posted 04-30-99 04:49 PM ET     

Ok, folk.

We've had SMAC for a while now, played several games thru, probably. Won/lost/whatever.

How does this game strike you for re-playability? vs AI, I mean.

Frankly, I'm bored. Always the same. Diplomacy w/ the other factions is always the same.
Diedre will deal w/ you if you're green. Univ. likewise if you're knowledge-based. Miriam never does ['course I never go to Fund.Govt, either]. Morgan gets reasonable size then gets stupid. Yang and Santiago are agressive and dont negotiate. LaL is fodder.

I hang around in 3d [sometimes worse], stealing tech, rarely building a Special, micromanaging cities and formers. Eventually I get planes and copters and start to win cities. Once I've eaten up somebody, I can stockpile transports and either do the transcend win or just beat 'em to a pulp eventually.

*Yawn*

Frankly this game looks seems less 'replayable' to me than Civ II. If the Patch4.0 and or SMACX doesnt give this game some ~variability~ [meaning ~interest~ for the human player] this one is headed to join my extensive collection of shelfware.

posted 04-30-99 05:01 PM ET            

I have't even tried playing a serious game as the Believers or Hive yet, and I am just now learning the marvels of Morganess.

I assume that you have no desire to tweak the .txt files or randomize the factions just do you don't know what to expect from who.
After reading some of the summaries and stories of peoples games (or epic battles) I am psyched to play that much more.

Again I wish I could share some enthusiasm with you. I hope you find some element new in the game and enjoy it again, if not start a thread asking for suggestions for a good new game.

Goob

posted 04-30-99 07:00 PM ET            

If you want to have the AI controlled Factions play different, or at least negotiate based on different values, do into customize rules and set them to random. Then you won't know WHAT SE to set to before dealing with them. There is also an option to randomize what they play like (I think) and you can set that. Maybe Morgan will be a raving Power expansionist. Whatever.

SMAC's replayability seems higher to me than the Civs. You can play different ways and win. On Civ, you only had a couple of basic ways to victory.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. If you shelf it, consider boxing it up and reselling it to Electronic Boutique, or other spot that accepts/buys used software and use the money to get something you will enjoy (at least due to newness to you).

posted 04-30-99 08:22 PM ET            

The TBS genre hasn't developed, in fact I think civ1 makes SMAC look like child's play. Instead of one strategy two strategies were availible: build and conquer. They cut back on conquer and got rid of it entirely in SMAC. If you use correct settings (small or tiny map is a must) you can bring back some of the magic but you won't get any fun from the standard settings. [for those builders out there conquer means making no buildings with an upkeep cost, anything else is just an aggressive builder strategy]

posted 04-30-99 10:52 PM ET         

* I ~could~ go and figure out what to customize in the game files. Play a while with those settings, modify, play, etc... I dont ~want~ to be a game scenario designer, I just wanna play.

* "Randomize faction personalities" ? Oh come ON, guys. You really gonna be confused for very long when you get "Greetings from Chairman Yang: Please stop polluting and switch to Green" .

* Yes, it would be easy to find a setup where the AI players were very difficult to beat. Maybe impossible. I'm not syssiphus (sp?); I dont want to climb an impossible mountain, with a handicap. I want to play a fair, reasonable game, that will occasionally surprise me, make me think.

----

Bottom line, now that I think of it that way, is that I'm hoping for an improved AI play. "Smarter" attacks and defense, city development, unit upgrade policy, "style" if you will...

posted 04-30-99 11:19 PM ET            

Ah but isn't the beauty of SMAC, and other strategy games, the fact that you *do* have to do something other than build troops and throw them at each other? Wouldn't that be kind of, well, exactly the same as playing Command & Conquer? Just a thought

Druid:

You don't need to edit any files if that's not your thing... just give SMAC a try at Transcend level, on a huge map, 30-50% ocean, with arid & mountainous terrain, yourself playing a faction you don't find easy (I find Morgan very difficult), the other factions set to "Aggressive" mode, native life set to maximum, Blind Research on, Pod Scattering off and Bell Curve off. To make it harder, also turn off Transcend and Economic Victory. I'm a long-time player of CIV2 and I do know most of the strategies the AI uses, but I've found SMAC a challenge with these harder settings... too much of a challenge, quite often. All these settings are in the startup options, no editing needed! Making the settings harder really does make a difference.

On the "randomise leaders" point, it's not so much so that you're taken by surprise when Miriam exhorts you to be nice to Planet, but rather the fact that randomizing the leaders can take away some of the AI players' common handicaps, such as Morgan *always* going for Free Market and thus ending up with no troops to speak of, or Yang *always* racing to build missiles at the expense of any kind of infrastructure. It also makes it more interesting for the human player.

The AI in SMAC isn't perfect, and you can take advantage of its weaknesses once you learn them, but it's still a better AI than any other I've seen. It's asking too much for the computer to think like a human... maybe in the future? Now that would be great

posted 04-30-99 11:36 PM ET         

Isn't that kind of like a chess player saying: "Ok, lets start the game with my opponent having a superior position, and further I'll play the opening that he knows best, I'll NOT play best for a while... and see if I can *STILL* win." ?

You're right, tho...

The SMAC AI is pretty lame in some respects... but other games are beyond hopelessly stupid.

OTOH.. if the AI were a based on open-code or at least an open interface and I could roll my own AI.. Then somebody could suggest that I put up or shut up.. *L*

posted 05-01-99 02:03 AM ET            

I haven't played C&C but I hear that is was a good strategy game, if you are just biased against RTS games because most of them are trash then consider thise:

Starcraft puts SMAC to shame strategy wise. While it seems that most people here think SC is a "twitch" game it isn't. I don't want to insult anyone but if you had SC and didn't think it was a strategy game is that the game's fault? Or is it your fault for not taking the time to learn the game. I do not think I am being unreasonbale with this assumption because 80% of current SC players only scratch the surface when it comes to strategy. I have spent hundreds of hours studying the game (not counting playing time either) and I still don't know it all.

posted 05-01-99 07:32 PM ET            

After 5 games, I'm playing Ultimate Soccer Manager (something like that, It's my brother's game).

posted 05-02-99 03:43 AM ET            

SC Compendium
http://www.battle.net/scc/
(the protoss guide takes a while to load)

If you want to discuss the game you could go to the official forums but I wouldn't. Most intelligent people have fled to Shockwave's forum or other private forums after the public forums were overrun. If you buy Starcraft I suggest that you play through the campaigns first before moving to multiplayer. They don't teach you much strategy but they teach you the basics (like what each spell does, how much things cost, etc...). They also have a pretty good plot and just playing the campaigns was worth my money.

If you have any questions I'm always willing to discuss anything remotely Starcraft related. Actually one of the reasons that I liked the SMAC demo so much is because they just stole the SC console (you know the lower part of the screen) outright.

posted 05-02-99 04:58 AM ET         

In all these games, you plow through the game in a linear order (in Starcraft you could play the "campaigns" in any order, but within each one you are still to plow through the loosely connected scenarios linearly). There are no branching trees, and if you lose, you are to re-play the same scenario over and over until you get so bored so you uninstall the game, or win.

Each of the scenarios is just a puzzle to have to solve. Find the right way to do things and you win. Most of the time, they are just battles of attrition. You weather out the inital computer onslaughts while building up your own base. Then you go out and start grounding the opponent(s) into dust. They are all the same: defend, build, attack, kill.

For the last scenario in the campaign of those psionic aliens (I forget their name), I got bored to tears. Grind, grind, and more grind. As usual, the AI was psyhic, knowing everything I have done (*yawn*).

As far as I can tell, the whole point of Starcraft involves building up most offensive power most cheaply. Strategy involves a paper-rock-scissors variant. There is no diffence between units of the same type. Experience doesn't matter; fresh recruits fight as well as those who have seen actions hundreds of times.

I can't build up a core group and bring them with me to different scenarios. The feeling of continuity within a campaign is non-existent. As a matter of fact, you can play them in any order.

Some of my other complains:

1. Why can't I see the whole map? If I can fly from star to star, whatever happened to my remote sensing?

2. By the same token, I should be able to see where all the enemy units are. They can do it now, so why not in the future?

3. In some of the scenarios, for example, the New Gettysburg (I think that's the name) in the Terran campaign, mobs of Zergs charge through my base, and that's after I made sure they didn't have mobs of suicide chargers. Where the !@#%^ did those come from?

posted 05-02-99 05:31 AM ET            

Urban Ranger Says >> "building up most offensive power most cheaply."

I realize that is a "Part" of strategy, but the RTS's generally only have one or two ways to do so. Therefore, you have the massive weinie rush, or the "Get Shard Singularity Tanks. Kill Kill Kill!" That I find more boring than watching grass grow. While I understand a few games have 2 or maybe even 3 "paths" to victory based on race/faction, that doesn't give me the more open play of most TBS games. For this reason, I rarely venture into RTS games, except for when they are given to me as a present.

Urban Ranger Says >> "Each of the scenarios is just a puzzle to have to solve." This is unfortunately true of many "Campaign" systems. A simple linear play. Most systems today have at the most one or two branches, leading to an incredible lack of replay interest. Hence the need for "Expansions". Since this is a self promoting system, we haven't seen many games that follow different campaign path systems. The consumer loses because of this.

To those that enjoy such, have at it. I have simply played and seen too many RTS games to appreciate them anymore.

Urban Ranger, thanks for words. I needed those a month or so ago when getting dragged into various side tracks of debates about costumer service and Blizzard and Starcraft...

posted 05-02-99 12:23 PM ET            

Your little complaints about not being able to see the map are silly. After all in SMAC you can't see the map. In Starcraft being able to see the map would ruin the game. The importance of recon falls apart. Sneaky strategies stop working, etc, etc.. If you want to see the map just play protoss and pump observers, of course smart players will just hunt them down using something like wraiths and science vessels

posted 05-02-99 01:05 PM ET         

I'm just disappointed, I guess... it's only May. I got the game in February. That's usually not long enough for me to get to the *yawn* stage w/ a good game.

..........

As a buttress to the point of view that there is little strategy in this game... More precisely there is *A* strategy for success.. I note the significant lack of dynamic strategy arguments in the Strategy&Tactics forum. Before I get jumped: There are some .. just not as many as I'd expect in a good, challenging strategy game that is just a couple of months old.

I suggest that the reason for this is the extremely limited AI strategies. When the opponent ALWAYS does the same/similar things, then there are a very limited number of counters that work.

posted 05-02-99 01:34 PM ET            

You have a point there. Maybe what we need to do is nip over there and persuade some of the experienced PBEM/IP multiplayers to part with their cherished 'secret' tactics that they won't tell for fear of someone else using them against them, or worse yet, coming up with a (gasp!) counter strategy.

posted 05-02-99 01:45 PM ET            

As an example I'll describe a PBEM game that I am in. I am stuck on a small island and when I get flexibility I will make some foils and sneak onto the continent that my friends are all on. This will take at least fifty turns or so. Until then all I am trying to do is maximize my infrastructure. Using my skill at SMAC I will be building cities, recycling tanks, formers, etc... So I really have no strategic choices to make.

posted 05-05-99 02:45 PM ET            

In addition winning against just two computers in StarCraft is very hard [unless you rush them with peons - an AI bug they may have fixed by now?] -- much harder than anything in SMAC where you can build so much faster than the AI that they are not competitors as much as obstacles.

posted 05-08-99 05:44 AM ET            

Not to get our StarCraft fanatics going AGAIN, but when someone is trying to defend Starcraft, that sort of talk won't help.

And in ALL Single Player TBS games, the Computer is NOTHING MORE than an obstacle. Sometimes a very fun one, sometimes not, but that is why they are included. As obstacles to overcome. As they are usually your prime antagonist, you don't notice it, but tis true. You have to either conquer/quell them, or beat them to the non-conquest goal.

posted 05-08-99 06:51 AM ET         

I gave it a second chance when Brood War came out. I was briefly entertained by the new units, quickly came up with new and multiple ways of dealing with the strategies resulting from them, and got very bored once again.

This has however severely handicapped me when jumping to TBS games. I played plenty of Civ1 and then Civ2 and now SMAC. My RTS experience has destroyed my concept of diplomacy; I find I do not initiate contact and have an aversion to probes. My military strategy is somewhat lacking, but I'm learning fast the new rules to war(have to, Miriam is a #$%^&). Currently playing librarian with a good survival opportunity, but winning by methods other than transcend are still be worked on.

A few of the AI bugs are rather annoying. I also find it difficult to play a game 3-4 hrs a sitting without finishing. I would like to see better former controls as well.

Is there strategy in sc/bw? Yes. Is there re-playability in SMAC? Yes. Personal preference will drive you toward one style or the other. SMAC's drawbacks are starting to wear on me, but it's probably got another month before I completely abandon it. Tribes on the other hand....