posted 02-28-99 05:42 PM ET        

And the real point to focus on here is the term "constructive criticism". Lately, a few people have been on these forums, very vocally bagging SMAC, and on a few occasions, with very little in the way of facts to back them up. Quite a few of the posts just seem to be childish little spats, by people that decide they don't like the game, and want to bag Firaxis (and Sid and Brian in particular) for the work they did on SMAC.

Now when people on these forums have come back, and refuted those posts, suddenly we get accused of ganging up on them, about the forum regulars don't want to hear any criticism of SMAC, and how we bully people who criticise SMAC. Well, being a forum regular for well over a year now, and also one of those people that have been defending SMAC, I feel that our side of the argument needs to be heard, concisely and clearly, all together in one place, so that no misunderstandings can be made.

Personally, if you hate SMAC, or think that parts of it suck (graphics, AI, whatever), then you are quite entitled to your opinion. If you think SMAC will be nowhere near as good as C:CTP, then once again, you are quite entitled to your opinion. If you think Firaxis are the worst bunch of developers in existance, then once again, you are quite entilted to your opinion.

And as you are entilted to your opinion, so are you entitled to post it right here. That is exactly what Firaxis want to hear: the opinion of everyone here, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Firaxis even made the title of this forum "Discussion of the game and its features, what's cool, what's not, etc.", and they didn't do that just so that we could bash anyone that says the game is bad.

They want to know what you think, and they value your opinion just as much as those that say "the game is great, and couldn't be any better. I love it - game of the year for sure". Because frankly, Firaxis realise that the game is NOT perfect, no game ever is, and they want to hear suggestions on how to improve the game.

However, some of the posts, and some of the opinions seem like whingeing from 12 year olds. They state an opinion such as "SMAC sucks, Firaxis are crap, and I will never buy another Firaxis game again", without backing it up in any way with why it sucks, or suggestions for improvements to the game. And frankly, that is not what Firaxis wants.

In the end, sales figures will tell them how many people liked the game, though of course this will not count for those that bought it and hated it. But it will be a pretty good incdication. However, a simple comment like I described above will not help them one iota in making the game better, which in the end is what all of these forums are about.

So, what do we do? We have a forum where we are to express our opinions, and yet we don't like the game. Well, I think that it leads pretty easily to the fact that we should be posting suggestions here for how to improve SMAC, to make it a better game, one that meets your expectations, and everyoene else's. Take a look at "Jason B and Mike H's Big SMAC Debate" for a good example on a debate on an aspect of SMAC that not everyone likes.

But please, don't come in here, say "SMAC sucks", and leave it at that. Tell us why, in a constructive way, and how you would improve it, and you'll see that you don't get flamed, people will even agree with you, and others will disagree. But the point is, it will create a forum where SMAC can be made a better game, which is what we are all after.

I should also point out that I do not agree to attacking (read flaming) somebody else's opinion, just because they don't like SMAC. You don't like the way combat is still a single unit v single unit format, fair enough, you have a right to that opinion, as stated above. But you also have to realise that people will disagree with you, and argue with you. Not because they are blindly loyal to SMAC, but because they like the game the way it is. Sure, Stacked combat may or may not be more realistic, but that is what opinions are, what you think (not what is necessarily right).

So, people, forget these pointless arguments where one side says "SMAC sucks", and the other side says "No, SMAC rules, you suck". Let's keep these forums polite, and on the track of what Firaxis wants: Our opinions on the game, our suggestions of what is good, and what is not. Let's not turn this into a war.

After all, if we're here, then we're all after the same thing. We all bought SMAC because we thought it would be a good game. We all came here to express our opinions, good or bad, about the game. And to discuss, and even argue those opinions with others.

But please, let's keep it civil, huh? And let's keep it to the facts. Posts saying that CCTP rules are fine, maybe it does. But this is not a CCTP forum. If you want to point out that an idea in CCTP sounds good, and should be included in SMAC, then feel free to. But it is a bit hard to say the game is going to be better when as of now, unless you have the beta, it is pretty hard to tell. And in the end, this is a SMAC forum. As I said, keep it to the facts. Keep it civil. And keep it to constructive criticism, if it is to be criticism at all.

Thanks for reading this far. =)

This has been another cleansing rant from Brother Greg.

posted 03-01-99 07:30 AM ET            

The plant that was exposed to classical music ended up being twice as tall as the others. I'm serious, it was a legitimate journal article. The experiments have been repeated with concurring results. So to that extent I understand "Centauri Empathy."

Maybe I should come to grips with the fact that I am a bit of a futurist and read rather deeply into this stuff, perhaps more than most people would.

posted 03-01-99 07:33 AM ET            

The plant that was exposed to classical music ended up being twice as tall as the others. I'm serious, it was a legitimate journal article. The experiments have been repeated with concurring results. So to that extent I understand "Centauri Empathy."

Maybe I should come to grips with the fact that I am a bit of a futurist and read rather deeply into this stuff, perhaps more than most people would.

posted 03-01-99 10:34 AM ET            

As it is now, the speeder chassis always looks the same, the infantry the same, maybe what the guy says can be something useful for a Alpha Centauri 2(even though I think they should make the units themselves more unique). Maybe he was right, and it wasn't at all impossible even for this game.

I disagree in all ways to any attempt to silence the words of people who critisicm the game and don't know that much about programming or game design. Their thoughts counts.

What's worse for me is the number of asskissers that are in this forum who want to make us think that there are no way to improve the game and that there are no bugs and so on(not directed to you Snowfire). They are in NO WAY useful to this forum even though it's nice for the creators to hear praise. This all being said here are some thoughts of mine -

I do think they could have made the factions even more original and at the same time not restrain the freedom of different strategies.

I also do think they could have made the effects of different strategies(social enigeering choices) cooler.

Good planet value could maybe later in the game even have a REVERSE ecological damage effect of actually changing the way the map within your borders more like a Gaian planet. Industry would make would do the opposite, maybe even pollute your neighbours(the Morgan Industries polluting the Gaians area would result in a conflict even between two human players). Maybe even making mutated Mindworms come to planet(but maybe that's a bit much). I don't these kinds of graphic stuff would have been impossible to have done.

I'm certain other effects of the social enigieering can be made cooler too if a bit thought is put into it. And without removing the greatness of the simplicity of understanding and changing values in the menu.

I think the game would have been A LOT easier
to play if one could have made units obsolete in the city menu as you could have had the design units automatically turned ON. A simple change that would be great, but that one probably is too late to change.

posted 03-01-99 12:40 PM ET            

Joe Average: I agree with most of what you are saying here and I think that the game could be more fun if Firaxis had chosen to do some things differently, however, I don't think that the AI over reacts with their social choices. Mind you, in game terms it doesn't matter, but in the real world, it does since certain values carry over borders and that alone can be dangerous (i.e.: communist ideas in a democratic state causes termoil).

posted 03-01-99 12:54 PM ET         

The point is not that we should all sit around fat, dumb and happy about whatever gets shoveled out the door. For example, I've NEVER been happy with the Sid Meier-style political/economic model, or the technological determinism, or the "monolithic" player position, etc., blah, blah, ad nauseam.

However, we have to retain a proper perspective when making criticisms, and that can be done without wearing rose-colored glasses. The fact is, we live in an economic system that is not conducive to the production of high-quality strategic simulations. The idealistic notion that "dedicated individuals" alone can deliver groundbreaking, innovative games is nonsense - anyone who believes that is either arguing in bad faith or hasn't worked in the industry. The marketing cycle is everything - no one can defy it and hope to survive economically. CivI was a great "classic" because, basically, it was first to market in its genre. You want top-notch game technology? You'll have to work for the Pentagon - i.e., a government agency free of the market - to get that.

So, when I see a above-average quality commercial game like the Civs, or like SMAC, I underscore my criticisms with a great deal of respect, not for the economic system that produces them, but for the individuals who obviously did a lot of work in its production. A game like SMAC is clearly more than a cynical market ploy.

In addition, it's absurd to demand "groundbreaking, genre-establishing innovation" with every new game. Not only is there only so much "ground to break", but one _should_ expect "incremental innovation" in an established genre where there is still MUCH room for improvement. Finally, don't ever forget that qualitative advances in game design don't just leap out of the head of "geniuses" like Athena out of the head of Zeus. They are the result of the incremental improvements of those that went before them.

posted 03-01-99 04:39 PM ET            

The reason we see it for what it should have been is three fold.

1) $50US is a heck of a lot of money for some people to spend on a single game no matter how many hours of entertainment you get from it.

2) Some people want to see a bit more creativity in core issues than SMAC delivered. In particular, trade combat and diplomacy could still use a bit more work.

3) 2+ years of hype breeds it's own demons that it has to live with.

Therefore, SMAC is not the only game that is going to have a tough time living up to expectations as veteran civers have come to expect a lot given the tremendous number of great ideas that have come forth on the various civ forums. I actually expect CTP will have the toughest time due to their position in the middle of the previous Civ legal mess.

posted 03-01-99 10:40 PM ET            

However, as I said, I think they have created the best TBS game in existance to date.

If every single feature isn't the best that could possibly be made, then so be it. It is impossible to put the best of everything into a game, and keep publishers, Joe Public, and themselves happy. It would take five years between games, and by that time, the technology would be out of date anyway.

I think the whole problem comes from our expectations from Sid and Brian. We all expected our own version of Utopia, and were disappointed when it didn't live up to our expectations, which were largely created by the hype surrounding the next Sid and Brian game.

So, rather than enjoying the game for what it is, people look to the best parts in every game (as well as some that have never been done), and ask why that isn't in SMAC.

Once again, I am not above offering constructive criticism, and I reserve your right to do so as well, however, I reserve the right to disagree with you, and point out why I believe that you are wrong.

I do think that some minor graphical implementations should be corrected, such as how you can't tell artillery from non-artillery, and submersibles from non. I also think they should have different sounds for different weapons. Apart from that, I think they did a great job with the game.

Look at Civ II for example. It had so many bad features that could have been improved. Trade was an exercise in frustration of micromanagement. Upgrading units was a pain in the butt (without Leonardo's). The diplomacy model was so simple as to be funny. It was so easy to out-expand the AI, even on Diety. The AI constantly threw single units at you.

And yet, despite all of these problems, CIV II was a great game, and is probably the best selling TBS of all time (I think it is, but I don't have the facts here to prove it). Sure, people still complain about how CIV II, but they also recognise that it was, and still is a great game.

And that I think is the problem I have with most of the people who seem to be whining about the game. They are comparing the game to their expectations and complaining, rather than just enjoying the game for what it is. Personally, I am quite content with trade, combat and diplomacy. I look at them, and enjoy them for the quantum leap they are form CIV II. Sure, they may not be every person's idea of perfect, but what game is?

Sid and Brian CANNOT make a game that is everyone's idea of perfect. Nobody can. But we can sit back, and enjoy the best TBS ever made, and stop complaining about how they did such a bad job of it.

Sure, make suggestions for improvements. But don't suggest that they should have put your version of utopia into a box, because not everyone shares your idea of utopia...

And $50 expensive?!? Well, do you consider less than a whole day's work (assuming that you're an adult, and have a job), and probably closer to 1/2 a day's work expensive, considering that this is more than two years worth of many people's lives (read Firaxis)?!?

I think that is sad...

posted 03-01-99 10:59 PM ET            

If you disagree, tell me why SMAC should have been the best of everything, tell me how the hype did not lead you to expect more and lead to disappointment when you got there, tell me how Firaxis should make a perfect game and charge $20 for it, tell me hwo they should work 20 hour days for five years to get it done, tell me how it is not a quantum leap past CIV II...

posted 03-02-99 01:07 AM ET            

A couple of quickies before I must recharge my batteries.

1) You are right. You can't please everyone all the time. Actually, it's probably closer to no one at any time. However, a lot of hype preceded this game and I think it also unfair of you to call it whining when we point out that it hasn't lived up to the hype.

2) If winning doesn't matter, then why keep score. I think the way you present yourself in these forums speaks to the fact that you do play this game to win. Given the strife in these threads I want to point out that this is a compliment. However, I also agree with you that winning at all costs is pointless.

posted 03-02-99 10:28 AM ET            

When you wrote this article, you pointed out that constructive critisism was great and should be posted here. Well constructive critisism has been posted, and now you are the one whining, holding a defensive speech in part for SMAC.

You almost end up saying that we shouldn't post our ideas for how we wanted the game to be. What is the point of this forum if we can't do that? Some of the things posted are things that can be changed in patches, some are not. So what? Firaxis is getting a lot of feedback on their game, some good some bad ideas. You may feel I have lousy ideas about the game, you may feel others have lousy ideas about the game, but I reserve our rights to post them. You say:

"Sure, make suggestions for improvements. But don't suggest that they should have put your version of utopia into a box, because not everyone shares your idea of utopia..."

That's is why we call it "your idea of utopia". It's just a point of view, I can't understand why you have such a big problem with it. Personally, I have fun posting ideas and all ideas don't have to be taken too seriously. What's wrong with a of bit dreaming, or do you think we should post such ideas elsewhere? Because they do not belong here, because they are ruining this forum? Well don't take our ideas too seriously then, dislike them if you will and post it, but keep in mind they are just ideas and everyone no matter how they present them are dead aware of that.

I'll post my idea of utopia for the game any time, and if more happen to like it, that's great and fun. If not, that's too bad for me. There is nothing more to it.

If you feel this is a forum just to discuss how good and near perfect this game is, you are of course entitled to your view. And yes, the game will sell well, but I sure hope Firaxis is not all about figures. Maybe some will claim that the hype will sell the game more than how good it is will.

I am not going to pretend the hype never got to me, because if you see a lot of goodies of the game before it is released and find once you got it that it has not been tested enough and has too many bugs or doesn't achieve as much as you hoped for, you are sure to be a bit disappointed. That doesn't mean I or others that post views think Firaxis did a lousy job like you are trying to make others believe. I think they have made a great and inventive game. I played the demo about 30 times.

But a lot of the hype was created by Firaxis themselves to sell the game. It was part of a marketing plan. Even videos of Sid and Bryan are included on this site. And with that created hype, comes the demand that the game SHOULD live up to what we expect.

And any GOAL other than to make the greatest game ever, your perfect vision, when you start making one, is just BS. It just doesn't work that way, at least I know that. And I'm sure that is what Firaxis set out to do when they started.

BTW, when Starcraft was released, everyone had complained that it was late and that the graphics was out of date. When it was released, everyone was silent. Maybe if AC had been late, the game would run smoother in Multiplayer 'cause we all would have had better computers

posted 03-02-99 05:52 PM ET            

1) Some of us experience ridiculous performance problems with the units on everything other than 'full install, low res Caviar". While I personally can see the reasons for unit problems (3D high res unit component etc), I find it impossible to believe that ANYTHING could work this poorly when properly optimised. Q.E.D: The unit performance has been seriously neglected.

2) Despite all known fixes, I (and apparently many others) still get the echoing/repeating sound problems, as well as unexplainable bursts of static and other sound errors. Sounds seems to have had major problems at implimentation, probably caused by the MP3 format (IMInexpertO). This also causes the movies to stutter and play badly.

3) There seem to numerous obvious minor bugs with the game, notably the incorrect "with farm:" display in the terrain window and the infinite A.I planet buster range. I'm concerned that any testing should have picked these up long ago => how good was the testing?

4) I'm already on my third install for purely stability relation reasons, including odd errors like the 'Play Alpha Centauri" button failing to work - after the fifth time I'd played the game (i.e it didn't happen immediately after the install). The game really does seem to have that sickly infested quality to it - if you pick at the wound, you can see the bugs.

5) The faction balancing seems to be a little off kilter, and in some obvious ways, too. For instance, the Believers (weak already due to slow research) can't reasonably be expected to use the 'Fundamentalism' political setting - they suffer a massive 40% hit (I think) to their science. I know, I can change this, but it seems too obvious a flaw to leave during play balancing. Neither the Believers nor the PK's are ever significant opponents on Alpha Centauri.

It's hard to know what to make of all this, except that the same seems to have been released before being properly finished - E.A's 'Sell and Patch' strategy? And I understand that many people with high performance systems (or excellently configured ones) may not experience the video and sound problems. But it should be pointed out that the game does have problems, which are a real irritation to some of us.

P.S the sheer number of stupid newbies complaining about the game should also serve as an indication that things aren't that good. And many critisms aren't just based on personal idealism - i.e what THEY wanted to see in THEIR game - but on the vague feeling that things aren't right with SMAC. To be frank, I can see where their coming from.

Regards,

posted 03-02-99 07:32 PM ET            

And to you Profitable Jack again you have that stupid slogan by saying this game is for smart people get real dude.At least Activision didn't go so low to have slogans like that one.....

posted 03-02-99 07:34 PM ET            

okay $50 for a game, well i don't have the money for a playstation + games, so what should i do? demand that companies don't charge as much? pirate their stuff? or, maybe i should just suffer and save my money up.
just because i want something, doesn't mean that i will get it(i am NOT spoiled). Basically i just wait and see which games move to the bargin bin in a week, and know how smart i was not to buy them.

okay second point, uhhh don't look at me, those are personal choices, not sure, demo doesn't show that much

third one now , hype is bad, never belive hype it is evil. like i said wait till the bargin bin.

posted 03-02-99 07:35 PM ET            

That was really starting to bug me. Still, it's probably a good idea in the long run.

posted 03-02-99 07:53 PM ET            

Secondly, it doesn't really take a particularly smart person to beat SMAC, while some of the puzzles in Half-life took ages to solve (okay, it was 2:00 AM. But I digress). And as for beating the higher levels of BroodWars - well, then you really do have to think, and quickly, too.

posted 03-02-99 08:05 PM ET            

Both Shining and I have taken the time to respond to Jack's ridiculous statements, but he hasn't posted again.
He has the cojones to post once, but not to face the music afterwards.

posted 03-02-99 08:07 PM ET            

Now, as a bit of background, I have at various times in my life had jobs as: Network administrator, PC/LAN support, and analyst/programmer. On top of which, I have been building PCs for the last 10 years or so. So, basically, when it comes to PC troubleshooting, I have a very good idea of what is going on. I'd suggest that you have screwey drivers somewhere, or something, unfortunately it is very hard to tell without actually being able to look at your system.

Unfortunately, I can't see a quick fix for this. Take into account too, that it might be a problem with the Firaxis code, there is no way that I can categorically prove that it isn't. But as I did point out, the fact it works well on a LOT of PCs tends to point towards this not being the case.

As for balancing, I find that Lal is quite a good faction. Sure, he's quite down the middle, and the main strength is in diplomacy, and the fact that he has no major weaknesses. But as yet, I haven't had a problem playing as him. Haven't played against him yet, so it is hard for me to tell how well he plays as an opponent. As for the Believers, most times I play against them, they seem to be middle of the road. I haven't played that many games though.

And yeah, there are some bugs, such as the farm display. Haven't heard of too many others though, and all in all, apart from performance on certain PCs (which may or may not be due to the system itself), I think they put in a fairly bug free game. However, having said that, I don't check the bugs forum, so maybe I am missing the fact that there are thousands of bugs, I don't know. However, apart from the sound bug, which disappeared when I turned the options off int he ini file, I have yet to have a single bug (apart fromt he with farms thing).

Not ONE. Now, maybe I am lucky, and have a very stable system, with good drivers and the like. But the fact that you can have such a system points even more strongly to the fact that most of the "bugs" are system ralated. However, once again, this is only speculation. Without looking at individual systems, drivers, DirectX compliance, and about a million other things, there is no way to tell.

However, if I am right, then Firaxis have implemented a very bug free game. If I am wrong, then the Firaxis programmers have somehow managed to write DirectX calls that work on one PC, and not others, and personally, I can see no way at all how that could be possible. Not to say that it is impossible, mind you, just that I find it very unlikely.

Oh, and for Fredz, I thought I was particularly NOt whining. I was trying to put forward a rational argument, in that people are (possibly)expecting too much from Firaxis, in that every aspect of every part of the game should be perfect. You should expect games to be good, and IMHO, SMAC is very good. I think it is unfair to expect any program to be everyone's idea of perfect though.

That's not to say that improvements can't be made, nor suggested, more that when complaining that SMAC sucks, people shouldnt be saying that just because it does not live up to every expectation they had. I think that if SMAC were released by some unknown programmer, that it would be hailed as a great game, but because it is by Sid and Brian, expectations are so much higher, and that is a little unfair, IMHO.

Maybe I am wrong, and I am sure that not everyone is looking at it in that way. However, I think that some people are, and I just wanted to point that out to those people.

As for the game, it is Firaxis' version of the perfect game, within the constraints that reside on every business, such as the pressures of deadlines, publishers, cashflow, and a million other things. And I think it is a little unfair to say that just because your version of the perfect game does not match Firaxis' version, then the game sucks. Some people seem to be saying that, and IMHO, that is a little unfair.

Once again, overlying factor that you can disagree with me, all this is my opinion only. Maybe noone is treating the game unfairly, just because it is by Sid and Brian, maybe they are all terating it exactly the same as if it were created by another developer, I don't know, I can only go by what I see here.

Suggestions for improvement can always be made, and I for one have a bit of a wishlist myself: Graphics for artillery/subs, more sounds for weapons, better stacking commands, and a few other things that I can't think of right now. However, I compare SMAC with CIV II, and it is streets ahead, IMHO, thus the game deserves praise for being, IMHO, the greatest TBS yet released. Once again, not to say that it cannot, nor should not be improved upon. But despite the minor flaws, which will hopefully be improved upon in later patches, I still think they released a great game, and get a little annoyed when I hear people saying that it sucks, just because (making an example up here) they don't like the hassle of having to upgrade units continually.

So, I have no problem with posting that maybe that should be improved. I have a small problem with them saying the game sucks just because of that. Well, not so much a problem. More that it does annoy me a little to hear it, as they do seem to be ignoring the rest of the stuff, which is done so well. Not trying to whinge here, just trying to get my point accross. And of course, many will not agree with that point, and will think that I am whingeing, which I am trying very hard not to do.

posted 03-02-99 08:40 PM ET            

Lal and Miriam: well, I haven't played as the Peacekeepers yet, but so far I kicked their ass as the Hive, watched Santiago massacre them as the Gaians (they liked me a lot when I recaptured their cities and turned them back over to their control). I'm sure they could be a very powerful force later in the game, but they rarely manage to survive the inital attacks.

Miriam, as I mentioned, does need some editing to become playable. The +25% attack is good, but the tech is so bad that they end up with a Scout rovers attacking silksteel sentintels. They can't recover later in the game if they don't keep up with the tech race. Try changing their starting tech to 'Secrets-Brain', reduce their research penalty to a single '-' and MAKE SURE you play with the capture tech rule enabled .

Basicially, it's hard to know whether Firaxis should be congratulated for producing such a technologically ambitious game (3D units, MP3 files, multiplayer voice exchanging) or whether they should be chastised for making something that required an above average system to run. As it stands, I'm trying to update my drivers over the weekend, so we'll see how it goes.

posted 03-02-99 09:43 PM ET            

As a case in point, my drivers for my Sound Blaster Live are NOT DirectX certified, and it causes me problems with any game that tries to use EAX support (Baldur's Gate and SMAC - though in both cases, turning it off fixed it). I don't blame the game though, I blame the idiots at Creative for not implementing the Drivers properly.

Believers: Well, I have seen a few people who have played them really stick up for them. Maybe it is just that the AI doesn't do quite as good a job of compensating for the Believer's weaknesses than a real player does...

posted 03-02-99 09:51 PM ET            

In answer to what you said to me: When I talked about a perfect game, I meant only that a vision of a perfect game is important for the creators in the beginning or they will come short immediately. And later, they must hold on to that vision. It was more of a philosophical statement. But I did mean to imply that maybe Firaxis didn't hold on to it all the way.

And about your rational explaining, I thought I in answer had explained to you why I think the buyers of this game DO HAVE the right to expect the game to be great(even with all the hype). I never said it had to be perfect for every person. Obviously a lot are disappointed.

posted 03-03-99 01:07 AM ET            

(1) System-dependent faults.
(2) Obstructive interface.
(3) Unnecessary restrictions on units and actions.
(4) Imbalance between factions.
(5) Why is every land square coppertone?
(6) Submarines merit a chassis of their own, as do artillery.

The point to note is that all of these, except perhaps the first one, can be _easily_ fixed.

Unfortunately, numbers (2), (3) and (6) require Firaxis to do the coding.

But considering that Brian took just one day to implement Hotseat and PBEM, what is needed now (apart from the artwork) is just a few more minutes for minor alterations.

Incidentally, I'm running SMAC on (``Oh no, you couldn't!'') a P-100 with a cruddy ESS-688 soundcard that prevents me playing some wonderful classics. But aside from the stutter on messages that EAX=0 (etc) doesn't mend, and given this card that's understandable, the sound's fine, the movies run great and have perfect sound.

A Large planet that's 70-90% water runs fast at turn 200.

A random Huge planet that's almost all land
and mostly occupied seems at least five minutes between turns by turn 200 or 250, but what can one expect?

But I think I can make it faster, because the manual indicates that I may not have fully optimised the display. In particular, it says there's an option to make the units jump straight to their destinations without showing the movements between squares along the way. That would give a big speedup, so I hope that option was implemented.

posted 03-03-99 01:13 AM ET            

The number one reason? _We_ generated the `hype'!

posted 03-03-99 09:12 AM ET            

Has anyone said great manual? I meant to post a thread about it.

posted 03-04-99 03:35 PM ET            

To me SMAC is a fantastic game. When I'm playing it I forget about anything outside my monitor and keyboard. And when something finally breaks me out of my obsession I suddenly discover and immediate and most urgent call of nature.

Having said that, there are a number of things I wish could be changed.

Infinite-range PBs. In my case I edited alpha.txt so that the chassis has a 90 range giving me the same ability the cps already have.

Cost of units in relation to each other. Ground units should be cheaper than air, air should be cheaper than sea. I've been able to change this some, but not as much as I'd like.

The whole subplot with the mindworms. I found it interesting, but it's something I will likely turn off in my next game.

Graphics. I like some of it, I don't like others. I wish the units looked more like the really cool starship/sub you see in the project movie for the maritime secret project and some of the other movies. That, I can't change. I hate the needle jets. I think the hover tanks and ships look good, but I wish that transport and supply modules didn't sit on the front of units like they were an after thought. I know weapons would look silly anywhere else, but how the heck do you DRIVE with that great whopping BOX in the way? <g>

I'd like to change the way grav ships work to make them more worthwhile. I'd let them attack the same way choppers do so that I'd want to build boatloads of them. Again, something I can't change.

I'd like to change the color of the land fungus. Something I can change, if I have enough time. I changed it to be the same as the sea fungus, but just couldn't deal with all that blue on land. Maybe I'll try again later.

I wish I could yell and scream at the AI when they demand 15000 credits to make peace and I drastically out-gun them. I'd like to sabre rattle the way they do.

Having said all that, I've played both Civs countless hours. I HATED the combat system in Civ 1. Having a BB sunk by a settler (yes, really!) was rediculous. In Civ2 it got a lot better. In SMAC I think the combat is great. I don't have any criticisms at all and think the psi-morale additions are worthwhile expansions. I can't wait for someone to do a total Dune conversion.

Diplomacy mostly kicks butt. I like it MUCH better than either Civ. Now I can have an ally that really IS an ally. I find myself caring about them after a while and doing things to help them out that normally I would only do for a human player.

I find the tech interesting. I do like the tech model in the Moos better, but this one works well enough for me.

I especially like the amount that we can CHANGE the bloody game. Before Civ2 NOBODY did that in turn based.

Most of all I value how much these people listen to us and make changes to accomodate our desires. Most companies don't seem to care much anymore about the shape their product is in when it ships and how we feel about it afterwords.

I think we SHOULD be talking about how to make it better. BUT I don't think trashing this great game is constructive. I remember how silly I thought all that DOOM stuff was until I got a system that could really run the game. Then WOW! I was hooked. This game performs well on my system (Pentium Pro Overdrive 333) after I made some adjustments.

posted 03-04-99 04:30 PM ET            

only a small suggestion about the replay. It really didn't cover important events well as in CIV.

I would like to see:
-. Cities being built in the sea
-. Terrain changes during the game
-. PB explossions
-. Planatory council vote results
-. Dipolmatic events
-. Other events shown on the monument