which is harder civ2 or smac - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  which is harder civ2 or smac

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   which is harder civ2 or smac

Krushala posted 06-06-99 10:33 AM ET
I was curious which you all find harder. I can beat thinker in smac, and am still working on transcend. But emporer and deity in civ2 I can't beat. It may be my playing style as a builder more than a conquerer. I think I still retain most of my bad habits from playing at lower levels.
Todd Hawks posted 06-06-99 11:47 AM ET
I think that Civ II is harder. I never was able to win at the 3rd or 4th difficulty level at Civ II but that may have been because I didn't fully understand how it worked... (I was young and foolish )
And the AI cheats much more in CivII!
LoD posted 06-06-99 01:55 PM ET
Blah, it cheats more in SMAC. Additionally, you have more customizable options that (pottentialy) make the game harder.
LOD
TheScientist posted 06-06-99 02:59 PM ET
I think, SMAC is harder.
I can beat deity in Civ2 (at leat most of the time), but I get every time eradicaded by the Hive in transcendent.
Perhaps, because there is not so much difference between Civ1&2, so I had more experience.
HeatherWst posted 06-07-99 10:52 AM ET
I find SMAC more difficult. The one thing that seems to happen in SMAC more than Civ II is that the AI builds more. I don't recall ever seeing a civ in CIV II build as many cities as Yang or Miriam do in my SMAC transcend games! I could beat Deity level in CIV II without much problem but beating SMAC at transcend I have to go out and start stomping on people very early on or I have no chance.
eNo posted 06-07-99 12:31 PM ET
SMAC. It takes much longer to get the early cities up and running. Fungus slows expansion a lot because of the movement problems. Also mindworms really set back expansion if you get attacked early in the game. I don't remember barbarians in CivII being this active.
Zardoz posted 06-08-99 05:25 PM ET
I think CivII, I always seemed to get wiped out in the eary game in the higher difficulty levels. In SMAC it takes me longer to get destroyed and I can even win some.
Andrew Goldstein posted 06-08-99 05:41 PM ET
I think SMAC is the harder game to win. Usually in CivII on diety level, I would win most of the time (without cheating). The following tricks usually worked:
1) Build as little city improvement structures as possible (use 3 warriors to keep unrest down and defend against barbarians),
2) Build settlers as quick as possible and plant cities close together (within 3 squares). Also it was a good idea to just build roads, and keep as many of the cities along costal lines.
3) When possible, wipe out competitors that start close to you. Or at least bully them into submission.
4) and get to Monarchy ASAP.

As far as SMAC, the above rules will leave you underdefended and much more vulunerable to the much smarter computer players. Its very rare that I win transcend by conquest. If I win, its usually by going getting to transcendence.
Darkstar posted 06-08-99 06:16 PM ET
Civ2 is harder.
SMAC has more ways to achieve what you want. It also doesn't try to force you down certain paths for history's sake, just survival.
-Darkstar
HolyWarrior posted 06-11-99 08:58 PM ET
Civ2:
In Civ2, your settlers consumed food and built roads, meaning that it is much more difficult to expand.
Plus I speak from personal experience. I have never beaten King on Civ2 (4th level), but I have whipped Librarian easily.
I'll play 2 or 3 factions I don't normally play, then I'll try Thinker.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: which is harder civ2 or smac
Krushala	posted 06-06-99 10:33 AM ET I was curious which you all find harder. I can beat thinker in smac, and am still working on transcend. But emporer and deity in civ2 I can't beat. It may be my playing style as a builder more than a conquerer. I think I still retain most of my bad habits from playing at lower levels.
Todd Hawks	posted 06-06-99 11:47 AM ET I think that Civ II is harder. I never was able to win at the 3rd or 4th difficulty level at Civ II but that may have been because I didn't fully understand how it worked... (I was young and foolish ) And the AI cheats much more in CivII!
LoD	posted 06-06-99 01:55 PM ET Blah, it cheats more in SMAC. Additionally, you have more customizable options that (pottentialy) make the game harder. LOD
TheScientist	posted 06-06-99 02:59 PM ET I think, SMAC is harder. I can beat deity in Civ2 (at leat most of the time), but I get every time eradicaded by the Hive in transcendent. Perhaps, because there is not so much difference between Civ1&2, so I had more experience.
HeatherWst	posted 06-07-99 10:52 AM ET I find SMAC more difficult. The one thing that seems to happen in SMAC more than Civ II is that the AI builds more. I don't recall ever seeing a civ in CIV II build as many cities as Yang or Miriam do in my SMAC transcend games! I could beat Deity level in CIV II without much problem but beating SMAC at transcend I have to go out and start stomping on people very early on or I have no chance.
eNo	posted 06-07-99 12:31 PM ET SMAC. It takes much longer to get the early cities up and running. Fungus slows expansion a lot because of the movement problems. Also mindworms really set back expansion if you get attacked early in the game. I don't remember barbarians in CivII being this active.
Zardoz	posted 06-08-99 05:25 PM ET I think CivII, I always seemed to get wiped out in the eary game in the higher difficulty levels. In SMAC it takes me longer to get destroyed and I can even win some.
Andrew Goldstein	posted 06-08-99 05:41 PM ET I think SMAC is the harder game to win. Usually in CivII on diety level, I would win most of the time (without cheating). The following tricks usually worked: 1) Build as little city improvement structures as possible (use 3 warriors to keep unrest down and defend against barbarians), 2) Build settlers as quick as possible and plant cities close together (within 3 squares). Also it was a good idea to just build roads, and keep as many of the cities along costal lines. 3) When possible, wipe out competitors that start close to you. Or at least bully them into submission. 4) and get to Monarchy ASAP. As far as SMAC, the above rules will leave you underdefended and much more vulunerable to the much smarter computer players. Its very rare that I win transcend by conquest. If I win, its usually by going getting to transcendence.
Darkstar	posted 06-08-99 06:16 PM ET Civ2 is harder. SMAC has more ways to achieve what you want. It also doesn't try to force you down certain paths for history's sake, just survival. -Darkstar
HolyWarrior	posted 06-11-99 08:58 PM ET Civ2: In Civ2, your settlers consumed food and built roads, meaning that it is much more difficult to expand. Plus I speak from personal experience. I have never beaten King on Civ2 (4th level), but I have whipped Librarian easily. I'll play 2 or 3 factions I don't normally play, then I'll try Thinker.