My vote goes to civ2 because teh following things where better in civ2 then in SMAC:

-scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever
-unit balance: in SMAC was there no sense in building other offensive units then choppers.
-variarity of strategies: in civ where there lot's and lot's of strategies who worked good. In SMAC looked or every faction was forced in some predefined strategies
-SMAC is a scenario, civ2 is game with as many scenario's as you can download.
-Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC.
-Graphics: SMAC is to dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-30-2001 04:27 PM -scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever

Civ II had more scenarios because more people played it and continue to. If SMAC had the same following my guess is there would be about the same amount of scenarios.

quote: -variarity of strategies: in civ where there lot's and lot's of strategies who worked good. In SMAC looked or every faction was forced in some predefined strategies

I disagree. There were still a lot of ways to win and work your nation in SMAC.

quote: -Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC.

I am not sure exactly what you mean. In SMAC I had empires to control and maintain.

quote: -Graphics: SMAC is to dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

Neither game's graphics are acceptable for this century gaming. New graphics like the ones that they are beginning to make are what need to be in the game.

I vote for a game that incorporates the successes of Civ I, Civ II, SMAC, other Sid games, other Civ games, and any other successes that fit in the Civ mold. And do all of this in a new and unique way. I know Firaxis is up to the challenge.

Civilization and Civilization II were the games we all loved... SMAC was just another thing, some people liked it, but I'm sure it didn't caught everybody who loves playing civ games...

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-30-2001 04:27 PM -scenarios: civ2 has the best scenario's of all turn based games ever

quote: -Feeling: In civ2 have you really the feeling you are commanding an empire more then in SMAC. -Graphics: SMAC is too dark, all units looked the same and there where not enough happy colors. Civ2 had relative good graphics.

EDITED: Because two's company

I think in SMAC the level of involvement was much lower than in civ 2 and the sales figures prove it all too well.

Futuristic technology? Red-fuxia-blue all mixed up nothing to understand squares? Units that needed a microscope to tell them apart?

Like Civ 2 unquestionably. But incorporate some cool stuff from SMAC like frontiers etc
(Civ is THE game of the world meaning you have a feeling of history and of re-writing its course too)

Of course Civ II had a greater "sense of empire", because it embraced a longer timeline, with more involvement of the player because of its historical "realism".
SMAC tried some new technical concept: Social engineer, Unit workshop, Faction unique points, more "3D like" terrain, borders...

Apparently lot of players would like a mix of the two, merging the game into a "Civ Engine" concept, really open to different MOD and scenario for every taste.

I'm not sure it will happen, because it's a bit unrealistic that Firaxis will left to the customer the ability to pay once and play forever, IMHO

May be Firaxis is trying to make money pushing Civ into larger fields: a new, feasible, multiplayer (monthly fee), or a new CIV engine and set of tools (scenario editor, AI editor), improved every three/six months, where we'll pay the upgrade to improve our "gaming experience" as every P.R. people will sell us

The best compromise probably should be an "open" CIV backbone where to fit different module: a research module, a battle module, a building/production module, a diplomatic module, a trade module and so on.

We should be able to chose a basic, easy module for every area of the game we don't care much, or a deep, complex module for our loved area (e.g. warfare, diplomacy or research). Of course every module need a dedicated "AI code" tailored to cope with that part of the game, while the "backbone AI" must act as a supervisor to "glue" all the pieces. Pay per module model, and everyone will be able to tailor the game on him/herself

Sorry, I'm draggin a bit the topic, but I'm trying to change a bit the point of view on the often debated Civ/CTP/SMAC/Colonization/put-your-favourite-game-here argument

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-30-2001 05:35 PMtniem, don't you think that no other game since Civ 2 has given you the real feeling of imperial control, and grand-scale social planning, that SMAC, and CtP with it, have somehow missed? And that these two offshoots feel like little more than the computer games that they are??

Yes, but...

SMAC really was not long enough in terms of ages to have the same kind of grand scale planning that Civ II had. CtP had some problems that frustrated me and so I am not one to talk about the imperial control of it.

But if you're talking game mechanics - SMAC has it all over CivII. Do a blow by blow analysis:

Diplomacy - SMAC's is slightly better (not great, but better) - more options, more varied AI responses

Internal Politics - social engineering is light years ahead of "hmmm, do I want to be a king or a president?"

City management - Governors are a great improvement (they may screw up sometimes, but if you've got eighty cities, a few mess ups are better than hour long turns)

Combat - the addition of multi-tiered morale levels was a huge plus in SMAC - as was the unit workshop - finally i could give my settlers/formers some armour

The Map - they both sucked (the world is not a tube!)

Sure, there are lots of great things about CivII that need to be incorporated into CivIII - but they are almost all about feel, not game-mechanics. Don't get me wrong, I love the feel of CivII (heck, I still watch the wonder movies) - i just think that SMAC has the better underlying game-mechanics.

CIV2:4
SMAC:1

I'd like a combination of both, but I'd MUCH more like it to be like SMAC, without the unique factions.

Civ2 had a greater imperial feel - Well of course it did, that was the point of Civ, it wasn't the point of SMAC.

SMAC forced strategies on factions - Bull****. What about civ, it had the same strategy for ALL it's civs.

SMAC didn't have scenarios, it was a scenario - Well Civ3 won't be that scenario anyway.

Graphics - Civ3's graphics are going to be way better we know that.

Comparing Civ2 to TOT/SMAC is the light and airy feel of springtime to the cloudy, gloomy feel of a Great Lakes winter.

The second problem with SMAC is the uniformity of the units, especially the infantry.

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 01-31-2001 04:00 AM Only vote's for civ2 or SMAC are legal so posts who didn't express there preference clearly(tniem and Adm.Naismith posts) aren't included(otherwise would everyone vote both and won't we be able to see which one is loved most) But they can still vote for one of both if they want.

I did not express a preference because I hope to God that Civ III goes beyond either of them. As Adm.Naismith said "we need a game different enough to make any "SMAC or CIV II" argument not really important "

Which one is loved most?

You will find Civ II winning but it is obvious that SMAC is a better game in terms of mechanics. Why? Because it is the newer, more advanced version. Just like Civ II is better than Civ I, game programmers can just do more with the game than they could even two years before.

How about adding a new category? It could be, I want Civ III to incorporate ideas, but be different than anything done before. What do you think?

I want to clarify the meaning of this poll: This poll is NOT should civ3 be the same as civ2 or the same as SMAC.

But they will most likely base there design on the previous design of civ2 and smac(maybe also colonization) offcourse will they expand this design heavily(otherwise is there no sense in making a new game ) but still will a lot been based on previous design(like civ2 had a lot of elements of civ1) and will they ask themself the question "like in SMAC or like in civ2?". This poll is about which of them they should choose in situations like that most of the time.

"In 1998, Firaxis Games released Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, a turn-based science fiction strategy game. Alpha Centauri was extremely successful and had many game play innovations that advanced the turn-based genre. Firaxis Games will utilize many of the cool innovations made in Alpha Centauri in CivIII. In Civilization III you'll find borders (but even more realistic than in SMAC), unique benefits depending on the Civilization you choose, enhanced and more realistic diplomacy AI, build- queues and more ways to delegate commands for those who want to minimize micromanagement at later stages in the game. These are just some of the innovations that will be found in Civilization III and that made Alpha Centauri the highest rated PC game ever!"

Another quote from the site: