SMAC vs. CivIII

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:24 pm

Here are my quick thoughts.

-CivIII, including both expanions, is the better game overall. More stuff to do. So let's only compare the 'epic' game.

-SMAC probably has the best 'flavor' in their factions. Choosing based on political philsophy instead of nation is pretty damn cool.

-CivIII has deeper diplomacy, though that's probably because it came after SMAC.

-CivIII's culture. I like culture. Culture is great. People will disagree.

-SMAC had the very planet as a faction, which is so badass and awesome. Go go mindworms!

-SMAC had "design" your own units. Why this was never implemented in CivIII is beyond me.

As a comparison, I'll give a quick AAR of my two 'big' games with both.

SMAC- I was Chairman Yang. I made alliances with the Tree-huggers, Morgan Industries, and the University. Now this may surprise you, but the University got knocked off. Really bad. By the Spartans. The Tree-huggers were my oldest ally, but basically I had to have Green economics the whole time or else she would have attacked me (this happened before). God that just pissed me off, I had a pretty mean mindworm army though.

Anyhoo, my main beef was with the Bible-thumpers. We were on totally seperate contients, so I had a rough time getting on board. That is, until I got air power BEFORE EVERYONE ELSE. Yeah, a few missles and planes, and Miriam was gone. I was never able to completely take her out. Funny story: Even though I made Miriam sign a 'I'll do whatever you want' agreement, she never EVER voted for me in the council. So I always had to kick her ass every few years so she wouldn't get uppity.

The opposing faction was the Spartans, Peacekeepers, and Miriam. Man that was rough. The Spartans beat up Morgan Industries really badly, so I gave Morgan all my techonolgy and he managed to hold them off. Spartans and the Tree-huggers were always at it. The votes were a stalemate every time. I pushed the Peacekeepers off of their main contintent but it was a real bitch trying to invade the chain of islands they inhabited. They had the best navy.

CivIII: This was a fun one, because my wife, who is the worst diplomat ever by the way, was calling most of the shots. We were the Chinese, and we occupied one largish island, as well as the island above us. The island above us was jungle, and it was a real pain. Thanks to my wife's brilliant strategy (give us what we want or we will kill you), we warred with pretty much every single nation. We were in the top 3 for a while but then Saltpeter came into play. Our only source was on the other end of the jungle island. Yeah it took a while. I think when we finally got to it we had three turns of blissful saltpeter goodness before it became obselete. So at this point we have a tentative peace with the Egyptians. And the Romans really really hate us, because we tried for a land war with them and managed to grab a few cities (before losing them of course). The Indians are pretty weak, but they are our only really reliable trading partner. Our tech disadvantage makes me weep. A bright point though, our little island is near impenetrable, and all of our cities are coastal, so we have a navy that is really big.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:37 pm

Alpha Centauri, all the way, baby.

I liked selecting different cultural goals. It was great. You could go to war over IDEAS rather than territory.

See, what I have always hoped for was that in Civ 3, if you would pick communism, the capitalists would be pissed at you. That never materialized.

Plus, every faction in SMAC had personality! If you met the Bible-thumpers, you KNEW they were going to be obnoxious! You knew who would want to ally with, and who you wouldn't want to ally with. Not this "Julius Caesar" crap. You know that some factions in Civ3 MIGHT be warlike, but that was their only personality. War or peace. To quote Napoleon, "Whoopdiddly!"

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:51 pm

FWIW, yes, I have voted. And I voted SMAC in a big way. Although lately I'm having lots of fun with Rise & Rule. I (a minority, I'm sure) love Civ 3's resources and how they affect your game play and diplomacy. Other than that, however, SMAC has Civ3 tied or beat. Social Engineering? Huge win for SMAC. The unit designer? SMAC for the win. Terraformers? SMAC. Planet as a faction? Truly unique factions? Kicking alien buttocks (in SMAX)? Civ doesn't hold a candle.

Where Civ3 does stand out a bit (and this may only be my own ignorance) is a more friendly tech-tree development scheme. Sure it's a race to Monarchy/Democracy initially (and I'm talking Rise and Rule right now), but with the Civ3 AI, that's not a guaranteed win by any means. SMAC falls down as the first person to Doctrine: Airpower and then MMI likely has the option to win the game through military dominance (unless you're playing multiplayer, of course, in which case nobody's going to have a clear advantage here as *everyone* will be racing to these technologies).

~Neal

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:00 pm

However, also consider the scope. SMAC covers a certain period of time after we crash land on a planet.

CivIII covers the MILLENIA that passed up to that point.

SMAC can afford to inject such behaviors because of the relatively small time frame in which is takes place.

I always liked CivIII because you didn't know who was going to act like who. It's adds a big dose of replayability. Though I always pick to play with the Indians because I get such a big kick out of seeing Gandhi start kicking some serious ass... even if it happens to be my ass.

The resources can throw a real monkey wrench into your plans. I love that. Suddenly you have to decide whether to trade for rubber or start rounding up the troops.

In other words... Alpha Centauri has a main story. Every time you play it will still be the same story. It's a good story, and some main characters and chapters will change, but the story stays the same. CivIII has a different story each time you play.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:08 pm

You don't play for the story, though. At least I don't.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:35 pm

The story is in your mind. Whatever happened to imagination?

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:38 pm

I dunno. I just prefer more structure than that. I'm a sucker for a story, I guess.

Zurai · Post by **Zurai** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:50 pm

If I had to pick just one, it'd be Civ 3. SMAC was good but had no moddability. Civ 3 is one of the most moddable games out there and has so many excellent mods that I'd be forced to choose it.

If I was forced to choose one. Fortunately you provided a combo option, so that's what I picked

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:58 pm

Which one do I go home and play almost every night? Civ3 with Rise & Rule. Which one is not even installed? SMAX. SMAX was an awesome game in its day. It probably has the more creative design, and is certainly much better written. But I can't play it anymore. The rush to air power just ruins it for me. I also find it actively ugly, with the unit graphics very difficult to distinguish, and the tech tree is not very intuitive despite using largely renamed Civ techs (no, it's not a granary...it's a children's creche!)

Although I think Civ3 is the deeper strategy game (with culture flipping, corruption, resource tiles, weakened espionage, better borders, better diplomacy, smarter AI, etc.), I acknowledge that SMAX is the more creative of the two. I voted for their unholy love child.

Biyobi · Post by **Biyobi** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:04 pm

While I acknowledge the genius that SMAC brought to the table, I just couldn't get into it. My vote is for Civ III.

Napoleon · Post by **Napoleon** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:45 pm

If I have to choose between Civ 3 and SMAC, it's SMAC, so that's what I voted.

If it would have been Civ 2 and SMAC, I would have chosen Civ 2, which I think is a slightly better game than Civ 3 overall.

Koz · Post by **Koz** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:08 pm

See above.

Bakhtosh · Post by **Bakhtosh** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 3:44 pm

I like the theory of Civ3. It was an awesome concept, but the fact that EVERY TIME a new resouce becomes available, it is NEVER in your current territory ruined it for me. I haven't even picked up any of the add-ons. I liked Civ 3. It was fun, but fatally flawed. SMAX wins out in a straight vote, but I cast my ballot for the more attractive 3rd party: Civ3-SMACed up.

dfs again · Post by **dfs again** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:08 pm

civ3.

I can see the appeal of AC as a multiplayer game, but the huge number of options available in AC, that so many of you admire so much, made the computer players play like wet bread. Even heavily moded to do things like take out the airframe, AC has too many holes.

On the other hand AC had superb multimedia. Best in class.

I just love the change of age screen in civ3 that says something like "Do you like it that we've posted this screen to interrupt the flow of your game?" That's just classic interface design. Annoy the user till he surrenders.

Raug · Post by **Raug** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:25 pm

Vanilla Civ III vs. SMAC is no contest IMO. SMAC all the way! When you take into account the DYP/R&R mods for Civ III it becomes a tougher choice for me, although I still think (again IMO) that SMAC edges past. So I voted SMAC.

The slight cartoony design of Civ III was always a little bit of a turnoff for me, although, as has been said I really like the element of strategy that resources brings. I liked the SF setting of SMAC much better, along with unit design, terraforming, writing (the tech descriptions and quotes were great fun to me), etc. It also had a more "engineering" feel to it. All the societal options, terraforming, faction choices, tech, etc really, really gave me the feeling that I was actually engineering my nation/faction to be exactly what I wanted it to be. Now that's immersive gameplay.

Now I can't decide whether to spend the rest of the evening playing Civ III Rise and Rule or SMAC. Damn you people.

GuidoTKP · Post by **GuidoTKP** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:14 pm

Biyobi wrote:While I acknowledge the genius that SMAC brought to the table, I just couldn't get into it. My vote is for Civ III.

I would call you a fool, but since I inherrited your copy of SMAC I will simply remain grateful for your inability to "get it." SMAC made me so happy, it was silly. Love Civ III though. Think I'm going to pick up Conquests so that I can try out the Rise and Rule mod.

Itsatrap · Post by **Itsatrap** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:29 pm

Is this Civ3 w/Conquests or not?

- Alan

D.A.Lewis · Post by **D.A.Lewis** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:01 pm

I could just never get over how a spear chucker could beat my tank . . . ever. And yet it happended frequently in Civ3

my vote went to SMAC

SuperHiro · Post by **SuperHiro** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:57 am

Yes it's CivIII with all the expansions. SMAC + exp as well.

But we're comparing "epic" games only. None of the CivIII "conquests" mini-campaigns.

Dirt · Post by **Dirt** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:49 pm

Anyone know where I can get the expansion to SMAC?

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:55 pm

That's th $64,000 Question. There is one very bad, disreputable site that carries it for download, but I can't tell you *COUGH PM ME COUGH*.

Raug · Post by **Raug** » Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:22 pm

The Laptop Collection with Alien Crossfire

I missed out on the expansion pack too way back when, and I had a hell of a time tracking the full version down. The version from the disreputable site (if it is the one I am thinking it is) lacks the movies and voice-overs. Seeing as how SMAC is one of my top 5 favorite games it was worth the 20 to me just to have the complete version. Plus I got an extra SMAC disc in case I ever lose my original, heh.

CSL · Post by **CSL** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:27 am

Eel Snave wrote:That's th $64,000 Question. There is one very bad, disreputable site that carries it for download, but I can't tell you *COUGH PM ME COUGH*.

Does it involve dogs going UNDER the table?

Edit: Did buy the laptop edition, my original SMAC CD stopped working on this 'puter and I wanted the expansion. Also came with Sim City 3 which was nice.

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:17 pm

SMAC, easy.

I hated the fact that a closely played game of Civ 3 would almost always turn on who got the rubber, oil and aluminum resources. If you didn't, you were totally, completely screwed. I felt like I was playing the first 3800 years (or whatever it is) and 3-5 hours of gameplay JUST to get to the point of seeing whether my civ was going to get screwed (yet again!) with not getting any of those resources. I don't invest that kind of time in a game to have random decisions strongly determine the outcome of the game. It's just not fun for me.

Ranulf · Post by **Ranulf** » Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:30 pm

I chose option 3, mainly because that was what I was hoping civ3 would be originally. What I got in the box for $50 was a somewhat broken, untested, unfinished game (it took about 6-8 months before the editor could be used to place civs/units on a custom map) that took two years and $60 worth of expansions to fix..and multi is still crap. It took its modablility and gamers who modded it to save any worth civ3 has.

I never really got into smac, the graphics bugged me and at the time I was tired of 4x games however I say it wins hands down against civ3.

-CivIII has deeper diplomacy, though that's probably because it came after SMAC.

I find this a most amusing quote. SMAC had factions with personalities, Civ3 had a bunch of mindless monkeys who wouldn't trade worth a damn (with the human player anyway) besides luxuries. Their so called personality traits didn't really seem to manifest themselves that much other than in how agressive they were in expansion/war. They still acted blindly as they did in civ2, expanding everywhere they could and were generally unhindered corruption wise.

-CivIII's culture. I like culture. Culture is great. People will disagree.

Definately one of the best additions to the genre, that and it added in borders for nations which was sorely lacking in civ1/2 (was it in SMAC?). Once they added in options to turn off culture flip or tweak its rate, it was great.

Civ3 had a lot of potential that they just didnt capitalize on. The tech tree was unimaginative, as were the wonders, they didn't bother creating any near future techs or water cities or multiplanet empires after you launch a ship (could've been an expansion pack..) and the resource system was only half-thoughtout. Its great that they designed a system to model real earth history of fighting over key resources but to deny a nation railroads because of no coal? I've got half a contient of forests but I can't power my railroads? Puhlease. If one nation can't get the resources, they develop new tech to compensate (aka riflemen making saltpeter worthless). That alone made the game completely about conquest, which then leads to spearmen beating dragoons and caravels defeating submarines far too often. Just all too frustrating.

The Meal · Post by **The Meal** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:31 am

SMAC did, indeed, originate the faction borders.

~Neal

Blackadar · Post by **Blackadar** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:02 pm

The Meal wrote:SMAC did, indeed, originate the faction borders.

~Neal

Most definitely the single best addition to the Civ series. No more army-building right outside of your city.

Eel Snave · Post by **Eel Snave** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:01 pm

I've discovered I like whatever Brian Reynolds makes.

Octopus Overlords

SMAC vs. CivIII

Which is the better game?

SMAC vs. CivIII