posted 07-18-99 04:47 PM ET         

So major version numbers generally refer to different products that are actually sold in stores, and minor versions are usually refer to simple updates, but Firaxis likes to update the major version in updates. It doesn't really matter, because while applications live for years and need major version changes, games just get the bugs worked out of them, and if there's a major revision, it's just released as a sequel (i.e. the Photoshop 5 update is Photoshop 5.0.2, because Photoshop 6 will be its own retail product, but you can call Civ II revisions whatever you want and it won't get confused with Alpha Centauri).

posted 07-18-99 05:50 PM ET            

so its really 1.04
but you dont think they will make a version 2.0....

posted 07-19-99 01:42 AM ET            

Its probably closer to say its version 1.3 .

The original was 1.0

Patch/Enhancement 1 (SMAC 2) would have been 1.1

Patch/Enhancement 2 (SMAC 3) would have been 1.2

Patch/Enhancement 3 (SMAC 4) would have been 1.3

Unless you expect to do a LOT of patches/updates, most companies just increment the tenth place.

Some client Server places (and places expecting to have to do more than 9 patches before the NEXT serious upgrade/overhaul) will use the X.YZ
For example, at my place of work, DB forced updates of clients is suppose to increment the Y. Minor bug updates or GUI enhancements are suppose to force a Z increment. Major overhauls and migrations are suppose to be an X upgrade.

And Microsoft is in the habit of setting its tools to confuse EVERYONE so that its C/C++ tools use a A-B-C-D count, just to hose everyone. While its VB tools use N.last update+1.

Since SMAC will always be SMAC, and will probably never be updated SOON, then Firaxis incrementing the number rather than a lesser place is more than understandable.

And basically, its not like there is any etiquette or rules about incrementing version numbers. Its whatever the developer wants to call it. Since SMAC loves to call their updates Enhancements, its no surprise that they increment the whole. Otherwise, they would be viewed as acknowledging its a patch...

posted 07-19-99 03:13 AM ET            

2.0: PBEM/Hotseat play
3.0: Borehole cluster
4.0: Manifold Nexus

These *really* are new versions of the game !

posted 07-19-99 06:17 AM ET            

Lets name them all then:

SMAC 1 Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri
SMAC 2 PBEM Plethora!
SMAC 3 Borehole Discovery!
SMAC 4 Manifold Madness!
SMAC 5 Alien Contact!

posted 07-19-99 06:36 AM ET            

Not a patch,

Not an enhancement

It's an update....

Resource Consumer
- praise to ****axis for an elastic use of language -

posted 07-19-99 06:32 PM ET            

its 1.03 or 1.3

he's smart but why wont he try a Scenario Contest ????

posted 07-19-99 07:15 PM ET            

basically you asked me why i hadn't tried any contest well the answer is i don't play SMAC that much anymore...i have played t here some because me and alkis have had a friendly little early transcend rivalry going...but other than that i haven't played SMAC in a while

and i have the homeworld beta so when i do plays games i'm usually playing that

posted 07-19-99 10:26 PM ET            

Sorry, but after T.A:Kingdoms I'm getting a little cynical about revolutionary RTSs. I apologies for lumping this game in with that title, but that's how I feel.

posted 07-20-99 02:22 AM ET            

I bought 5 games last friday. So far, only one even RUNS on my system. Those that don't are:
Dungeon Keeper 2 - there is some problem where it will only run once... and the installer/deinstaller has some interesting options due to some testers experiencing the same problems. Bullfrog hasn't a clue, and say, well, just keep de-installing and reinstalling the game if you want to play. Don't bother us. We are clueless about this and busy working on DUNGEON KEEPER 3.

Star Trek: Pinball - The game is just too old to run on my system. Have to put it on a clunker and see if its any good...

SW:Episode 1: Gungan Frontiers - Lucas Arts SimLife sort of game. Can't get past the "Register-Show Window" command on my box. Funny as hell. DirectX 6 is definately not a well understood thing so far... I am going to have to dig through Lucas's site and see what I can find on correcting whatever is the problem. (Yes, all drivers are up to date... DK2 problems say me spend a day getting the latest of everything for my system.)

The game that has run is Atari Arcade Hits #1. At least that has Tempest, Asteroids, and Centipede. Fun fun...

posted 07-20-99 04:11 AM ET            

well if the most important factor about the game is that it needs to be more fun thn starcraft then homeworld fails. homeworld gives me the feel that i'm playing some cross breed between a pure space sim and a RTS game.

One thing about homeworld is that the motherships are tough and small craft will not have the fire power to kill a mother ship. the mothership also has some ability to defend itself. this means that a rush strategy is impossible. so far i haven't came across any cheap tactics. the game needs a little bit more play balancing (and it definatly needs more stability) but i have high hopes that those issues will be resolved before the game ships.

homeworld is slow, and there is so far i haven't had a sence of urgency when playing the game. gathering resources is a slow going effort so i play most of my games where both sides receive equal amounts of resources all the time. i haven't came across a feature that you can set game speed, so you must play at home worlds pace. on a bright note combined arms tactics seem to work...however you must use combined arms anyways because of the ship cap. you can turn the ship cap off but it isn't rcommended except for the fastest systems.

the requirments for homeworld are decent and for the game to truly shine you need a pentium II 400 or better and most important you need a good graphics card. but if you have that homeworld looks amazing. and i really mean that the graphics are good. the battle sounds are above average and the units phrases are few but they are ok (not particular inspired but still pretty kewl)

when you finally get a fleet built and then send it on it's way the battles are great. fighters zipping around while capital ships slug it out. watching the battles is one of the most enjoyable parts of the game. i have began to learn and utilize hyper jumps and this could probably be used for great sneak attacks...i'm still looking for good fleet combinations and good tactics (and serching for those pesky bugs!)

the units don't really have distinctive abilities and the differences between the sides are subtle at best and virtually non-existant at worst. however the graphics make the ships looks completely different and when you zoom in on the enemy it's easy to tell who is who. the 3d inteface is kewl and adding the z-axis does add some strategy (and lot of eye candy)

the game is not ground breaking in terms of strategy however the game's graphics and physics engine make this game. watching the game play out is like watching a REAL space battle. everything operates as sci-fi has taught you it should. the game has alot of potntial and i know tactics will begin to emerge that will speed the game up and maybe give it a sence of urgency. right now i'm a newbie and most of the people i play are newbies. and we are real newbies, none of this "oh i played civ2, i can beat this game in 100 turns on TI everything set to hardest" there isn't anything out there like it.

in the generalities of the game it adds nothing new but it shines in the details. i mean if you focus on your larger ships you can actually see their guns track fighter, it amazing. all this talking about it makes me wanna go and play it...talk to you later

posted 07-22-99 01:20 AM ET            

Only a couple of concerns then, the first of which is that the focus on graphics was what basicially wrecked T.A:K - the terrain for that game was amazing, almost Baldur's gate quality, but the actual balancing was virtually non-existant.

Obviously, the game can't be that bad, but how much info do you get on each unit by way of numerical stats and useful comparisons. And how many units are generally redundant, either due to balancing or late game issues?

Secondly, the high end system specs has me worried, but only on a personal level. How far can you ramp it down while still being playable (i.e avoiding slowdowns, etc)?

Once again, thanks for the previous info on this game.

posted 07-22-99 01:41 AM ET            

ok in the beta test they sent us the book as a pdf file except there was a problem with it. the problem was it was like 112 pages long and the pages were sideways! i couldn't tun my monitor on its side and i didn't wanna hold my head on its side so i haven't bothered to read it. however i think it provides useful stats.

most of the ships aren't that redundant however there is a ship cap. you can't build more ships than the ship cap. every class of ship has a ship cap. although not redundant ships are just larger and more powerful versions of one another. so far my favorite ships are intercepters in the fighter class, multigun corvettes in the corvette class ion frigates in the frigate class and heavy destroyers in the destroyer class. interceptors can slaughter other fighter class ships and have a fair amount of firepower. multigun corvettes kill fighters and have alot of firepower for their size. ion frigates are fairly cheap and provide a good amount of fire power. and heavy destroyers are the largest most expensive warships you can build (with the ship cap you can only build three) however they are by far the most deadly ships in the game.

ok i've played it on two systems one is a pentiumII 333 with a 4mb agp graphics card and 64mb of memory...using low settings it runs just fine no slow downs or anything. i also have a pII 400 with an 8mb agp graphics card and 64mb of memory it can handle much higher system settings but it begins to experiance slowdowns with things set so high however it looks awsome on those settings! and i mean awsome! overall for the amount of graphics you get its slowdowns are nothing compared to SMAC slowdowns...in fact the game loads much faster. you can play the game on a 233 pentium i think but i'm not sure.

tactics tips of the day:
hyperjumping:when you have capitol ships that are damaged and have no hope of winning hyper jump them to a safe location. when you have a large enough fleet to destroy the mothership use your fighters and corvettes to launch a diversion and then hyperjump your capital ships right beside their mother ship then destroy it. if it looks like you are going to lose have you damaged capital ships kamikaze into the enemy mothership.

posted 07-22-99 02:55 AM ET            

And the unit cap is also good, although it sounds like 3 destroyers are enough to finish things off by themselves.

More questions:
* How deep is the technology tree? You keep referring to hyperjumps - do you need to research these, or do you always get them?

* How intense are the battles, and how long do they last? What's the micromanagement aspect like?

posted 07-22-99 03:18 AM ET            

the tech tree isn't that deep and you can have up to 6 (or is it 7?) research ships. each research ship can discover a tech so you can have your research ships all researching one thing and discover it rapidly or research 6 different things at a slower rate.

research is divided into different areas

fighters
corvettes
capital ships
others

you must reseach a tech to give you each ship. and there a few techs you research that don't give you ships but you must research anyways

the battles are fairly intense however i haven't had a battle in which i'm fighting for my life yet so i'm sure the intensity level can increse battle will last longer if more ships atre involved but i'd say they take about 2-3 minutes to finish most of the time...however once i sent fighters to attack a resource collector and then the guys sent fighters to attack my fighters then we sent various others ship to the same general and kept on sending reinforcements to that area and kept a continuous low intensity battle going for like 10 maybe 15 minutes

3 heavy destroyers can kill a mothership fairly quickly about the only defense against them is a big mass of other capital ships