resource production of fungus, and the Xenoempathy Dome, that turns all fungus into roads.

I brought this up because you said, "This makes one borehole every second tile you genius. Fill-in a forest for a regular empire, or a city+condencer for ICS. That about sums it up for all the terraforming options in SMAC."

I said, "Take a look at Terraforming-Options, options, options in the SMAC Academy.

In addition to all forest, all advanced terraforming, energy park, and sea energy park, there are other terraforming options that depend on how much tech you have:

(1) the all fungus approach!

(2) kelp/tidal harnesses for the sea."

My point is that there are other viable terraforming options other than the two you stated. While I didn't say it was "strategic," there is a strategy based on the "red" approach ("green" is forests).

In my opinion, the "red" and "green" approaches gives SMAC interesting strategic options. And the "sea," advanced terraforming, energy park and sea energy park are also interesting.

So? Whats your point.

You stated, "Civ4 has alot more ... city placement"

I stated, "In SMAC you can place bases almost anywhere if your tech is advanced. You can even have sea bases."

My point was that SMAC has more city/base placement. In the early game, as in Civ 4, base placement is important (whether it is more or less important than Civ 4, I am not saying). As the game continues and you get more tech, you can place bases at marginal sites.

Lefty Scaevola, a senior mod here, said at WPC (I like to tease him that he is slumming) that he once sunk everything so that all that remained was ocean and ocean trench squares. Someone asked how his faction survived. Well the one nutrient per ocean square (kelp wasn't possible because he wasn't a pirate and there were no shelf squares) combined with satellites was enough to have big sea bases.

Personally, I think it makes SMAC great that this is possible.

Lots of stuff equals depth? Stop joking.

My point is that there are a lot of features in SMAC that combined give SMAC a lot of depth. And I haven't been joking in any of my posts. I have addressed all of your points (more for other readers who might wonder why SMAC still has a loyal following after 10 years).

Regardless what you fanboys cant seem to realize is that if game A has depth doesnt mean game B doesnt.

I don't believe anyone has said that Civ 4 does not have depth. We have been arguing that SMAC has depth, apparently because you keep implying that it doesn't.

Why the hell are you even starting a comparison claiming how superior smac is if you even havent played civ4 much, or at all.(your own words). Jeez.

I didn't start this thread. whstaff did.

I never claimed that smac was superior to Civ 4. What I have been doing is challenging your assertion that Civ 4 is superior to smac. It is pretty clear at this point that the level of your play at SMAC (I make no comment about how much you've played SMAC) isn't enough for your opinion about the superiority of Civ 4 to SMAC to carry much weight among readers in this forum.

I played Civ 4 enough. I played civ and civ 2 a lot.

One final note: I would prefer you stop using the term "fanboy." There are woman who enjoy SMAC.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

What stands out to me in SMAC is the personality and stories of the leaders, and the interludes upon discovering new techs and building new facilities, and the secret project movies.