posted 02-25-99 11:26 AM ET         

Now, I have only had SMAC for a couple of days and have not even got it to run reliably yet, but at least with SMAC you can design your own units. That was one of the things that I really enjoyed about Master Of Orion (MOO1/2). Although with SMAC, the design capabilities do not seem to be as rich as with MOO. So I think that SMAC will turn out to be a good game too. Once the bugs are fixed!

posted 02-25-99 11:40 AM ET            

Like Quake II... it's just a stupid copy of Wolfeinstein 3D... the proof: same 3D aspect, same (Germans?) soldiers, same machine gun...

And who needs Falcon 4 when you got Jet Fighter I? They didn't even took the time to change the names of the AIM-9 and AIM-120!

posted 02-25-99 11:43 AM ET            

SMAC is a civ-type game, there are going to be similarities, but it is much more than CivIII. I'd love to see more depth added in areas and more tweaks given to the AI and more...but those of us who have been around on these boards for a while know how responsive the Firaxis team has been.

posted 02-25-99 12:01 PM ET            

- Unit Design.
- Multiple paths to victory.
- Vastly different play styles based on the factions.

I would have been disappointed if it WEREN'T somewhat like Civ.

posted 02-25-99 12:14 PM ET            

You played Civ2? Why???

posted 02-25-99 03:21 PM ET            

For example, I spent last night helping the Gaians fight off Yang so that he doesn't get near me. (I don't want to do it myself, since his bases are far from mine, and if I start moving into his territory, that will just expose me to technology theft.) I expect that she'll support me for Supreme Leader when I get the necessary advance. This type of cooperative play was impossible in Civ2.

posted 02-25-99 03:41 PM ET            

A huge advantage to SMAC is the flexibility. For example, when I'm in democracy and a city sends a unit out to fight, my entire government doesn't collapse if I fail or elect not to quell the ensuing drone riots in two turns. I suffer a proportionate penalty (or no drone riots at all), nothing more.

posted 02-25-99 04:24 PM ET            

He balanced military, economics, government, and so on. The only way that you can have a game that doesn't take anything
from the previous game is if the prev. game was a failure. Civilization wasn't a failure. Chances are that when Civilization:
Call to Power comes the same criticism will come with it. There is no true great game. Technology changes, Civ1 was
created during the era when a 450MHz system wasn't even a dream. This was the era when a 100MHz system wasn't even
an achieved reality. Civ2 built up on the old one, giving it a nicer look and feel. And everyone loved those movies that
showed off the Wonder.

Civ2 ended. I know that it is hard for some of you to accept however Civ2 ends in one of two ways. You fly off to Alpha
Centauri or you kill off everyone on the planet. So now how could this be, i though that Civ2 was better. How realistic is
that. I mean kill off everyone or fly off to a planet. You can't achieve a economic victory, an allied victory and so on. I
guess some people like that more. And you had to love those graphics. They were the best, see the sarcasm in that. I loved
both civs, however there comes a time when a better game comes out. Somehow Civ2 being that great must be just a figment
in your imagination then. This is due to the fact that Civ2 wasn't the best game ever created. It was good, and it did stand
the test of time. However years and years have past and the AI and the game itself is absolute. I and many more people
salute Sid Meier on his great games.

Oh yeah, if it was that great, then why was Civ2 too easy? And somehow if you went to hardest level in the game the
computer cheated and somehow was stupid as stupid gets. But I guess all great games do this.

posted 02-25-99 07:12 PM ET            

I have played three complete games now on different difficulty settings. I'll give it one more chance after the patch.

Anybody that thinks this Diplomatic model is that involved shouldn't drink and play at the same time.

The economic model is weak or nonexsistant

The comparison to creating units in MOO, MOO II is accurate.

Depth of game play? A few extra non animated cut scenens discribing mindworm contacts ain't depth. Depth is the continuing ermersion in events and elements that one did not expect and that pull the player onward in unexpected directions.

As for the elevation/delevation of physical features, Its a nice touch but still more on the eye-candy side than anything else. The weather/global conditioning model is really very stupid. In one game the ocean levels rose over 300 meters and were threating to rise again? Try to guess how much water it would take to make the earths oceans rise that high, its an awful lot more than is hanging around at the poles.

posted 02-25-99 07:36 PM ET            

Balanced against that, is the fact that when designing this game, I am pretty sure that Sid and Brian wanted to use the enormous CIV fanbase (I know CIV II has sold at least 1.5 million) as a, um, ready to use fan base. That is probably why it is quite similar in a lot of ways, and why a lot of us old CIV fans love the game. To each their own, really.

As for a lot of the rest of your criticisms, I think that in design, they are way ehaed of the competition. Is the game perfect? No, of course not, no game is. Is the game good? In a LOT of people's opinions, yes. Is it as good as it could possibly be? No, of course not. Through feedback received from the release of the game, they will get more good ideas, which maybe incorporated into patches, or mod packs (SMACPACS =). Is the game Good, despite that? Hell yeah!

So really, if you feel the game is not perfect, just put in your suggestions for improvement.

As for it being no different to CIV II. Well, I certainly don't agree. That's like saying that TA is no different to Warcraft, or Dune II. On the face of things, quite similar in some areas, but look closer, and there is a whole world of depth awaiting you.

Build queues, terraformable terrain, waypoints, a REAL story (sorry, CIV and MOO didn't have one IMHO), customiseable units (and easy upgrading), social engineering, an enemy (planet) that effects the way you play, Factions that actually play differently, much improved AI which actually plays as an ally, plus all of the good things that made CIV and CIV II so good, and minus a lot of things that annoyed people (like caravans - UGH IMHO and lots of other people's).

posted 02-26-99 12:33 AM ET            

(get mod pack at 129.21.115.130) hehe

posted 02-26-99 04:58 AM ET            

I must admit I prefer the SCIFI format of SMAC but the backround story alone merits some interest.

Once I got SMAC running properly (no easy task) some of the impressive sublties have come to light. Take your time and enjoy the
depth of this game. What really sold me:
As the Gaians, I was besieging a Spartan
stronghold with barely enough units to keep the siege viable. All of a sudden my ally,
PK, starts hitting the Spartan base with
conventional missles. This was 1/2 way across the map from the PK HQ. Impressive,
most impressive.

I think there's more to SMAC than meets the
eye. Quit worrying about the similarities.
Weren't Starcraft and Warcraft II both great
games in their own right? C & C and TA?
SMAC, a fine attempt to meld familiar ground with some inovation and imagination.

QS

posted 02-26-99 06:01 AM ET            

>The economic model is weak or non-existant.

posted 02-26-99 09:58 AM ET            

RE: Pudz, Yes if terrain effected LOS are had significant modifiers to combat and weather, then It would be intersesting. As for extra generated resourses... oh boy, what a radical change from having a special resourse square like "minerals" that does the same thing.

Quien Sabe: Was that subtle, or the typical near random actions of the diplomatic AI.

Borodino: In the background is another way of saying grossly simplistic and outside the range of user control.

PLEASE NOTE! If this thread gets any longer, I'll restart it, just so I can keep track of who I've addressed.

posted 02-26-99 10:34 AM ET            

In the end, these are some of the things that I was really hoping would be here.

1)faster navel movement, it is really a reach to believe that a modern navy would take three or more years to sail around the world.

2)more covert operations, from low intensity warefare to altering the gene-line of neighboring factions.

3)a better developed economic model with more control for the faction and better sense of interconnectedness. For example, boosting industrial expenditures has spill over effects increasing the rate of technological developement in most free market societies.

4)better diplomatic model. What about the tools of modern diplomacy, scantions, embargos, joint development agreeements. The primitive Real-Politik of War, Truce/neutral or Ally is a little lame.

5)Make the growing understanding of the planet critical to the success of a faction.

6)Better Combat model. This one is better than any Civ game to date, aleast stupid bronze age Phalanxes cant kill a fusion aged tank unit, but it still could be improved.

7)More interation with your society, not just assigning jobs and quashing Drone riots. see them evolve and change over time (physically and mentally)

8)A better sense that you are managing a nation, not a collection of semi-independant city states.

posted 02-27-99 01:42 AM ET            

This forum opens up a great discourse which
may make future TBS games even better.

Two quick points, if I may:
1) I do think the backround story is one of
the best set ups I have seen and the
serial nature of the story was a superb
marketing tool.
2) Richard, I agree with the slooooowww move
ment problem. Along with the numerous
crashes and annoying bugs the tedious
movement irritates somewhat. But heck
I love this game! My girlfriend ain't
perfect but hey.......

posted 02-27-99 12:54 PM ET            

1) Faster naval movement. You are both right and wrong. It IS a very unrealistic scale of movement for all units, but the time scale of the game is such that it has to be so. For "realistic" movement you would need weekly or daily turns. Over the 400 year time scale of the game that would mean 20000+ turns! Life (and game design) is trade offs. The designers tried to make the movements proportionally realistic while still letting the game progress so we could finish it before we REALLY colonize a star.

2)More covert operations. They already give me more than I use. Probe teams are only supposed to be PART of the game. They are already much more powerful than real spies. Adding more to them would make covert operations a game in itself. If you want to design such a game, I might be interested in buying it, but it's outside the scope of this one. Probe teams are useful, but not overwhelming. Balance.

3) Better economic model. "If you put two economists in a room, you get three opinions on any question." Your industrial expenditures already boost research - if you spend it on the right improvements. Honestly, most real world governments have basically Zero control of research, and less of economics. If they had half the control you do, we wouldn't have to worry about reccessions. The simplified economic model actually gives you decent control by allowing you to set broad goals for your society - wealth, knowlege, power, etc. and set policies to acheive them. Mr Clinton dreams about having that much power.

4) Better diplomatic model. Good idea. Most of us agree that the diplomacy can ALWAYS use improving and deepening. Please write up your ideas in more depth, with explainations of how the options would work, and post it to a new thread. We'll talk about them and forward them to Sid and Brian. They may end up in a patch, or you may be co-author of SMAC 2.

5) Growing understanding of planet critical. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. The whole point of this game is contending philosophies. One guy in this forum researched all the planet techs and planted all his cities in fungus. He went "Native" in a big way, and planet didn't pick on him at all. Another likes to borehole everything and just fight off planet. Which is smarter? We shall see... Isn't that the point?

6) Better combat model. Better how? More detailed? Faster? What is "better"? No combat model is perfect; all are tradeoffs between realism and playability. Personally, I love Europa's combat system for WW2 ground combat, but it's complexity would make this game take 5 years to play, if it could be adapted at all. Any game that spans infantry to Grav tanks is going to have to be pretty adaptable. What suggestion do you have for improvement?

7) More interaction with society. Hmmm... What kind of interaction? Would it add to the depth of the game, or just add extra complexity without giving anything? I'm already bored with micromanaging twenty cities as it is. I'm not thrilled about MORE micromanagement unless you can convince me it adds more than it takes away. I really don't want to have to will my game of SMAC to my kids so they can finish it after I'm dead...

8) More national policies > less fuedal city states. Well... SMAC does give more than Civ2 with it's social engineering and factional abilities, but I wouldn't be averse to more ideas. What did you have in mind?

posted 03-01-99 10:16 AM ET            

John B.
1) Naval could be improved by defining two differnt types of movement, patrol and deployment. Deployment would function like an airdrop and just put the unit in the desired location with zero movement points but ready to act next turn. Patrol movement would be the same as it is currently with automatic stops in new territory or encounters with hostile forces.

2. argument accepted

3. This is really a request for more interconnectedness among actions and reactions.

4. Ok, will post soon.

5. I disagree entirely. One can skip past all the text-cut screens. They are interesting IF you care. The only relevance that they have is in moderating the number of attacks your cities experience.

6. Poor respect for national boundries. Tanks come way to late in the development cycle. Movement way to slow again. Terrain and supply have little or no effect. Combat basicly limited to kill unit or be killed. Better retreat option would be nice. Missile movement is silly. ect.

7. People do not need micromangement, you should see spontanious improvement and development of you cities and surrounding areas. Nor do citizens live and work only in areas that you specify. More intersting might be to aggrigate the total resources available in a cities sphere of influence and assign the city a percentage of the available based on population size and compostion.

posted 03-01-99 11:48 AM ET            

1) "strategic level" movement is what you are describing. Many games use such a thing for moving units between friendly bases with no enemy ZOCs. The assumption is that moving a military unit along a friendly route (with paths marked, supplies waiting, and no need to worry about enemies) is an entirely different animal from picking your way across potentially hostile terrain in combat. I would go along with allowing a strategic movement of naval units between friendly, non-blocakded (ie not in a enemy ZOC), ports. It doesn't work so well if your gonna "teleport" next to an enemy installation and then (next turn while he's trying to teleport in his fleet), bomb his beans for him. Actually, I think a sea "area movement" system, like World in Flames uses, would work great on this scale. Let's face it; ships are always moving. On any scale greater than 1 day turns, you can't really say, "The ships are here.", only, "They are somewhere in this area." The area system also let's you take into acount that ships are usaully deployed in groups.

3) It's hard to disagree without knowing more specifically what you mean. In principle, it sounds good, but the devil is in the details of implementation. I do think SMAC is a definate step beyond Civ2. There is big difference between a fundamentalist/planned/ power society and a Democratic/Green/knowlege one. A diffence that just wasn't there in Civ. A celtic society is no diffent than a Sioux or a Chinese? Huh? I don thinns so, Quicksdraw...
It sounds kinda like your tying it back into your point about limited interaction as well. You want economic decisions to have more societal impact, and societal choices to have more economic impact. I can agree with that idea somewhat. Perhaps if I had more specifics to chew on...

5) I think that may be a matter of both taste, and game focus. As someone who loved Alien Legacy, I can see a dozen ways to make Planet more challenging, and make unravelling her mysteries more important. The effect of that would be to make Planet itself the prime opponent (or challenge) and maginalize the competion between factions. It would also tend to minimize differences between factions because they would all have to play largely the same. I think the designers chose not to do this because they wanted the factions to be the primary opponents. This is almost certainly because they wanted the multiplayer option to be important. It also effects replayability; once you have unravelled Planet's mysteries once, what then? Try to do it faster next time? I loved Alien Legacy, but I only played it once. SMAC is basically a wargame with a story line woven into it.

6) We probably need a seperate topic to dicuss the combat options you mention. Perhaps a "detailed combat" module box that could be clicked on when you customize options? The national borders issue is one that most people agree needs work. Personally I would love to see ways short of war to adjust border disputes. Diplomatic options including an "Object to city founding" option when someone tries to push your borders back with a nit city. I posted some specific ideas in another discussion a while back. If you want to see them, I can post them in another Topic.

7) The method you're suggesting was used in the old Master of Magic game. It worked fairly well for that game. I suspect people just wanted another "place your workers" type game. At least it's not the extreme micromanagement of Colonization. That's the ultimate in managing and developing your people. I still play it occasionally when I'm feeling in a control-freak mood.

posted 03-11-99 08:51 PM ET            

In Civ II you could not demand a city. You had to go to war for it. Imagine all you want is one city, so you can attack a third faction without crossing non-friendly terrirotry. In civ you had to fight.

SMAC also has alliances based on ideology. Some factions refuse to ally, simply on principle, better than CivII.

This is a TBS game, not Alien Legacy type. I agree. A little background on Planet would be nice, but not essential. My +4 planet is a great advantage. I am immune to planet's attack, and have demon boils patroling the ruins constantly for money.

posted 03-16-99 11:31 AM ET            

World War Two = Same thing as World War One, just with the added genocide package and increased gore. Yugoslavian conflict = Viet Nam in the Balkans, with Caucausians instead of Asians. Hmm man doesn't seem to like to repeat himself, does he? Heck, even cars are the same. Dodge still uses the 318 cubic inch engine in some trucks, and its been around since the 50's. Airbags were invented in the early 70's. Seatbelts have been around since the 40's or earlier. Radio is truly ancient, yet simple humans still find it entertaining though all that's changed is the addition of FM. CDs are smaller, more durable records. They're still made out of plastic, just they're more rigid and are read with a beam of light rather than a metal point. In fact, they haven't changed much since the first wax cylinder records. The main differences are the material they are composed of, the size, and the way they are read (though even that is still based on the same principle). The point I'm trying to make is that all new technology is based upon previous technology. Does this make new technology a "ripoff" or "no better than the original"? Of course not. However, if you would rather use an abacus than a calculator, or a dogcart instead of an autombile, feel free. The main reason SMAC is good, is because it is based upon the previous quality products of Civilization and Civilization II. With each iteration, it becomes more realistic and better. Indeed, SMAC and Civ II are the resutls of we, the gamer's, feedback and demands. SMAC, despite your arguments, does have a better AI. The diplomacy is better as well... interactions between groups were never as detailed before. Could you demand the other faction turn over a base to you before SMAC? Of course not. The new method of creating units is better too. Plus, you neglect the fact that the player can make the game more suitable to his/her taste through editing. Now if only cars and whatnot were that easily customizable...