Smacx 2?

xobsidianx · November 20, 2002, 17:49

Does anyone know [or has heard rumors] if Firaxis plans to do a smacx 2?

quantum_mechani · November 20, 2002, 23:09

I was just about to start this exact thread

I know Firaxis is working on an undisclosed project, but based on rumors it probably isn't SMAC 2.

Capt Dizle · November 21, 2002, 00:14

The only reason I can imagine that Firaxis would decide to do a SMAC2 now is if they think that they can use the Civ3 code as a begining thereby cutting their development time.

OTOH, SMAC was so much more complicated that Civ3 turned out that a SMAC2 by the current group of Firaxians would probably be very simplified. And I wouldn't like that at all.

Main_Brain · November 21, 2002, 05:35

Mhh i thought it was Pirates or MoM or mhh forgot the Last one..
Seriously I hope another Company will do AC2 im just to disappointed of that C3 Fiasco.

Alex · November 21, 2002, 06:51

Firaxis is working on a new project, but it is not a sequel to SMAC. Almost sure about this. All in all, I hope that they never do it. SMAC 2 should be developed by Brian Reynolds, no one else should be allowed to touch such a project.

Mr. President · November 21, 2002, 06:59

SMAC2 (SMAC squared?) might be fun. But I'm hooked on Call to Power and re-hooked on SimCity.

Alex · November 21, 2002, 12:58

Ohh, I recently reinstalled CTP2 and I was thinking about doing the same to SimCity... great minds think alike, as they say...

Ogie Oglethorpe · November 21, 2002, 13:15

I'ld buy BRAC but not SMAC2 for reasons previously mentioned by other posters.

Mongoose · November 21, 2002, 14:04

I don't know if Firaxis would use the Civ3 engine in a SMAC2 or not. Some elements of that engine would be welcome additions...the expanded diplomatic options (though not at the expense of submissives or of alliance stacking!!) the empire rather than city/base support scheme (a la CTP) and even the 2 pop cost for a new settler/colony pod. Most other aspects of that engine would ruin SMAC, as they ruined Civ.

I think something must be up with the Alpha Centauri franchise though. I can't imagine that Firaxis did the compatibility patch for WinXP/ 2K ? without some other use for it in mind or without having already written most of it in some other endeavor. Were they of a mind to give additional free support to SMAC, they could have added the SMAX fixes to a SMAC patch long ago. Does it seem likely that the outfit that brought us the infamous biscuit tin rip-off would give something away?

I cannot imagine that BR and Big Huge Games could get their hands on the rights to Alpha Centauri, even if they were inclined to do a turn-based game. I fear if there is to be another title in the SMAC series, it will be done by the veterans of the Civ3 effort.

Shudder the thought.

johndmuller · November 21, 2002, 16:28

I suppose that the compatibility patch was not too deep, perhaps just in the code that recognizes the hardware/software environment, they probably just had to re-link that part. It's possible (but unlikely) that the SMAC bug fixes that are in SMAX rely on some of the unique stuff in SMAX (perhaps one of whatever changes they made to the save-file structure that make the two a bit uncompatible).

If they wanted to, Firaxis could probably sell us die-hards another Mod for $20 or $30, with no more added new stuff than SMAX had over SMAC but this time, we would lap it up and moreover we'd be

grateful to them for it to boot.

Does anyone know how the compatibility upgrade works with the no-CD cracked versions? Does it restore the need for the CD if you run the patch? I just now started using the no-CD version when I was setting up another machine and I feel liberated

.

Sid has brought out a number of very good games, whether with his own sweat or by virtue of recruiting the labor of fine talents like BR, so I wouldn't underestimate his ability to bring out yet another classic before he retires to that great Pong tournament in the sky.

Straybow · November 21, 2002, 19:55

Mayhap they have learned their lesson, and a SMAC2 would be akin to SMAC as Civ2 was akin to Civ… We can hope anyway. I'd bet the W2k/XP patch was a simple thing done to address well-known differences between the DOS legacy and NT line OSs.

Straybow · November 21, 2002, 20:05

Forgot: johndmuller, if you do a complete install of SMAC it doesn't need the CD. The 4.0 patch detects a complete install and doesn't even do a CD check or warning. I don't have SMAX, so I can't say about that.

Method · November 21, 2002, 21:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm
Firaxis is working on a new project, but it is not a sequel to SMAC. Almost sure about this. All in all, I hope that they never do it. SMAC 2 should be developed by Brian Reynolds, no one else should be allowed to touch such a project.

exactly. if a SMAC2 is ever made (which i doubt

) i won't buy it if it's from fixaxis

not after civ3 ~~:killfiraxis:~~

The diplomat · November 21, 2002, 22:48

Let me ask y'all a question: how complex should SMAC2 be?

I now that I would not want a "dumb downed" SMAC2! On the contrary, I'd love if SMAC2 had a more complex and realistic econ, social, pop, military models etc... I'd also love to see more techs, more SE choices, more miltary units etc...

I would hope that if SMAC2 were made someday, that whomever made it, would not be afraid to make it more involved and more complex.

After all: SMAC fans are smart. They can handle more complexity.

Mongoose · November 21, 2002, 22:58

Straybow, SMAX does require the CD, unless you have a hack. As, I recall, SMAC did also when originally released. There were a lot of problems, especially with the non-English versions, that were associated with the CD copy-protection. as I recall. One of the patches removed that requirement. There was rumor to the effect that EA wasn't very happy with that development. Subsequently, the expansion re-introduced the CD copy-protection, but only for Crossfire. Even with Crossfire installed, the CD is not required to play SMAC, although it is for SMAX. Makes sense, eh?

Jac de Molay · November 22, 2002, 15:40

I would be looking for a SMAC with more weapons, improvements, SPs, bigger size maps, more of everything. And cleaned up map because Planet shouldn't be so bleak.
I have no complaints about the game except theres not enough of it

Brundlefly · November 22, 2002, 16:48

Since SMAC picks up where CIV left off, I would like to see a SMAC sequel created where SMAC left off. Meaning, the premise of this sequel is that everyone has transcended and then are somehow at odds with each other wherever it is that they now exist.

The diplomat · November 22, 2002, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Feephi
Since SMAC picks up where CIV left off, I would like to see a SMAC sequel created where SMAC left off. Meaning, the premise of this sequel is that everyone has transcended and then are somehow at odds with each other wherever it is that they now exist.

Wouldn't that be a bit tricky to do?

There are 2 possibilities.

1) the game could be a strategy empire builder but where the map would be this new funky dimensional realm that the transcends exist. The game could involve some funky gameplay. Players could wage war by throwing entire stars at each other!

The "problem" with such a game is that it would be hard to relate to. If the game takes place in a dimensional realm, then you are not going to have traditional base facilities and such. The setting would be too sci-fi and weird.

2) MOO3 in the SMAC universe!

The transcends become as gods and guide the non-transcends to explore the galaxy. The game would be a space empire building game like MOO3 but set in the SMAC world, with SMAC factions, SMAC techs etc...

Capt Dizle · November 22, 2002, 17:54

I just wish they would tweak SMAC a little. Just fix a few of the spoilers. A good patch, the heck with an expansion or remake.

The diplomat · November 23, 2002, 23:04

Actually, if there is one thing that SMAC2 should fix, it's crawlers. They kinda screw things up a bit in SMAC because they add unnecessary micromanagement, and can also unbalance things a bit.

Perhaps, crawlers could work like in CTP2 to create trade routes. Instead of being normal units, you would build crawlers to make a trade routes. You build a crawler and designate the ressource you want to carry and the designation, and the game would
"convert" the crawler into the trade route that would be represented as a line in between the two cities. Like in ctp2, the further away the designation, the more crawlers you would have to build to make a trade route. Crawlers would not move, but would be used to help the player keep track of the trade route.

This would make crawlers more fair, as well as make trade routes better. As it is, trade is way too abstract in SMAC.

PhoenixPhlame73 · November 23, 2002, 23:08

BRAC = yes

SMAC by the people tht screwed me over on Civ 3 = no

BTW, has anyone bought the x=pac for Civ three? does it make it at all better?

Sikander · November 24, 2002, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by The diplomat
Actually, if there is one thing that SMAC2 should fix, it's crawlers. They kinda screw things up a bit in SMAC because they add unnecessary micromanagement, and can also unbalance things a bit.

Perhaps, crawlers could work like in CTP2 to create trade routes. Instead of being normal units, you would build crawlers to make a trade routes. You build a crawler and designate the ressource you want to carry and the designation, and the game would
"convert" the crawler into the trade route that would be represented as a line in between the two cities. Like in ctp2, the further away the designation, the more crawlers you would have to build to make a trade route. Crawlers would not move, but would be used to help the player keep track of the trade route.

This would make crawlers more fair, as well as make trade routes better. As it is, trade is way too abstract in SMAC.

I have never been one to lament the departure of the old caravans and trade routes from Civ. I felt these were a completely unrealistic bit of micromanagement hell. IMO the trade system in SMAC is much more realistic, and as a bonus it happens automatically and isn't tied into units and their ridiculously tiny movement allowances.

As for crawlers, I really like them. I agree that they could be toned down a bit. I would do something like redesign them to be a bit more like the satellites. There would be 3 seperate crawler techs, one for each FOP. Each tech would give you a module that could harvest one FOP type. This would put crawlers a bit further into the mid- game, as well as reduce their flexibility. They are powerful though, and would still pay dividends, just not as quickly nor with as much flexibility.

The diplomat · November 24, 2002, 13:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

I have never been one to lament the departure of the old caravans and trade routes from Civ. I felt these were a completely unrealistic bit of micromanagement hell. IMO the trade system in SMAC is much more realistic, and as a bonus it happens automatically and isn't tied into units and their ridiculously tiny movement allowances.

As for crawlers, I really like them. I agree that they could be toned down a bit. I would do something like redesign them to be a bit more like the satellites. There would be 3 seperate crawler techs, one for each FOP. Each tech would give you a module that could harvest one FOP type. This would put crawlers a bit further into the mid- game, as well as reduce their flexibility. They are powerful though, and would still pay dividends, just not as quickly nor with as much flexibility.

I don't lament the departure of caravans either. That is not what I was trying to say. I don't want crawlers to become trade caravans where you would have to move them between each base all the time. ARGH!

I do think that trade in SMAC is very good but perhaps a bit too abstract.

I do like your idea of making crawlers like satellites.

Method · November 24, 2002, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by PhoenixPhlame73
BTW, has anyone bought the x=pac for Civ three? does it make it at all better?

try snooping around in the PTW forum. though, no matter what they say, i'll likely never buy it. firaxis ruined that chance with regular civ3

MariOne · November 25, 2002, 07:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Main_Brain
Mhh i thought it was Pirates or MoM or mhh forgot the Last one..
Seriously I hope another Company will do AC2 im just to disappointed of that C3 Fiasco.

If I'm not mistaken, I think to recall something like "we'll think to MoM II if MoO3 goes well...", posted by Stromhound of QS in the MoO3 forum....

but maybe I'm mixing up names, games, forums, and companies...

After all, I still think that AoW is MoM2...
And as I recently posted in the JeffBriggs thread linked in the top announcement, Firaxis seems to have improved in their PR and patching follow-up with Civ3 with respect to SMAC/X, but got worse in *designing* the game.
If there is no chance of anyone else developing it, could we at least hope in a 3rd party game DESIGN???

Sarxis · November 25, 2002, 18:15

If Firaxis made AC2, I wouldn't buy it.

Now if Big Huge Games bought up the rights and made it, there's no questioning my purchase.

Nubclear · November 26, 2002, 22:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
If Firaxis made AC2, I wouldn't buy it.

Now if Big Huge Games bought up the rights and made it, there's no questioning my purchase.

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

I'm not about to get completly ripped off by the money making machine that Firaxis is. However if the real professionals made it (*cough* Brian Reynolds *cough*) then definately I'm gonna buy it.

spartak · November 27, 2002, 03:43

Brian the bug master? Creater of the world's worse AI. I might buy the game as long a ssomeone other than BR codes the AI!

fluffy · November 27, 2002, 07:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz
Brian the bug master? Creater of the world's worse AI. I might buy the game as long a ssomeone other than BR codes the AI!

Would you like to back this up? You seriously think SMAX has more bugs and a worse AI than CIV3, for instance?

MariOne · November 27, 2002, 10:40

fluffy, in which world do you live?
Ah, sorry, your comment is evidently SARCASTIC!

For the new and occasional readers tho, I'll take once more the effort to tell the things as they are, lest they are misled taking your sarcasm for the truth, instead...

I can't say for CivIII, as I barely played it, but all the Civ3 fans in this same site's forum endlessly claim that their beloved game is almost bugless and can't stop praising Firaxis for the unsolicited patching support...

But yes, SmaX HAS bugs.
I indeed mean still SmaX, non just Smac.
Smax introduced even new bugs over Smac, while fixing a small percentage.
You may not realise it, but playing Smac/x together is an excruciating process of agreeing about what bug is to be avoided and how, and which can be instead "swallowed" as a feature, which loophole can be exploited, and which must be considered a cheat.
Mind, while you play alone, and as long as you DON'T compare your scores with other players or play common scenarios, you might be inadevertent of the fact that there are still actions denied by in-game popups and messages, which can nevertheless be obtained using different command shortcuts.

Not mentinoning that in multiplayer there are bugs that for instance unduly STOP the game after the FIRST human is eliminated, requiring painful and far from optimal workarounds, or that allow any player to *secretly* play multiple turns in one (to the extent of winning the game by transcendence on your first pbem turn, if you want and find any fun in it) and making playing a pbem only acceptable with a heaavy monitoring of every player's turn and/or pure&utter reliance on the honor system...

So, SMAC(with some reserve on the X) is a jewel and probably the best TBS ever, DESPITE the innumerable bugs with which it is STILL ridden.
It's just that over the years (most of) the players in this and other communities have learned to face and deal with them, and live with them in a (not always) acceptable way.

Regarding the AI, I doubt ther is a worse AI than SMAC/X one.
Or rather, the game is so far more complex than others, that it wold require a far superior AI to make even a decent match. Indeed all the players have to play pbem to find some challenge, or to invent absurd tweaks and mods (playing with incredibily crippling limitations against huge & iper-powered AI) to find any fun in single player...
Like if, say, you enjoyed playing tennis. But to avoid always winning 6-0 6-0 you had to play without a racket, and blinfolded. Then, you might find some challenge, but would you still say that you enjoyed a "tennis match"???

In summary, I agree with your evidently sarcastic comment, we all know that it's hard to find a more bug-festered and with an inadequate AI game than SMAX.....
According to Civ3 forum here tho, it looks like FurXs has finally learned their ways, and could be trusted to do a good job on a new game....