How does SMAC compare to CIV II - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  How does SMAC compare to CIV II

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   How does SMAC compare to CIV II

CelticWarLord posted 03-31-99 07:49 AM ET
I've been playing CIV for three months and deciding whether to get SMAC as well.
Apart from: it's sci-fi not history; and the graphics are more up-to-date, what are the main differences that you find between playing the two games? Do games last as long? How much difference does it make what faction you are in (the questionnaire says that I'm Gaia, but with the number of factories that I build I'm not sure).
Thanks
CelticWarLord
Glak posted 03-31-99 03:29 PM ET
This game is way better than Civ2. I really liked the original civ and I played really agressively. I never made any buildings and relied on chariots (later knights). Then Civ2 came along and made combat weaker. Now I had to build buidlings but it didn't really add fun to the game.
In Alpha Centauri you have to make even more buildings but instead of ruining the game it makes it better for some reason. The buildings are better in general and usually give you multiple benefits. Take the Fusion lab for example. It increases tech and taxes. Some other building make people happy and have other effects. Overall I would have to say that the buildings are more interesting and you never feel cheated when you make one.
Combat is more interesting. Rovers can run away if they are losing a battle, Fungus hides your troops, etc.. All in all a better combat system that is very well designed.
The government system is much much better. Instead of only having a few choices that fit your style you have several. Also factions work into this too. The factions are different enough so that you shouldn't play exactly the same but they are similar enough that they can all pretty much use the same strategies.
Although the game isn't perfect I still think that it is a leap above other turn based strategy games of this type. I definently would buy it again. All of my friends got it too when they saw it.
sandworm posted 03-31-99 03:42 PM ET
Of course, SMAC may or may not not run right on your system, it leaks memory, there are numerous bugs which may or may not drive you crazy (yinsane?). Upgrading/patching could make your problems worse, or better. If you HAVE any problems, which you may not. Problems appear to be independent of how old your system is or how well you maintain it. These problems could be your fault, they could be the result of bad programming by Firaxis, or Microsoft. The triangle on Tinky -Winky's head COULD be a symbol of the Trinity, and purple might be an Advent color.
It can take weeks to learn the quirks in the interface, especially the design workshop. The AI may or may not cheat, this depends on whether the game was patched (or not), and what difficulty level you play on.
The computer AI may or may not be stupid, it might challenge you or bore you to tears. You may even get upset enough to rant about it on this forum.
HOWEVER: For all SMAC's faults, a day rarely goes by where I don't find an hour (or eight) to play this game. Either it's still a good game, despite faults, or I need to be treated for a compulsive behavior disorder.
The Doc posted 03-31-99 03:54 PM ET
CivII and CivII MGE were great games, but you have to admit they're a little outdated. You don't realize this until you've played SMAC. Here are just a few of the many things I like about SMAC:
1) The combat engine is a big improvement over CivII. Psi combat, artillery duels, fighter duels, etc.
2) No more Senate that forces signing of treaties. Wasn't that a big annoyance-- just hoping for a Hawk Party override? Many "government" options
3) Terrain: Cities in ocean squares, ability to change ocean into land and vice versa, elevation (hills)
The games take probably about as long as CivII games. There are about 5-6 ways to "win" the game, as opposed to just 2. The faction you choose does make a significant difference in my opinion. I don't particularly like being the Gaians.
sandworm posted 03-31-99 04:03 PM ET
The combat engine is MUCH better, I'll agree, but it could use some work, particularly the combat odds report window. Something seems to be going wrong there. I don't expect to win EVERY time I have a statistical advantage, be real. My problem is the frequent "you don't stand a chance" message when you clearly have the upper hand (Yes, I understand PSI combat is a little different, but that's not the only time it happens.
I really like the artillery. Howitzers were game ending advances in CIV2.
Terraforming, while initially cool and easy to manage, becomes tedious later in the game. I'm too much of a control freak to use the autoformers/preferences, so maybe its a personal problem.
Multiple ways to win, OK, I'll admit I've been trying to win every way I can, but once you have a clear military advantage over the other factions, you can win any way you want. The best way around that is to play less conquest minded and simply patrol your borders agressively, i.e., handicap yourself.
Morganstern posted 03-31-99 04:16 PM ET
I agree with the other replies that SMAC is superior to CIVII. I've already forgotten all about the Senate annoyance, and don't miss that in the least! The interface is superior, the game succeeds in taking advantage of more powerful computers and better graphic options.
CIVII still remains superior, however, in what I would call the "atmospherics." The look is naturally friendlier (it is our home planet, after all!). I don't always play the CIVII music, sometimes preferring my own CDs, but CIVII's music added a nice feature to the game that SMAC lacks. Firaxis definitely opted for a minimal music approach with this game. I also agree with other posts that the unit sounds could have been much more varied. It's a close call, but I think SMAC is still probably superior to CIVII on this.
Other advantages: The Secret Projects "movies" are better, but only in technology, not necessarily creativity. More nuanced diplomatic options, less emphasis on production (or mineral) levels, and the additional victory options are also key. I like that you can cut off a long game with being elected Supreme Leader or the economic victory (although I haven't tried that one yet).
Nell_Smith posted 04-05-99 03:26 PM ET
Just a small point: SMAC requires a significantly more powerful computer to run well than CIV2 does. I used to be (and still am, quite often!) a compulsive CIV2 player, and it ran fine on my old P133 with 40Mb. However, that system really didn't cope with SMAC: I was waiting up to three minutes for each turn to complete in the later game, and the Design Workshop (one of the best improvemens in SMAC if you ask me) became so slow that it was virtually unusable for anyone without the patience of a saint. I've upgraded to a P2450 with 128Mb and SMAC runs like a dream. Just worth a thought if you don't have a very powerful computer.
All in all, for me, SMAC retains all the great features of CIV2, removes many of CIV2's less great features, and adds a lot of great features of its own. If you like CIV2, I reckon you'll love SMAC!!
PS: Maybe I'm alone here, but I think the effort that Firaxis put into the personalities of the faction leaders in SMAC, as well as the Planet Interludes and the quotes/soundbites for new techs and new base structures, make SMAC more atmospheric than CIV2, not less
Evk posted 04-05-99 05:58 PM ET
Yes, I'll agree with this. One of the biggest things is that in SMAC the leaders actually act diffrently. Or are supposted to (why does Lal always pick a fight with me if he's the peacekeepers?). This just seems like a big change from Civ2 where the leaders just have diffrent portraits (what the HELL is wrong with Shaka's hair in Civ1?) and names. Actaully, they were supposted to have diffrent personalites in Civ2 such as "Civilized expansionst". I never noticed it.
Nell_Smith posted 04-06-99 01:16 AM ET
Too true... in my current game, "peacekeeping" Lal has started Vendettas with ALL the other factions, including me - he declared war on me the moment we met!!! hehe
That said, I love the different personalities of the SMAC leaders... much more interesting and involving than CIV2... you end up REALLY wanting to kick Miriam's butt for the good of all mankind!!!!!
Certhas posted 04-06-99 05:05 AM ET
I think CivII is superior to SMAC.
I played CivII really much (Civ1, too and I think CivII is superior to it.), and I personally must say that I didn't encounter the JOMT thing in SMAC in the same intensive way as in CivII. It's there, it's just not as strong. Furthermore, apart from all this gimmicks everybody have posted, SMAC actually is less complex then CivII. You know in CivII (in SMAC to, but not to that degree) you have certain balances, and if you alter one of them, you influence the rest. There is fragil web of balances, and Smac removed two of the most obvious and essential out of it. I'm talking about Formers/Colony Pods and Clean Reactors. Formers don't cost population at the base at which they are build, In CivII you had to carefully balance how many Settlers/Engineers you built, You built many -> your base was small, you built few -> your base stayed small. Now for the clean reactors, this balance is obvious. have a large army, OR have a large production, both at the same time was not possible.
Now something personal, I think the AI of CivII was far more builder orientated I never beat the game in the highest two difficulties, not because I was destroyed, but because the AI reached AC before I did! When I play thinker (the second highest difficulty!!) I get all techs while the enemy is defending with 1/6/1 troops, and comes when only three of his cities are left and announces that he has just finished the first prototype of 1/8/1, which renders his troops invincible! laughable.
Certhas posted 04-06-99 05:24 AM ET
BTW, SMAC is still a great game, and I like the story with the interludes, so after all in a 0-100% rating I'd give CivII 112% and SMAC 110%
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: How does SMAC compare to CIV II
CelticWarLord	posted 03-31-99 07:49 AM ET I've been playing CIV for three months and deciding whether to get SMAC as well. Apart from: it's sci-fi not history; and the graphics are more up-to-date, what are the main differences that you find between playing the two games? Do games last as long? How much difference does it make what faction you are in (the questionnaire says that I'm Gaia, but with the number of factories that I build I'm not sure). Thanks CelticWarLord
Glak	posted 03-31-99 03:29 PM ET This game is way better than Civ2. I really liked the original civ and I played really agressively. I never made any buildings and relied on chariots (later knights). Then Civ2 came along and made combat weaker. Now I had to build buidlings but it didn't really add fun to the game. In Alpha Centauri you have to make even more buildings but instead of ruining the game it makes it better for some reason. The buildings are better in general and usually give you multiple benefits. Take the Fusion lab for example. It increases tech and taxes. Some other building make people happy and have other effects. Overall I would have to say that the buildings are more interesting and you never feel cheated when you make one. Combat is more interesting. Rovers can run away if they are losing a battle, Fungus hides your troops, etc.. All in all a better combat system that is very well designed. The government system is much much better. Instead of only having a few choices that fit your style you have several. Also factions work into this too. The factions are different enough so that you shouldn't play exactly the same but they are similar enough that they can all pretty much use the same strategies. Although the game isn't perfect I still think that it is a leap above other turn based strategy games of this type. I definently would buy it again. All of my friends got it too when they saw it.
sandworm	posted 03-31-99 03:42 PM ET Of course, SMAC may or may not not run right on your system, it leaks memory, there are numerous bugs which may or may not drive you crazy (yinsane?). Upgrading/patching could make your problems worse, or better. If you HAVE any problems, which you may not. Problems appear to be independent of how old your system is or how well you maintain it. These problems could be your fault, they could be the result of bad programming by Firaxis, or Microsoft. The triangle on Tinky -Winky's head COULD be a symbol of the Trinity, and purple might be an Advent color. It can take weeks to learn the quirks in the interface, especially the design workshop. The AI may or may not cheat, this depends on whether the game was patched (or not), and what difficulty level you play on. The computer AI may or may not be stupid, it might challenge you or bore you to tears. You may even get upset enough to rant about it on this forum. HOWEVER: For all SMAC's faults, a day rarely goes by where I don't find an hour (or eight) to play this game. Either it's still a good game, despite faults, or I need to be treated for a compulsive behavior disorder.
The Doc	posted 03-31-99 03:54 PM ET CivII and CivII MGE were great games, but you have to admit they're a little outdated. You don't realize this until you've played SMAC. Here are just a few of the many things I like about SMAC: 1) The combat engine is a big improvement over CivII. Psi combat, artillery duels, fighter duels, etc. 2) No more Senate that forces signing of treaties. Wasn't that a big annoyance-- just hoping for a Hawk Party override? Many "government" options 3) Terrain: Cities in ocean squares, ability to change ocean into land and vice versa, elevation (hills) The games take probably about as long as CivII games. There are about 5-6 ways to "win" the game, as opposed to just 2. The faction you choose does make a significant difference in my opinion. I don't particularly like being the Gaians.
sandworm	posted 03-31-99 04:03 PM ET The combat engine is MUCH better, I'll agree, but it could use some work, particularly the combat odds report window. Something seems to be going wrong there. I don't expect to win EVERY time I have a statistical advantage, be real. My problem is the frequent "you don't stand a chance" message when you clearly have the upper hand (Yes, I understand PSI combat is a little different, but that's not the only time it happens. I really like the artillery. Howitzers were game ending advances in CIV2. Terraforming, while initially cool and easy to manage, becomes tedious later in the game. I'm too much of a control freak to use the autoformers/preferences, so maybe its a personal problem. Multiple ways to win, OK, I'll admit I've been trying to win every way I can, but once you have a clear military advantage over the other factions, you can win any way you want. The best way around that is to play less conquest minded and simply patrol your borders agressively, i.e., handicap yourself.
Morganstern	posted 03-31-99 04:16 PM ET I agree with the other replies that SMAC is superior to CIVII. I've already forgotten all about the Senate annoyance, and don't miss that in the least! The interface is superior, the game succeeds in taking advantage of more powerful computers and better graphic options. CIVII still remains superior, however, in what I would call the "atmospherics." The look is naturally friendlier (it is our home planet, after all!). I don't always play the CIVII music, sometimes preferring my own CDs, but CIVII's music added a nice feature to the game that SMAC lacks. Firaxis definitely opted for a minimal music approach with this game. I also agree with other posts that the unit sounds could have been much more varied. It's a close call, but I think SMAC is still probably superior to CIVII on this. Other advantages: The Secret Projects "movies" are better, but only in technology, not necessarily creativity. More nuanced diplomatic options, less emphasis on production (or mineral) levels, and the additional victory options are also key. I like that you can cut off a long game with being elected Supreme Leader or the economic victory (although I haven't tried that one yet).
Nell_Smith	posted 04-05-99 03:26 PM ET Just a small point: SMAC requires a significantly more powerful computer to run well than CIV2 does. I used to be (and still am, quite often!) a compulsive CIV2 player, and it ran fine on my old P133 with 40Mb. However, that system really didn't cope with SMAC: I was waiting up to three minutes for each turn to complete in the later game, and the Design Workshop (one of the best improvemens in SMAC if you ask me) became so slow that it was virtually unusable for anyone without the patience of a saint. I've upgraded to a P2450 with 128Mb and SMAC runs like a dream. Just worth a thought if you don't have a very powerful computer. All in all, for me, SMAC retains all the great features of CIV2, removes many of CIV2's less great features, and adds a lot of great features of its own. If you like CIV2, I reckon you'll love SMAC!! PS: Maybe I'm alone here, but I think the effort that Firaxis put into the personalities of the faction leaders in SMAC, as well as the Planet Interludes and the quotes/soundbites for new techs and new base structures, make SMAC more atmospheric than CIV2, not less
Evk	posted 04-05-99 05:58 PM ET Yes, I'll agree with this. One of the biggest things is that in SMAC the leaders actually act diffrently. Or are supposted to (why does Lal always pick a fight with me if he's the peacekeepers?). This just seems like a big change from Civ2 where the leaders just have diffrent portraits (what the HELL is wrong with Shaka's hair in Civ1?) and names. Actaully, they were supposted to have diffrent personalites in Civ2 such as "Civilized expansionst". I never noticed it.
Nell_Smith	posted 04-06-99 01:16 AM ET Too true... in my current game, "peacekeeping" Lal has started Vendettas with ALL the other factions, including me - he declared war on me the moment we met!!! hehe That said, I love the different personalities of the SMAC leaders... much more interesting and involving than CIV2... you end up REALLY wanting to kick Miriam's butt for the good of all mankind!!!!!
Certhas	posted 04-06-99 05:05 AM ET I think CivII is superior to SMAC. I played CivII really much (Civ1, too and I think CivII is superior to it.), and I personally must say that I didn't encounter the JOMT thing in SMAC in the same intensive way as in CivII. It's there, it's just not as strong. Furthermore, apart from all this gimmicks everybody have posted, SMAC actually is less complex then CivII. You know in CivII (in SMAC to, but not to that degree) you have certain balances, and if you alter one of them, you influence the rest. There is fragil web of balances, and Smac removed two of the most obvious and essential out of it. I'm talking about Formers/Colony Pods and Clean Reactors. Formers don't cost population at the base at which they are build, In CivII you had to carefully balance how many Settlers/Engineers you built, You built many -> your base was small, you built few -> your base stayed small. Now for the clean reactors, this balance is obvious. have a large army, OR have a large production, both at the same time was not possible. Now something personal, I think the AI of CivII was far more builder orientated I never beat the game in the highest two difficulties, not because I was destroyed, but because the AI reached AC before I did! When I play thinker (the second highest difficulty!!) I get all techs while the enemy is defending with 1/6/1 troops, and comes when only three of his cities are left and announces that he has just finished the first prototype of 1/8/1, which renders his troops invincible! laughable.
Certhas	posted 04-06-99 05:24 AM ET BTW, SMAC is still a great game, and I like the story with the interludes, so after all in a 0-100% rating I'd give CivII 112% and SMAC 110%