CIV2 is much better than Alpha Centauri

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  CIV2 is much better than Alpha Centauri

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   CIV2 is much better than Alpha Centauri

itdoesntfit posted 07-13-99 09:55 PM ET

Civilization 2 has much more gaming than Alpha Centauri
Krushala posted 07-13-99 10:46 PM ET
yet you hang around smac forums. Go back to apolyton if you don't like it here. Or at least present an argument like trippin'. He had some good points.
Zardoz posted 07-13-99 11:11 PM ET
At least give us some reasons why you feel this way. SMAC might have been better, as it is it may well be the best TBS game out there. Even if it took four pa...enhancements to get there. I always did think it was a fun game.
Civ and CIVII were both great game and still are in many ways, but they are getting very dated. I think that maybe we thought we were going to see the next X-Com or Civ, the next great jump in TBS. Instead we got something we had done before, but with greater depth and scope. I think SMAC is fun, I've played hundreds of hours of it. You of course may think that it sucks for any number of reasons, some very valid, just state one so we can at least discuss it.
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 12:24 AM ET
The only reason I stay here is because I don't now Civ2 Billboards, what's the address?
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 12:28 AM ET
Alpha Centauri has very limited selection of units and tech. Civ2 has better detail, it has a history info., and it's much more realistic. The story is too inrealistic, and this game is way too much like Civ2. It doesn't have any improvents, except diplomacy, and drops the trade with other nation altogether.
Krushala posted 07-14-99 12:30 AM ET
there probably are several different boards. But apolyton has several civ related forums.
http://http://apolyton.net/
how do you get ubb code back on?
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 04:27 PM ET
Unfortuently, I don't have the upgraded version of Civ2. Do you know where I can download it?
Rakeesh posted 07-14-99 05:13 PM ET
Actually I prefer the SMAC tech/unit setup to the Civ one. Its deeper. The ecology model is still quite blunt though. You know.. instantaneous polution popping up.. now we're up to instantaneous fungus popping up. It'd be much better if the squares around polluting bases slowly lost their productivity, and fungus cropped up once in a while. Other than that I think SMAC is generally a better game.
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 05:32 PM ET
Another thing I don't like this game. The personalized faction. I would like to play as Morgan, because he's the only decent looking person. But because his benefits are so limited, I pick Pk's. There shouldn't be a customized faction.
Krushala posted 07-14-99 06:29 PM ET
you must be attracted to morgan then. I guess dierdre is just a hag. Or would you think you are gay (no offense to gays) playing a female faction leader. It's just a ****ing game. I can care less what the leaders look like as long as I'm stomping their faces in the mud. And shoving mindwomrs into their ears.
Resource Consumer posted 07-14-99 06:34 PM ET
There should or there shouldn't be anything.
Are you really Brain Reynolds? You sound like it.
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 06:36 PM ET
Which one are you talking to? Me or Krashala?
Krushala posted 07-14-99 06:38 PM ET
oh and you can create a general faction and put them in every slot if you want. Although deep coding causes them to exibit behavior similar to thier color. There may be a way to change the pic, but I haven't seen it.
itdoesntfit posted 07-14-99 07:55 PM ET
What are you talkking about?
Krushala posted 07-14-99 08:24 PM ET
try it and see. Just create a faction with no plusses or minusses. And put them in every slot of the alph.txt under factions. Someone else tried this and noticed that the orange faction create a large number of bases like the believers and the white faction was way ahead in tech.
Hamlet posted 07-15-99 06:12 AM ET
I quote:
"Alpha Centauri has very limited selection of units and tech. Civ2 has better detail, it has a history info., and it's much more realistic. The story is too inrealistic, and this game is way too much like Civ2. It
doesn't have any improvents, except diplomacy, and drops the trade with other nation altogether."
SMAC is SCIENCE FICTION surprise, surprise!!
Whos lookin for realism here? And as for the game being like Civ2, just a few posts ago you were saying that Civ2 was much better. How do these two stands fit together?
I agree that the diplomacy section could have used more development. However, I feel that you are being too hard on SMAC. I for one love it.
Dman37 posted 07-15-99 09:32 AM ET
ok back a few you said that you hated the personalized factions. This is the best part of the game! Each faction has different play bouneses and a different strategy of AI. When played by a human each also takes a little different strategy. It is much easier to win by conquering the world with the hive than it is with say morgan. Morgan is not a millitaristic character. It is fun to try and win with each faction in there perscribed way (millitary for the believers and the hive, economic for morgan) but the real fun comes in trying to win in a way opposed to their character WHILE STAYING IN CHARACTER for example try to win a millitary victory with morgan but stay in his character by using only social enginnering choices appropriate (would morgan create a police state don't think so) or by transcendence with the hive but don't even think of using a capitilistic economy it's out of character. The one problem I had with the game is that the allowed social enginering choices are to broad allowing you to do such silly things as give the hive a non planned economy, otherwise it is a great game.
laurens posted 07-15-99 10:06 AM ET
Yeah, you are right dman37.
Though the AI is a bit dumb here but at least it beats the in-different enemies of C&C or to the very past, Romance of the 3 Kingdoms by koei.
itdoesntfit posted 07-15-99 11:01 AM ET
It's not science fiction! Everything here is already invented by modern space programs. I think you should be more attuned into history.
Krushala posted 07-15-99 06:11 PM ET
I didn't know NASA invented monopole magnets.
itdoesntfit posted 07-15-99 07:36 PM ET
I meant to say NOT EVERYTHING but most of them.
Wank posted 07-15-99 08:05 PM ET
WOW! You guys'll never guess what? I went to our local NASA base (Moffet Field, Nasa bought it a few years back), and they were developing a Planet Buster!
Oh oh, and they also have a Bulk Matter Transmitter, are working on singularity and quantum propulsion and weaponry, and the scientists play this cruel game called "Mindworm madness" where they throw mindworms on each other, and whoever is left standing wins.
WTF!?!
Approx. 10% of smac is real, MAYBE 10%, probably less.
Wank
JayPegg posted 07-15-99 08:26 PM ET
Wank,
HA! SMAC takes real world ideals; lasers, sigularity reactors, police state, fundamentalism, etc. and turns them into a fun and enjoyable game. so I agree with your 10% estimate.
Dman,
I love winning opposite of the way intended. I'm actually quite good and yang transcend, (2292)i don't have any clue why though.
itdoesntfit posted 07-16-99 01:18 AM ET
I agree, but I count that as real, although they have never made on yet, but tech allows them to plan it on computer.
itdoesntfit posted 07-16-99 06:24 PM ET
I hate games like SMAC, Starcraft, and other pathetic trash. The first quote I agree on, "They were too busy seeing who had a stick shoved further up their ass". The programmers, don't even pay attention to the crap they make. Although I would leave Meier out of this, he had nothing to do with this crap. I don't know who made starcraft, but whoever he is, he's just a wannabe of the person who created starcraft. Either that or the old man has run out of good ideas. The games are pathetic because it's the same units, but different look. You know SMAC is Civ2 with whole new graphics. In fact, I think SMAC is missing some of the good points of CIV2. To name one is that ----ing confusing map editors. This I know almost all of you will agree. I have almost NEVER seen anyone actually finish one of those ----ing maps. The NEW game is missing one concept:
IT ISN'T NEW! Haven't any of you played Civ2. Compare the games, without comparing the graphics (the only thing good about this game). You'll agree that this game is just Civ2 with an additional $12.00 fee to that --tch Brian Reynolds. But I do have to give him credit for something, making the game very Scientific (or some thing like that). I believe that this game should only be a patch that you download for Civ2 that is only worth $4.00. This game is so alike to Civ2, it should just be a sequel update patch.
LenS posted 07-16-99 06:42 PM ET
You put down SMAC for being just a tweaked CIV2.
But CIV2 is just a tweaked CIV1 which is just a tweaked EMPIRE.
Empire was the first(?) TBS with a war game theme and unit creation where more powerful units took longer to create.
CIV1 just took that and added a tech tree and some other features.
CIV2 took the idea a bit further.
So what if SMAC is an adaption of the idea?
Did ANYONE who bought SMAC (at least who had heard of Sid Meir) not buy it with that as an assumption?
Now if we want a more original SMAC, how about a magic version?
Say we go to using AD&D type units and have the units vary according to the nation.
Maybe have each nation have different units based on the tech tree, similiar to other nations units but with their own tweaks.
Say the elfs infantry can move through forest easier than orc infantry.
And add the ability of more attack types than just normal vs. artillery.
Say dragons have a breath weapon that can do full damage to ALL units in a stack.
Or that can extend for partial damage to 2 squares.
How about spells that can say freeze enemy units for a few turns.
Now this would be a cool SMAC version.
Call it UNCIVILIZED! (tm) me!
Len.
itdoesntfit posted 07-16-99 07:38 PM ET
But Civ2 had at least 40 new additions and even better graphics, and SMAC is mainly (not everything though) just Civ2 makeover. I think Brian Reynolds should spent a little more time on the game. The game is pretty fun (of course, it's Civ2!) but he should spend a little more time in it to make it even better.
JayPegg posted 07-16-99 08:12 PM ET
What the %@#$!
here are just some improvements on civ II-
~ability to design your own units, 32000 ways in all, but id say only 5000 are useful(a great step in the right direction)
~interesting and hate to say it, but realistic story line
~technologys and sp's that are cool and in some cases just scary
~faction that call all put up a fight (why do you think there are so many threads argueing over which faction is the best)
~4 *completely* different ways to win versus civ II's 2 (or 3? haven't played it since smac came out, waiting for test at least)
~landmarks that can greatly influence how you play (don't you always find yourself fighting in the monsoon, or pbing it at least)
~diplomacy which I think is great, how they react to atrocites or cower at your overwhelming force.
~better ai(admit it)
~more addictive gameplay and the ability to be ruthless
~and last but not least, better graphics
Now I must admit it didn't use all of civ II's finest points (trade), probably because they don't want their ***** sued off by microprose, but all in all you come out with a great and enjoyable game that can hold it's own at least until civIII comes to save use.....
~kelso
itdoesntfit posted 07-17-99 03:44 PM ET
Well actually, both AI suck. The only AI that is good is the one in "Conquest in the New World" (I wonder if anyone except me has ever played it; It wasn't top 20 or anything, but is was twice as fun as this game; the Ai can beat your @s* off withough ANY allies). The graphics were also much better, and more deep-layered battle; Unfortuently, the game didn't have any tech; with an exception of War College. And after you declare Independence (it's a colonization game), practically no one can kill you! You should try it!
Krushala posted 07-17-99 03:54 PM ET
the play that f*cking game and stop bitching about this one. Only a complete moron would play a game he hates. Why don't you go buy CTP. I'm sure people like you would like that. It's a lot different from civ2 and smac.
googlie posted 07-17-99 03:59 PM ET
Krushala:
Velociryx over at Apolyton has created seven custom factions and has created different .pcx for them, so it is possible.
Googlie
Krushala posted 07-17-99 05:43 PM ET
I'll have to check that out. That's right they are bmp images. I can't draw so I never bothered. For my custom factions I just borrowed one of the other factions faces.
Dominique posted 07-17-99 07:48 PM ET
I thing Smac is a progress in regards of Civ I and II because it gives some room to imagination. The personality of the computers players are great, it seems that you can play with them, which was not possible with Civ II (except with cash or crude power). The Council is a nice idea. Some features are really open : the crawlers, the satellites, unit building ...
Once thing off : the graphics, uuuuuugly.
But I'm only at talent level (3rd game)
Ross Macrae posted 07-17-99 08:14 PM ET
Yes it is better because it is more difficult and it took longer to master. I kick on civ 1 and then it took a couple of months to kick a civ 2. Alpha was easy. Never lost and won every game. I am still unable to win every game of Civ 2 (about 15% of the games I run out of time before winning).
itdoesntfit posted 07-18-99 12:08 AM ET
Well actually, if you can't win the conquest, build a spaceship. And if only Interplay had made this game. It would be just like the game only very high tech. And plus, I'm not ditching the game, just saying that the AI really, really sucks, that's the problem with all games except Civ (original) but the gameplay really suck. If they could make a patch for AI improvement, I'd give it an A, but since I never have a partner to play with, this game loses two points from the original A.
Ross Macrae posted 07-18-99 05:19 PM ET
A few improvements to the AI could include the various factions directing their research towards what they need the most. For exaple if the University builds the Hunter Seeker Algorithm then this negates its poor probe rating. Alternatively they could mass their forces and conquer the base where this improvement was made. The diplomacy in this game works much better than in Civ 2. For example, I overextended myself fighting virtually everyone then handed over a bunch of bases to the biggest factions sworn enemy. While they were fighting I trancended to victory. Try that in Civ 2. Building a spaceship in Civ 2 doesn't result in a very high score so SMAC has improved the scoring.
SMAniaC posted 07-18-99 05:55 PM ET
Itdoesntfit: In one of your dozains of threads you wrote you only came here because you didn't know where there were Civ2 Chat Channels.
Go to Apolyton. + there you can too give your ideas for Civ3.
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: CIV2 is much better than Alpha Centauri
itdoesntfit	posted 07-13-99 09:55 PM ET Civilization 2 has much more gaming than Alpha Centauri
Krushala	posted 07-13-99 10:46 PM ET yet you hang around smac forums. Go back to apolyton if you don't like it here. Or at least present an argument like trippin'. He had some good points.
Zardoz	posted 07-13-99 11:11 PM ET At least give us some reasons why you feel this way. SMAC might have been better, as it is it may well be the best TBS game out there. Even if it took four pa...enhancements to get there. I always did think it was a fun game. Civ and CIVII were both great game and still are in many ways, but they are getting very dated. I think that maybe we thought we were going to see the next X-Com or Civ, the next great jump in TBS. Instead we got something we had done before, but with greater depth and scope. I think SMAC is fun, I've played hundreds of hours of it. You of course may think that it sucks for any number of reasons, some very valid, just state one so we can at least discuss it.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 12:24 AM ET The only reason I stay here is because I don't now Civ2 Billboards, what's the address?
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 12:28 AM ET Alpha Centauri has very limited selection of units and tech. Civ2 has better detail, it has a history info., and it's much more realistic. The story is too inrealistic, and this game is way too much like Civ2. It doesn't have any improvents, except diplomacy, and drops the trade with other nation altogether.
Krushala	posted 07-14-99 12:30 AM ET there probably are several different boards. But apolyton has several civ related forums. http://http://apolyton.net/ how do you get ubb code back on?
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 04:27 PM ET Unfortuently, I don't have the upgraded version of Civ2. Do you know where I can download it?
Rakeesh	posted 07-14-99 05:13 PM ET Actually I prefer the SMAC tech/unit setup to the Civ one. Its deeper. The ecology model is still quite blunt though. You know.. instantaneous polution popping up.. now we're up to instantaneous fungus popping up. It'd be much better if the squares around polluting bases slowly lost their productivity, and fungus cropped up once in a while. Other than that I think SMAC is generally a better game.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 05:32 PM ET Another thing I don't like this game. The personalized faction. I would like to play as Morgan, because he's the only decent looking person. But because his benefits are so limited, I pick Pk's. There shouldn't be a customized faction.
Krushala	posted 07-14-99 06:29 PM ET you must be attracted to morgan then. I guess dierdre is just a hag. Or would you think you are gay (no offense to gays) playing a female faction leader. It's just a ****ing game. I can care less what the leaders look like as long as I'm stomping their faces in the mud. And shoving mindwomrs into their ears.
Resource Consumer	posted 07-14-99 06:34 PM ET There should or there shouldn't be anything. Are you really Brain Reynolds? You sound like it.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 06:36 PM ET Which one are you talking to? Me or Krashala?
Krushala	posted 07-14-99 06:38 PM ET oh and you can create a general faction and put them in every slot if you want. Although deep coding causes them to exibit behavior similar to thier color. There may be a way to change the pic, but I haven't seen it.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-14-99 07:55 PM ET What are you talkking about?
Krushala	posted 07-14-99 08:24 PM ET try it and see. Just create a faction with no plusses or minusses. And put them in every slot of the alph.txt under factions. Someone else tried this and noticed that the orange faction create a large number of bases like the believers and the white faction was way ahead in tech.
Hamlet	posted 07-15-99 06:12 AM ET I quote: "Alpha Centauri has very limited selection of units and tech. Civ2 has better detail, it has a history info., and it's much more realistic. The story is too inrealistic, and this game is way too much like Civ2. It doesn't have any improvents, except diplomacy, and drops the trade with other nation altogether." SMAC is SCIENCE FICTION surprise, surprise!! Whos lookin for realism here? And as for the game being like Civ2, just a few posts ago you were saying that Civ2 was much better. How do these two stands fit together? I agree that the diplomacy section could have used more development. However, I feel that you are being too hard on SMAC. I for one love it.
Dman37	posted 07-15-99 09:32 AM ET ok back a few you said that you hated the personalized factions. This is the best part of the game! Each faction has different play bouneses and a different strategy of AI. When played by a human each also takes a little different strategy. It is much easier to win by conquering the world with the hive than it is with say morgan. Morgan is not a millitaristic character. It is fun to try and win with each faction in there perscribed way (millitary for the believers and the hive, economic for morgan) but the real fun comes in trying to win in a way opposed to their character WHILE STAYING IN CHARACTER for example try to win a millitary victory with morgan but stay in his character by using only social enginnering choices appropriate (would morgan create a police state don't think so) or by transcendence with the hive but don't even think of using a capitilistic economy it's out of character. The one problem I had with the game is that the allowed social enginering choices are to broad allowing you to do such silly things as give the hive a non planned economy, otherwise it is a great game.
laurens	posted 07-15-99 10:06 AM ET Yeah, you are right dman37. Though the AI is a bit dumb here but at least it beats the in-different enemies of C&C or to the very past, Romance of the 3 Kingdoms by koei.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-15-99 11:01 AM ET It's not science fiction! Everything here is already invented by modern space programs. I think you should be more attuned into history.
Krushala	posted 07-15-99 06:11 PM ET I didn't know NASA invented monopole magnets.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-15-99 07:36 PM ET I meant to say NOT EVERYTHING but most of them.
Wank	posted 07-15-99 08:05 PM ET WOW! You guys'll never guess what? I went to our local NASA base (Moffet Field, Nasa bought it a few years back), and they were developing a Planet Buster! Oh oh, and they also have a Bulk Matter Transmitter, are working on singularity and quantum propulsion and weaponry, and the scientists play this cruel game called "Mindworm madness" where they throw mindworms on each other, and whoever is left standing wins. WTF!?! Approx. 10% of smac is real, MAYBE 10%, probably less. Wank
JayPegg	posted 07-15-99 08:26 PM ET Wank, HA! SMAC takes real world ideals; lasers, sigularity reactors, police state, fundamentalism, etc. and turns them into a fun and enjoyable game. so I agree with your 10% estimate. Dman, I love winning opposite of the way intended. I'm actually quite good and yang transcend, (2292)i don't have any clue why though.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-16-99 01:18 AM ET I agree, but I count that as real, although they have never made on yet, but tech allows them to plan it on computer.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-16-99 06:24 PM ET I hate games like SMAC, Starcraft, and other pathetic trash. The first quote I agree on, "They were too busy seeing who had a stick shoved further up their ass". The programmers, don't even pay attention to the crap they make. Although I would leave Meier out of this, he had nothing to do with this crap. I don't know who made starcraft, but whoever he is, he's just a wannabe of the person who created starcraft. Either that or the old man has run out of good ideas. The games are pathetic because it's the same units, but different look. You know SMAC is Civ2 with whole new graphics. In fact, I think SMAC is missing some of the good points of CIV2. To name one is that ----ing confusing map editors. This I know almost all of you will agree. I have almost NEVER seen anyone actually finish one of those ----ing maps. The NEW game is missing one concept: IT ISN'T NEW! Haven't any of you played Civ2. Compare the games, without comparing the graphics (the only thing good about this game). You'll agree that this game is just Civ2 with an additional $12.00 fee to that --tch Brian Reynolds. But I do have to give him credit for something, making the game very Scientific (or some thing like that). I believe that this game should only be a patch that you download for Civ2 that is only worth $4.00. This game is so alike to Civ2, it should just be a sequel update patch.
LenS	posted 07-16-99 06:42 PM ET You put down SMAC for being just a tweaked CIV2. But CIV2 is just a tweaked CIV1 which is just a tweaked EMPIRE. Empire was the first(?) TBS with a war game theme and unit creation where more powerful units took longer to create. CIV1 just took that and added a tech tree and some other features. CIV2 took the idea a bit further. So what if SMAC is an adaption of the idea? Did ANYONE who bought SMAC (at least who had heard of Sid Meir) not buy it with that as an assumption? Now if we want a more original SMAC, how about a magic version? Say we go to using AD&D type units and have the units vary according to the nation. Maybe have each nation have different units based on the tech tree, similiar to other nations units but with their own tweaks. Say the elfs infantry can move through forest easier than orc infantry. And add the ability of more attack types than just normal vs. artillery. Say dragons have a breath weapon that can do full damage to ALL units in a stack. Or that can extend for partial damage to 2 squares. How about spells that can say freeze enemy units for a few turns. Now this would be a cool SMAC version. Call it UNCIVILIZED! (tm) me! Len.
itdoesntfit	posted 07-16-99 07:38 PM ET But Civ2 had at least 40 new additions and even better graphics, and SMAC is mainly (not everything though) just Civ2 makeover. I think Brian Reynolds should spent a little more time on the game. The game is pretty fun (of course, it's Civ2!) but he should spend a little more time in it to make it even better.
JayPegg	posted 07-16-99 08:12 PM ET What the %@#$! here are just some improvements on civ II- ~ability to design your own units, 32000 ways in all, but id say only 5000 are useful(a great step in the right direction) ~interesting and hate to say it, but realistic story line ~technologys and sp's that are cool and in some cases just scary ~faction that call all put up a fight (why do you think there are so many threads argueing over which faction is the best) ~4 completely different ways to win versus civ II's 2 (or 3? haven't played it since smac came out, waiting for test at least) ~landmarks that can greatly influence how you play (don't you always find yourself fighting in the monsoon, or pbing it at least) ~diplomacy which I think is great, how they react to atrocites or cower at your overwhelming force. ~better ai(admit it) ~more addictive gameplay and the ability to be ruthless ~and last but not least, better graphics Now I must admit it didn't use all of civ II's finest points (trade), probably because they don't want their ***** sued off by microprose, but all in all you come out with a great and enjoyable game that can hold it's own at least until civIII comes to save use..... ~kelso
itdoesntfit	posted 07-17-99 03:44 PM ET Well actually, both AI suck. The only AI that is good is the one in "Conquest in the New World" (I wonder if anyone except me has ever played it; It wasn't top 20 or anything, but is was twice as fun as this game; the Ai can beat your @s* off withough ANY allies). The graphics were also much better, and more deep-layered battle; Unfortuently, the game didn't have any tech; with an exception of War College. And after you declare Independence (it's a colonization game), practically no one can kill you! You should try it!
Krushala	posted 07-17-99 03:54 PM ET the play that f*cking game and stop bitching about this one. Only a complete moron would play a game he hates. Why don't you go buy CTP. I'm sure people like you would like that. It's a lot different from civ2 and smac.
googlie	posted 07-17-99 03:59 PM ET Krushala: Velociryx over at Apolyton has created seven custom factions and has created different .pcx for them, so it is possible. Googlie
Krushala	posted 07-17-99 05:43 PM ET I'll have to check that out. That's right they are bmp images. I can't draw so I never bothered. For my custom factions I just borrowed one of the other factions faces.
Dominique	posted 07-17-99 07:48 PM ET I thing Smac is a progress in regards of Civ I and II because it gives some room to imagination. The personality of the computers players are great, it seems that you can play with them, which was not possible with Civ II (except with cash or crude power). The Council is a nice idea. Some features are really open : the crawlers, the satellites, unit building ... Once thing off : the graphics, uuuuuugly. But I'm only at talent level (3rd game)
Ross Macrae	posted 07-17-99 08:14 PM ET Yes it is better because it is more difficult and it took longer to master. I kick on civ 1 and then it took a couple of months to kick a civ 2. Alpha was easy. Never lost and won every game. I am still unable to win every game of Civ 2 (about 15% of the games I run out of time before winning).
itdoesntfit	posted 07-18-99 12:08 AM ET Well actually, if you can't win the conquest, build a spaceship. And if only Interplay had made this game. It would be just like the game only very high tech. And plus, I'm not ditching the game, just saying that the AI really, really sucks, that's the problem with all games except Civ (original) but the gameplay really suck. If they could make a patch for AI improvement, I'd give it an A, but since I never have a partner to play with, this game loses two points from the original A.
Ross Macrae	posted 07-18-99 05:19 PM ET A few improvements to the AI could include the various factions directing their research towards what they need the most. For exaple if the University builds the Hunter Seeker Algorithm then this negates its poor probe rating. Alternatively they could mass their forces and conquer the base where this improvement was made. The diplomacy in this game works much better than in Civ 2. For example, I overextended myself fighting virtually everyone then handed over a bunch of bases to the biggest factions sworn enemy. While they were fighting I trancended to victory. Try that in Civ 2. Building a spaceship in Civ 2 doesn't result in a very high score so SMAC has improved the scoring.
SMAniaC	posted 07-18-99 05:55 PM ET Itdoesntfit: In one of your dozains of threads you wrote you only came here because you didn't know where there were Civ2 Chat Channels. Go to Apolyton. + there you can too give your ideas for Civ3.