posted 12-07-98 01:21 AM ET            

How can you even ask such a question? CCTP is nothing more than a tacky rehash of a brilliant design...

SMAC will be a clean wind through the stinking morass that is Empire Building games.

posted 12-07-98 01:40 AM ET            

hey...chrisk:
<SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!>
<SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!><SMAC!>

those were slaps for even suggesting that Activision could even make a decent parody of the true Civilization games.
True, i will buy activision's game, but i know that it will not even compare to Civ 2 in terms of quality. I will get it merely for the cheap kicks. (It has a friggin' *lawyers* unit, for chrissake! how dumb can you get?!?!?!)

posted 12-07-98 09:56 AM ET            

No I'm only joking you don't need to flame me! AAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGH

posted 12-07-98 11:11 AM ET            

Anyways, I don't know why you're all dissing CCTP ... even if SMAC will be vastly superior to CCTP, the fact of the matter is that it is based of the greatest game ever (CIV2 .. duh) .. so it will be good !!! How good ??? That all depends on Activision !!!

posted 12-07-98 12:11 PM ET            

I'm not sure however about the gameplay. I think Civ II did a great job of adding just the right amount of new things to the Civ engine. Everything was perfectly balanced, and that was the real strength of the game.

CTPW adds a lot of the features, many of which I thought about when I played Civ and Civ II. This doesn't mean though, that these features will make the game fun - it's possible that they just won't work. But it will certainly be interesting to see if they'll fix the things that annoyed me on Civ II.

My biggest worry is that the game will lose the Civ II atmosphere by introducing (in my opinion) silly units like lawyers and preachers...

I don't really think that SMAC and CTPW will compete - just as SMAC and Civ II won't. CTPW will just be (hopefully) an improved Civ II, while SMAC is a brand new game.

posted 12-07-98 04:40 PM ET            

Civilization was a definite revolution in gaming w.r.t. Empire.
Civ2 or Civilization 2, whoever owns the word, was a subtle evolution-- or even more of a good thing. Hey, I was glad to see the difference between pikemen and phalanxes, weren't you?
CTP looks like even more of a good thing. To be quite honest, I would buy it, except for one small problem:
SMAC is coming out at the same time. Now, if Sid and Brian and their host of engineers have been doing their jobs, we have another revolution at hand. Yeah we can design our own units, and set up borders, which is nice, but if SMAC's AI lives up to its promise, or at least 80-90% of it, then this will be the template for the genre.

posted 12-07-98 10:42 PM ET            

I would suspect that the development team at Firaxis is spending ALL of their time now on play balancing. What has made Sid's and Brian's games such a terrific experience, with such high replayability, is the play balance. And that is a terribly easy thing to screw up by introducing nonsensical units such as The Park Ranger and The Lawyer!

IMO, making a superior game sequel is even more difficult to accomplish than making a superior movie sequel--and you can count the number of times that has been done on one hand!

I'll patiently wait for Sid and Brian to say that they are finished (i.e., satisfied)--knowing the value of their "stamp of approval" and knowing the hours of addictive game play that that "stamp" will translate into.

posted 12-07-98 11:51 PM ET            

Seriously, I will definately buy SMAC first & foremost over CTP. Why? Because I've been here forever, & the game just looks incredible. The customization of units, different style cities, distinct & pretty balanced factions, & 3d landscape. All CTP is, is a polished over civ II, better graphics, a few new, crappy, units, & an extra 1000 years. I doubt it will be much more. I may buy CTP in the summer, when SMAC gets sorta played out. But definately not right after I buy SMAC. It wouldn't be played until summer, when it would be about $30 in the stores, & thereI was buying it for $50 when it came out.

Ranting over. Continue your normal discussions.

Vive la Sid! Vive la Brian! Vive la SMAC!

posted 12-08-98 07:34 AM ET            

From what I've read, the new CTPW units have a great potential to break the game. If they can be disabled - that's great. I might even enjoy using them. However I think a lot more realistic solution would be to enhance the capabilities of the spy unit. I can't see a government hiring a televangelists, it's more likely that the country's inteligence service trains a spy to perform such a task.
So a lot better solution would be, when you start 'training' a new spy unit, you can select from a list of capabilities (can have more than one). The more you select/the more difficult are they to learn, the longer it will take to build the unit. Then you just have a standard spy unit, that can perform all the actions it has been trained for. This way they'd get the same new features, without us having to suffer silly new units.

posted 12-08-98 04:45 PM ET            

at this point i canot honestly say whitch will be the best game

CTP has new units whitch sound like game breakers

SMAC has customisable units(over 32000) if i read the ad right whitch in practice may wind down to a few actual combo-units that turn out to be game-breakers

(ie everyone knows after the first time that Xshelds+Ywepon+Z speed+ Q special-efect = cheep-assed supermegawepon that cnot be beaten short of deleting the entire game )

Frankly, untill the full-up games are available we can only asume what the games will be like. untill then the entire SMAC will beat CTP/TOT/MOOIII/whatever into a small lump of nutronium is almost as bad as listenig to the whinerswho wanted the games NOWNOWNOW( with the bugs, no manual and all)

posted 12-09-98 05:17 AM ET            

Sure, some of the units are pretty whacky (I think litigation and slavery and such should be covered at a macro level rather than a unit level). Still, it's nothing more than an attempt to cover (more or less) important aspects of civilization (which Civ2 ignored) at a weird level of abstraction.

Certainly, the CTP designers' promises to clean up Civ2's diplomacy and trade mechanics sound good. And I like the space and undersea colonies... I'm not saying it will be better than SMAC (BRAC!), but I definitely wouldn't dismiss it quite yet.

And, this near-religious belief in Sid & Brian's superiority seems a bit..... completely absolutely moronic

posted 12-09-98 01:37 PM ET            

"original Sid/Brian design ethos"
What exactly is that Brother Greg?

Perhaps before speaking about C:CTP some of those who hate it should read a bit about it(no offence intented)
http://civilization.gamestats.com/ctp/features
and especially,
http://civilization.gamestats.com/ctp/features/nicelongpost.shtml
(the key elements of C:CTP according to Activision. also speaks about the unconventional units)

You might also be interested in reading an article of mine about the unconvetional units in C:CTP
http://civilization.gamestats.com/civ2/column/17_ctp.shtml

Anyway, I'll probably get both. I'm waiting for the demo to see how good SMAC is. As for C:CTP, if all these new features(have anyone read about the new trade system?) are well balanced it will rock(IMHO).

posted 12-09-98 04:17 PM ET            

I'll admit that most of my biases formed months ago and that I haven't been keeping up with CTP as much as I have SMAC. This is a result of the feel of the games I got from previews available in July/August of this year. SMAC felt to me that it was closer to the design paradigm of Civ(which, as I explained in my post to your forums, I feel is a delicate balance between realism and gameplay). The describe action of the Park Ranger(nothing I have heard of in SMAC sounds anywhere near as implausible) makes me skeptical that this is the case in CTP. Note that this does not preclude CTP from being a great game; if true, it would simply mean to me that it would not be a great Civ game. This is also is not to say CTP will not be a great Civ game; there are many features that sound most interesting and plausible(space stations, underwater colonies, etc.), but my first impressions were that the design process was "What will be fun, and how can we make it realistic?" rather than "What will be realistic, and how can we make it fun?". After reading more about CTP recently, I feel a little more comfortable with some of the new features, though some still sound implausible(mainly in the extent of their powers) like the Park Ranger, Cleric, Lawyer, etc.

posted 12-09-98 05:53 PM ET            

On the powers of these units, at least the Park Ranger is going to be expensive, and all of them will have weak defence, so they wont be "ultimate weapons". They might end up as a supplement to the conventional, military units...

posted 12-09-98 06:16 PM ET            

Given the openly rediculous concepts we've heard about CCTP I can definitely see how it may be worse than the original civ2. Although you might play it a few times to enjoy the homorous aspects (killing lots of lawyers, whatever) it's bound to have very short shelf time if that's really the "strength" they advertise.

SMAC seems to be a much more "thinky" type game for *REAL* strategy gamers.

posted 12-09-98 06:57 PM ET            

[Side note: Civ sacrificed plenty of realism to keep the game balanced. The power of an archer unit should not even be on the same scale as a rifleman unit.]

I'm not saying that the lawyer etc. units are necessarily good, realistic game mechanics, but I can't see why they should necessarily be the opposite, either.

As for the park ranger: Sure, the name is a bit tongue-in-cheek silly, and the basic concept might be questionable. Still, aren't neutron bombs pretty clean? Or maybe semi-controlled nano-disassemblers would be? Anyway, criticizing future technology for being unrealistic is, to me, just a self-contradiction in terms. Like the British astronomer who said that space was unreachable two weeks before the Russians launched Sputnik........

posted 12-09-98 07:15 PM ET            

You know CDA, this is blasphemy!! God eeer sorry, Sid will condemn you :-D

posted 12-09-98 08:10 PM ET            

Spoe: I think we basically agree here. I just think that it's a bit early to condemn those units to eternal damnation - after all, we don't really know how they'll be incorporated into the game yet.

Anyway, I love the 'active defenses' the CTP guys talk about.

posted 12-09-98 11:45 PM ET            

As for what the design ethos is, let me tell you what it isn't. It isn't about creating units with ridiculous names and ludicrous powers.

To everyone: As for realism - frankly almost NOTHING in CIV II is realistic. It is all an abstract of real-life. Show me ANY part of CIV II, and I will show you why it is unrealistic. So you really can't use realism as an argument.

Snowfire: Gotta agree. A park ranger walks in, and bingo, that city is now a forest, everyone dead. Yeesh! So they'll be expensive, and have low defence. Big deal, that ain't the point.

posted 12-10-98 12:56 AM ET            

Shining1: No, a crossbowman is not similar to a rifleman. A small rifleman unit will, under fair conditions, beat lots and lots of crossbowmen (any day of the week and twice on sundays, as Imran once said). And if you want to drag it further, phalanxes just don't stand a chance against bombers or helicopters, even if they're fortified on a mountain top (getting, I think, +600% (?) in civ2).

posted 12-10-98 01:40 AM ET            

Realism is not about micromanaging every single litre of fuel in every single vehicle in your army. Realism is about having a good simplification of all important aspects of [whatever subject]; giving an authentic feel while still abstracting unnecessary complexity.

Lawyers are in no way unrealistic, though the lawyer unit might be an oversimplification (and, thereby, unrealistic). I won't defend the park ranger, though..

posted 12-10-98 06:50 PM ET            

I can imagine where the chassis will be man, horse, ship, plane, etc. The armaments will start with swords, pikes, move onto bows, crossbows, thence muskets, cannons, rocket launchers, etc. Armor will start with leather, bronze, steel, barding, up to the armour of today's tanks and APCs. Special abilities will include early on such things as shields (+1 defence perhaps), building roads (which I always thought legions should have had in CIV II), fanatics, through to modern abilities such as special forces, engineering corps, etc.

So, not in SMAC you say? Well, I say that witha little work, it could quite easily be in SMAC.

Well, actually a lot of work if you want to take into account designing the new units.

As for Chironian tribes, ever heard of the sentient planet? Mind Worms? Xenofungus? All intelligent life forms that will attack you if you "harm" Chiron.

Stefu, Gaians aren't based on "militaristic ecologism" at all. That makes them sound like fanatics running around attacking anyone that harms the environment, which is not the case at all. They are almost solely based on ecologism. No mention of military arms, though of course like any Faction they will have a military. But it is not an important part of their doctrine.

As for Factions being the weakest part? "Please Explain"?

Why would people want to join the Hive? Well, maybe they were sick of the greed of humanity, and saw a place where everything was shared as a good thing. Just listen to John Lennon's "Imagine" if you have any questions...

As for the believers. Lemme see, are there fanatical religious followers today? Um, BIG yes. Have there been for the last 2000 years? Again, big yes. So, why would they suddenly dissapear?

As for Zhakarov surviving attacks. Lemme see, are you perhaps overgeneralising the UOP. they are not a Faction where every person is a scientist. They are a Faction where everyone believes in science as the way of the future. They place their faith in science to lead them through trials and tribulations. Their soldiers (and yes, they WILL have soldiers) expect the scientists to give them the best weapons and armour.

So, how would they defend? My answer would be with weapons the opposition haven't dreamed of yet, and the belief that their advanced technology will see them through.

So, let me see, which game do you think will differentiate between Factions/tribes/countries the best? Gee, that's a no-brainer.

So, anyone have any more uninformed questions or opinions about SMAC?

posted 12-11-98 08:30 PM ET            

And my the Sid be with you!

posted 12-11-98 10:11 PM ET            

"Protect SMAC over the CIV-manglers!"???
Imran I hope that you're joking....
Why does SMAC needs protection, especially on a forum non-related to SMAC?

posted 12-12-98 08:10 AM ET            

Second, we had flames but only in the last two-three days, and it was due to specific posts by specific posters and of course me since I'm the moderator of the forums. It's not the general practice.

posted 12-14-98 06:41 PM ET            

As for the people who came here to support CTP, it was the result of an opposite movement from the SMAC to the CTP forums...

posted 12-20-98 10:23 PM ET            

When wading through all the marketing hype associated with both games (Alpha Centauri and Call to Power) I would caution you not to mistake "more features" for "better gameplay and balance". As someone who has been there, has written code for these games, and has also seen how the marketing hype game works, I'd suggest taking a "I'll believe it when I see it" approach and wait until you have the game in your hand before drawing your conclusions.

Alpha Centauri will combine fresh new subject matter with the experience of the team which created both of the original Civ products. We know a lot about balancing these kinds of games and creating AI to make them challenging, and we've got a demo coming out this week to prove our point.

Call to Power is being created by an untried team which has never done this kind of game before. I admire them for their ambition, but I've also been down the road they're travelling. They have a lot of interesting and fresh ideas, and they may very well pleasantly surprise everyone by pulling it off, but I'd suggest a "wait and see" approach. From a game design perspective, adding lots of new unit types is a prima facie case for the view that the game balance and AI will be worse, not better.

As an analogy, what if some publishing company managed, through a complex legal settlement, to secure the "rights" to use the words "Star Wars", even though that company was not in any way associated with George Lucas, 20th Century Fox, Industrial Light and Magic, or any of the stars or cast of the original movies. And then that company announced that it was going to produce some "Star Wars Prequels" which would use the official Star Wars label and name, and that George Lucas could do -his- movies but couldn't use the name "Star Wars" any more. Both rival groups move forward with millions of dollars of marketing and hype.

Which movies do you think would be really cool? My answer: possibly both but definitely Lucas'. Of course, run through the scenario above again but imagine that -you're- George Lucas and you'll have a pretty good idea about how -we- feel about all of this.

I openly and freely admit my bias and vested interest in the matter, but I think it is fair for me to make the case that Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri is the game being created by the team which brought you your earlier favorites.

posted 12-20-98 11:46 PM ET            

I certainly see see how you would feel less-than-happy about losing the rights to your own brain-child, but the CTP designers are not to blame for this unfortunate legal affair. To me, both games seem promising, though a certain amount of skepticism is always healthy...

Gojackal: CTP's trade system looks great to me, and I've heard the diplomacy system is also interesting..