The reasons why Alpha Centaury is better than Civ 3

[Frodo Bolson]

* Each faction is different than the others. A good gaming strategy for one of them surely won't work well with others.

* The map is 3D. You don't have a mountain square, you have a whole elevation including many squares, each of them with it's own characteristics of food or minerals.

* The parts of the spaceship can be found both in land and in water. The tribe villages (the same gaming concept) can only be found at land.

* There is a global council where there are voted global politics (global leader, global commerce pact, etc)

* When you trade advances with other factions you can go to the place where each one is explained, so you can decide if it is good or not to let them have what they request. You can't do that in Civ III

* You can make personalized units. If you find it difficult you can omit that and use the common units, but the editor is there if you want it.

* Instead of a useless palace, you have "rewards" about each new thing you do: the first city, the first advance, the first city improvement, the first air or naval unit, etc

* Although each faction has it's own characteristics, you are not forced to use the default name. You can change the leader name, the faction name, and just use the characteristics of it. For example, last time I was Dr Doom of Nueva Latveria instead of Zakarov (or something like that) of University.

* Special events that prevent the game from becoming a "turn after turn" burocracy.

 

[cutiestar]

Each to their own i guess, i personally couldn't stand SMAC, hated it, couldn't even keep the game, i gave it to a friend .

I could list tonnes of reasons why CIV III is better, but no reason, as different people like different things.

for me, SMAC sucked probably as much as any other game i have ever disliked, which is pretty bad since i love turn based strategy.

 

[Endureth]

The reason I didn't like Alpha Centauri was because I had no idea what I was researching and I didn't care what I researched next because I wasn't familiar with them. I know what electricity is, the wheel, etc. and I know thier importance. The tech tree in Alpha Centauri was too foreign.

Although there were things about it that I liked, the diplomacy seemed a lot better. The 3d map was the shiznit too.

But you can't top the animations in Civ3. Nope, can't beat the new resources either.

Endureth

 

[Grashnak]

Originally posted by Frodo Bolson
* * You can make personalized units. If you find it difficult you can omit that and use the common units, but the editor is there if you want it.

* Although each faction has it's own characteristics, you are not forced to use the default name. You can change the leader name, the faction name, and just use the characteristics of it. For example, last time I was Dr Doom of Nueva Latveria instead of Zakarov (or something like that) of University.

Two points. One of the big problems with SMAC was the units. Oh look, I customized made some sort of infantry unit. Too bad it looks just like all those other infantry units I made. And what the hell is that scooter thing they are pushing? I found that the tech and units in SMAC made very little sense and lacked the intuitive nature of CIV III. At a glance I know that a tank is better than my cavalry, but with SMAC I had no idea what half the units were or how powerful they were.

Second, you can change the name of your leader in CIV III. Just click on the name and info below the picture of the leader and voila you can change your name.

 

[Cerryl]

Comparing CIV III and SMAC is like comparing The NFL to College football.

 

[dogen]

alpha centauri, I bought it, play it once, and then never touch it again.

 

[Craterus22]

SMAC UN council is FAR superior to the Un functions in CIV3.

I was never a huge SMAC fan but this was the one thing beyond all other things that they did right.

Numerous options to vote on, the ability to encourage others to vote with you.

I fully expected that Civ3 would expand upon this feature or at least be as useful... ABM Missle Treaties, environmental issues, conflict resolution options, blueberry units, etc.

Perhaps they thought that since the Wonder comes so late in the game that it wasn't worth the effort?

 

[57%]

I miss the global council, too. And a lot of SMAC's interface felt cleaner, like accessing the 'civilopedia' during negotiation.

But the rest of Frodo's post I don't agree with.

For one thing, you CAN change the name of the leader. Click on the name in the set-up screen where you choose which Civ to be.

I don't understand why people who prefer SMAC point out the "3d" environment. Yes, it's different, yes, Civ3 doesn't have it; but what difference did it make?

To me, it made the scale of the world feel really tiny. Compare to the Earth, whose circumference is tens of thousands of miles yet the highest point is six miles above sea level.

If one still wanted the combat advantages of a higher elevation and the gameplay effect of flooding, those still could have been represented, but including an in-game 3D terrain was purely eye-candy. Pretty and impressive, but time-consuming (for the programmer) to implement and useless for gameplay.

I would have rather they had spent the time making the unit design workshop less 'stab your eyes out with forks' frustratingly cumbersome, since unit design HAD an effect on how one played.

Special events - Civ is open ended! You're making your own history, not following a set storyline.

Why would primitive tribes be found in the ocean? Spaceship parts, sure, but tribes?

Another thing I didn't like about SMAC - the blacks and reds for terrain everywhere. Felt cold and dark, put me on edge. Green land and blue water is more soothing to the eye and the temperament.

 

[Håkon]

UN council - brilliant idea.

Rest of SMAC, okay, not a bad game, but it was cold and dark as 57% mentioned and made me a warmonger I never have been (and never will be again)

 

[SvenSlayer]

There were some good things about Alpha Centauri - I liked it -and that's why I played it quite a bit. However, Firaxis took all the good points of AC and put them into Civ 3. They left all the unneccesary stuff behind.

AC was too unfamiliar. I never got as used to AC as I got to Civ 2. After a while I stopped playing AC and went back to Civ 2. Now I play Civ 3 and I love it! The latest patch added some options to Civ 3 making the interface more Civ 2-like, which I am very happy about.

 

[RogueNine]

Another thing I didn't like about SMAC - the blacks and reds for terrain everywhere. Felt cold and dark, put me on edge. Green land and blue water is more soothing to the eye and the temperament.

I felt the same way. When trying to build my faction up, I just got this dark and dreary feeling about the game. its one of the main reasons I went back to Civ 2. Hard to believe that a simple terrain color was enough to turn me off from the game, but it was. Also, the unit customization screen was a PITA*.

Gotta agree with what was said about the tech tree too. The names were so meaningless, I found myself researching 'Weapon power 10', and social engineering 'weath'. In Civ 3 I'm researching 'Engineering and Railroad'. Just feels more realistic.



*PITA: Pain In The Ass.

 

[fsume93]

you have to remember SMAC was set in the future while Civ 3 is the the past/present. That dictates a lot of different aspects of the game.

I, for one, am getting a little less enamoured with Civ 3 as I go. Every game seems to turn to a warmonger game. AC was that way, but that was to be expected.

I find the culture aspect of Civ 3 to be less than advertised. Medium to large cities seem to be immune from any other cultures cultural value. Culture only comes into play in the early game concerning cities switching civs.

I wish they had taken more from SMAC. A true gem would be to incorporate the best from SMAC and CIV3. Some of you think that is exactly what they did, I disagree whole heartedly.

I also feel like the endgame was done incompletely. Perhaps they were approaching deadlines or something. But the late stage units lack in numbers and variety. My modern armor routinely loses to tanks, that shouldnt be happening in open flat terrain. Not balanced, incomplete, call it what you will.

 

[nklatt]

If your major gripe with SMAC was the color scheme, I know they had pallette downloads that made it "better".

 

[santo67]

My favorite thing about SMAC was the replay at the end of the game. I loved watching my faction spread like a plague throughout the planet, especially when I won by conquest. :soldier:

Now I don't have to go back to SMAC for a replay. This makes me happy.

 

[Dan_In_Belgium]

I couldn't stand SMAC for one reason all the units looked the same! What's the point of rolling over you'r enimes if all the units look the same!

 

[Injury20]

I just couldn't get into this game. Bought it, Played it, Didn't like it so i played it again just in case. Still didn't like turned it off never turned it on again. Each to there own I say and in a 2 words "keep It"
:midfinger :midfinger :midfinger :midfinger

 

[SvenSlayer]

"I, for one, am getting a little less enamoured with Civ 3 as I go. Every game seems to turn to a warmonger game. AC was that way, but that was to be expected."

Well, you know, all the powerful and influencal civs on Earth were, at one time or another, warmongers. They conquered the "world", and then tried to be peaceful with everyone to hold their power.

 

[Galen Dietenger]

Good grief some of the anti SMAC 'reasons' given here border on assinine.

Some examples of the howlers here.

Units all look the same
-Granted yes, but then again so do Civ3's, Civ3 has no great advantage\disadvantage in icons by comparison.

Couldnt 'tell' what a unit was
-For lazy people I can see this being a small issue. But evidently they didnt learn the game well enough to realize that not only can you custom tailor units, you can custom NAME them as well.(Hint: this goes a long way towards reduceing any residual confusion some of you might have faced) As an example I would call a garrison unit AAA-PSI garrison. That way I knew its specs and that it was a defensive unit with enhanced AA and PSI attack capability. Bombers were called Ground Attack Mark X and so on.
The unit icons so called 'sameness' never affected, to my knowledge anyones ability to play the game effectively.

57% feels 3d terrain is simply eye candy. Well at least in SMAC terain elevation actually was integrated into the game and worked. To on the one hand say SMAC approach to terrain was no good, then excuse Civ3's for not includeing it, odd argument to make. Instead civ3 opted to animate every unit and display every figgen move they make leading to the notorius 15min turns. Who took the better approach again?

And yes you can customize leaders names in SMAC np.....

Dark and dreary comments.
-These are a little strange too, but some people like bright happy colors so thats ok. As someone pointed out, you can DL palettes to change SMAC 'look'. Terrain look alone however is a poor reason to deride a game, after all, intelligent gamers look to gameplay as the primary factor, 'looks' are of secondary (or lower importance). By that standard Civ3 has lots of nice 'eye candy' but has some real gameplay issues, which is why theres so many post on these topics. A subtle point that seems lost on some of the naysayers here. I wouldnt say SMAC terrain was the best ever, buts it far away from being as bad as some make it out to be.

Unit design workshop
-Ill admit its a little daunting to learn at 1st and even a bit confuseing, but once mastered its an incredible tool that adds great depth and replay value to the Title.

 

[CivJester]

how dare people have such personal reasons for not liking a game, they should all share your views.
I played SMAC for a numbers of years and I liked it well enough, but I did have some of the same problems that were mentined above. Maybe I was just lazy and couldnt keep track of what unit was what and which were better. I also always did the random tech thing so that I would have to guess at what to go to next. I never could figure the techs out, and I am a SiFi fan. Probally just being lazy again.

"The unit icons so called 'sameness' never affected, to my knowledge anyones ability to play the game effectively. "

I would have to disagree with this, I cant count the times I attacked with a unit that just did "bombbardment" damage thinking it would kill some one, only to get killed the next turn because it couldnt, must have just been me.

 

[rubble]

dont forget the fungus, god how i hated it... give me a barbarian horde of horsemen anyday