Smac

[lorddread]

SMAC I have heard this term used before. What does it mean?

[SpencerH]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

[Inverse Icarus]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centuari

[Purple]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC for short) has been called Civ in Space or Civ 2.5.

For my money, it is the best-realized of all the Civ's and Civ-imitators, but the science fiction setting puts some people off. If you can find a copy, snatch it.

It's sequel, Alien Crossing (SMAX), is an expansion pack (you need SMAC for SMAX to run), doubling the number of players ("factions"), adding techs, etc.

The two have been combined into a Planetary Pack (or something like that), which probably incorporates all the patches.

Definitely thumbs-up!

[Locus]

IMO SMAC/X is the closest to perfect a strategy game has evercome. I envy you for the discovery that you can and should experience by getting it. I wish I could go back and discover the game again but alas, the AI is flawed and once you learn how to beat it every time, it stopped being as much fun. It took me about 200 games at least to get to that point. Get the game and expansion pack!

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, the SMACAI sucks. I have already figured out the Civ3 AI so it sucks too. There is no difference.

SMAC has more depth than Civ3 by a factor of infinity. PBEM is very good. Compare games, some built on scenarios are very good. Lots of folks are migrating back to SMAC.

SMAC is going to enjoy a revival. Originaly a cult hit it very well may be accepted by TBS mainstream as the definitive gem of the genre.

No offense MOO players....

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yes, the SMACAI sucks. I have already figured out the Civ3 AI so it sucks too. There is no difference.

I think you're utterly wrong.

SMAC is a great game, but if you can't tell the difference between the SMAC AI and Civ3's AI well, then, my opinion of you will just have to stay the same.

[QUOTE]
SMAC has more depth than Civ3 by a factor of infinity. [/QUOTE}

That's also a bit of an exaggeration.

In SMAC you do have more broad strategic choices. Which part of the tech tree to develop, or victory condition to persue, for example. (Yeah, Civ3 has various victory conditions but the system isn't as well done/defined as it is in SMAC.) The "factions" are differentiated more than the civs in Civ3. Much more to the tech tree. In general there's many more "toys" to play with.
SMAC's a great game. A rather _different_ game from Civ3. Civ3 is more about "tactical" decisions, and a heftier challange. And SP play.

[Golden Bear]

I concur. SMAC and X are the top of the genre. An update with buffed up graphics and a better tuned interface would be cool. However, I guess that people would complain that they were ripped off for the buying the same game. Hmm, XCOM could do with new graphics but no gameplay changes.

Allways worth playing. I try to wait several months before approaching it again so that I will forget some of the tricks and force myself to learn some new things.

GB

[Capt Dizle]

Tarq,

I am not concerned of your opinion of me!

But, when I said there is no difference in the AI, this is what I meant.

Smac's AI was really funny if you toggled the scenario editor and watched it. The pathfinding was atrocious. The lack of terraforming was disturbing. Overbuilding of military units and underbuilding of improvenments. It was pretty bad.

By comparison, the Civ3 AI is much better across the board, in part due to the simplification of game mechanics and in part due to better programming. But it doesn't matter.

Why? Because the AI can't learn, it can't evolve. Once you have it figured out, winning is certain, barring lousy starts or cheats like with the production bonuses on diety level.

When I say there is no difference, well, there isn't. Its more tedious to beat the Civ3 AI, not more fun, more entertaining, or more satisfying. There has to be other stuff for the player to do, to enjoy, to experiment with, to lose oneself in. The whole idea of expecting the AI to carry the day is, well, foolish.

jt

[ixnay]

SMAC is a great game...I believe it is still the highest rated game ever in PCGamer, with an incredibly impressive 98%

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Why? Because the AI can't learn, it can't evolve. Once you have it figured out, winning is certain, barring lousy starts or cheats like with the production bonuses on diety level.

Worse yet, the CivIII AI only has one generic strategy, which is modified by "agression factor". As humans we can play a game for a while, and then adopt the most promising strategy as the game evolves. The AI can't do this.

(i.e. provide massive support to all the other civs on the other continent, except England)

Cheers,
Shawn

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

SMAC and SMAX are the best civ style TBS bar none IMHO.

JT like what he says or not brings valid criticism to the gaming realm of both CIV3 and SMAC.

For SP play, if what you really desire is a balanced AI then CIV3 has a slight nod. Point being is as a human you do eventually learn (even a slow poke like me) and ultimately will find a way to best the AI. It was easier to do this for SMAC perhaps then CIV3. But CIV3, again IMHO, appears to formulaic in the best means to win. SMAC had many different approaches to win from early conquer, to build and outtech, to a hybrid approach. AI diplomacy was superior. Goverments were far superior. Unit workshop was a masterful idea if somewhat klugey in its implementation. etc. etc.

So consider the AI's a bit of a draw but a slight nod to CIV3. Features, depth of game, immersibility and replayability orders of magnitude in favor of SMAC.

All these features then fuel the interest in SMAC in its most popular incarnation the multiplayer realm. All the toys make humans drool with anticipation of trying this or that underhanded trick in multiplayer realm.

For me its not even a comparison SMAC easily over CIV3.

Do yourself a favor pick up SMAC in a bargain bin. Course don't blame me when your suffering sleep deprivation.

Og

[MosesPresley]

I'm sorry, but I had to chime in on this SMAC lovefest.

SMAC 4.0 is excellent and near perfect.

SMACX SUX. It is full of gamebreaking bugs and overpowered factions. They, Firaxis, Jeffrey Morris in particular, promised us another patch to address the bugs and never delivered. SMACX is simply shovelware. I know some people enjoy it, but the bugs, paratroopers, naval elevation, and too many others to mention, killed any potential enjoyment of it for me.

[Capt Dizle]

what bugs, there are no bugs in SMAX

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

When I say there is no difference, well, there isn't.
jt

Other than being "much better across the board", OK, I see. You're a really profound guy.

Once you have it figured out, winning is certain, barring lousy starts or cheats like with the production bonuses on diety level.

Well, if you like a challenge, and not just, for example, raising and lowing land, or seeing if your score is 10% higher by following _this_ tech branch, not _that_ one, there _is_ a difference. Sure, eventually I'll learn Civ3 just like I learned SMAC, but it'll take longer. During that extended interval I'll still be having fun with Civ3.

What level did you used to play Civ3 on, anyway?

[LordBashHeart]

SMAC was wicked when it came out, I bought it on the day of release, but maaaaaaan the bugs, eevn after all the patches it still crashed on my Lan at home during multiplayer.

Never played the SMACX, but I think SMAC was a little bit hmmmm option heavy. A few too many ideas thrown in, and not refined enough. Civ3 comes off as a much more polished product.

One thing I do miss out of it though which you can't do (or at least I haven't figured out how to do it) is that you could send a unit to a city just by right clicking on a unit and scrolling down a long list of city names. Then he would automatically go there. Is this in Civ3 and I just am a dweeb?

-LordBashHeart

[delfino]

as both SMAC and Civ3 stand today, SMAC is definetely a better game. SMAC was a big step forward at the time, Civ 3 is a shy sidestep. But then again it comes down to each one's preferences. Better or worst are as arguable as any statement can be.

[Bill9999]

Originally posted by LordBashHeart
I think SMAC was a little bit hmmmm option heavy. A few too many ideas thrown in, and not refined enough. Civ3 comes off as a much more polished product.

Seriously, is that how you really feel? SMAC Option Heavy? Civ 3 POLISHED? MORE polished than SMAC? MUCH more polished?

Hey it's your opinion, please though, can you back that up?
Please tell me what Civ 3 has that is more polished than SMAC?
Just to satisfy my curiosity, Please?

I see three improvements in CIV3 - Resources, Culture, and improved AI. But everything else about the game is atrocious. Buggy, Units not balanced, weak tech tree, little difference between civs, WEAK diplomacy, ah... hell, no need to list all 95...

Bill9999

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by LordBashHeart
One thing I do miss out of it though which you can't do (or at least I haven't figured out how to do it) is that you could send a unit to a city just by right clicking on a unit and scrolling down a long list of city names. Then he would automatically go there. Is this in Civ3 and I just am a dweeb?

-LordBashHeart

Ctrl-Shift-g does the same thing

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Tarquelne


Well, if you like a challenge, and not just, for example, raising and lowing land, or seeing if your score is 10% higher by following _this_ tech branch, not _that_ one, there _is_ a difference. Sure, eventually I'll learn Civ3 just like I learned SMAC, but it'll take longer. During that extended interval I'll still be having fun with Civ3.

What level did you used to play Civ3 on, anyway?

T,

I think your getting to the crux of the matter. Challenge and replayability. Replayability is intertwined with the level of challenge but also encompasses features and options.

JT's assertion (regardless of his previous tirades against CIV3) is simply this, the AI will always be bested by humans sooner or later. Once discovered (the SP challenge is gone) that leaves what. Civ3 or for that matter any Civ style game then becomes a game to be used for either a) comparison against other great players or yourself or b) gaming against an intelligent opponent i.e. a human in MP.

If one accepts this as a truth (albeit a matter of time in order to achieve this state) then one looks to the rest of the game features other than the AI. CIV3 with the exception of culture and strategic resources really is stripped down of its features (IMO). (I won't go into the pros and cons of those two features as there is both plusses and minusses on each the whole luck vs player influenced actions arguements). So the assumption is that as the game stands now, the CIV3 game has replayability for challenge sake, but in the long run both for comparison gaming and MP purposes (if MP is ever implemented) CIV3 will pale in comparison to feature rich yet AI weak SMAC.

So to sum up CIV3 remains replayable as long as your learning the game mechanics, while SMAC retains more replayability after game mechanics are discovered due to features for comparison gaming and MP.

OTOH I may be completely off the mark, as what I am attempting to describe is consumer likes and dislikes and as we all know there is no pleasing the consumer.

Afterall it was the consumers of this forum and others that apparently got the ear of Firaxis to focus to the extreme to make a challenging AI, unfortunately we consumers didn't realize that was going to cost us lots of features and options. Funny tho', I've posted the same poll here and at CGN and in both places the features of the game are preferred over an aggressive AI, granted we are talking a very small sampling of gaming consumers. See there just is no pleasing us

Og
Og

[SpencerH]

Since this has turned into SMAC vs CIV3. I'd have to give my vote to SMAC/SMACX. A variety of different factions, random events, weird ****. I remember somebody posting a strategy of using pollution as a weapon to melt the icecaps and drown their opponents. Now thats innovative! Yes, there were some irritating parts to the game, but it kept my (full) attention for much longer than CIV3 has.

[Locus]

I whole heartedly agree with Ogie's post. Civ 3 just doesn't have what I would call the depth that SMAC/X did. I liked playing the game on Transcend with the expansion. It was really fun and held my interest far longer than Civ 3. Ogie's right, even after figuring out the AI, I still played the game...I think I must have played at least 250 Smac/X games from beginning to end...tried every victory condition, scenarios, etc. The game is so versatile. I got Civ 3 the day it came out and have only finished 3 games. I get bored and then quit and play something else. Then, I'll see something on the message board I want to try and give Civ 3 another chance. Unfortunately I have been disappointed again and again. The game just isn't fun IMO.

However, I just downloaded Korn's blizt mod on Tues night and have played that for the last 2 nights. Korn, if you read this, know that your Mod makes the game a hell of a lot more fun. If you feel the same way I feel about Civ 3, give Korn's mod a chance. Firaxis, seriously consider using some of Korn's ideas. He's on the right track to saving this game.

[LordBashHeart]

Originally posted by Bill9999


Seriously, is that how you really feel? SMAC Option Heavy? Civ 3 POLISHED? MORE polished than SMAC? MUCH more polished?

Hey it's your opinion, please though, can you back that up?
Please tell me what Civ 3 has that is more polished than SMAC?
Just to satisfy my curiosity, Please?

I see three improvements in CIV3 - Resources, Culture, and improved AI. But everything else about the game is atrocious. Buggy, Units not balanced, weak tech tree, little difference between civs, WEAK diplomacy, ah... hell, no need to list all 95...

Bill9999

Well, hmm let me think, the learning curve was much greater for SMAC, less intuitive interface is my major gripe with it.

It has been year or 2 since I played it. But mainly when you opened windows it sometimes left artifacts on the screen, occasional unnecissary options when right clicking on units, and lots of crash bugs particularily on LAN play.

[ACooper]

SMAC SMASUCKS. The replayability is not there. It's ugly. I was a bug fest that required more patches than Civ3 will probably have. All those fantasy BS units. Air power way too unbalancing. etc, etc, etc.



Planet busters were cool though.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
So to sum up CIV3 remains replayable as long as your learning the game mechanics, while SMAC retains more replayability after game mechanics are discovered due to features for comparison gaming and MP.

I think the opposite is true, if you're not concerned about maximizing score or treating the game like a software-toy:

Civ3's better AI means you still have something to do after you're familiar with the game mechanics. (Like chess.) SMAC's relatively poor AI means that, after the game mechancis/options are explored, there's little to keep you playing if it's a "Will I win or lose?" challange you're after. (Like Legos.)

OTOH I may be completely off the mark, as what I am attempting to describe is consumer likes and dislikes and as we all know there is no pleasing the consumer.

I do think trying to maximize score or treat a complex game like SMAC as a software-toy is fine. I agree - People need to realize that not everyone plays SMAC or CIv3 the same way. I never called SMAC a "bad game" because I found the AI sub-par.

[Sandman]

In terms of government, research, diplomacy, units and terrain model SMAC is ahead of civ3.

It has a mismatched presentation, however. There are brilliant, memorable quotes to accompany every advance and building, and great movies. But the map is well, revolting, with what seems like placeholder art for special resources. The units are also very plain, and sometimes stupid looking.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

T,

I think you and I are saying pretty much the same thing. The time frame the game remains interesting from a win lose perspective is a direct function of the AI challenge factor. However, assuming you buy into the theory that sooner or later the human player will learn all that is needed to routinely beat the AI at all levels, then the other features tricks and complexities of the game start to become the draw in order to one up yourself and others in comparison games.

Caveat - The other thing that makes the game a big replayer is ability for those ingeneous enuff to make scenarios and mods (typically again for comparison purposes). Unfortunately at this time CIV3 lack those as well.

For MP lack of features etc. IMO seriously affect the game right from the get go as the object is not to beat the hapless AI but use whatever underhanded strategems to beat the human. If those options are stripped down, well..... I'm simply conjecturing at this point anyway since CIV3 has no MP.

Og

PS Never meant to infer one way or another you liked or disliked SMAC (unlike others). Merely meant to clarify what I thought JT's arguements were.

PPS I guess at the end we're both trying to rationalize that erratic beast known as the consumer. This consumer prefers the approach of a complex game full of nuances at the expense of the AI if required. (call me a software-toy freak) I'll be playing it a lot longer than a game with beefed up AI but not so much else. Once I figure out how to win regularly will most likely shelve.

[DrSpike]

SMAC and civ2 are strategically better games than civ3, without doubt. It cannot be denied that the civ3 AI is more challenging, but unfortunately it is mainly (not entirely) due to the streamlined gameplay. There is still skill in playing civ3 though; I enjoy comparison games with civ3 and will for a while yet.