The guy I spoke to said EA has their own capacity to develop IP internally, but won't do SMAC. However for smaller licenses like SMAC they will outsource them. They just need proof that the outsource company can bring a project to retail, at a good quality, and it be successful.
BTW on license rights:
- EA owns the brand, retail and distribution rights.
- Firaxis owns the source code and asset rights.
- Various other parties own rights to technologies used in the game (eg Microsoft).
- Brian Reynolds and Sid Meier (not Firaxis please note him personally) hold copyright on the design.
Take Two/Firaxis buy the rights back from EA - 10 %
Not unlikely, Sid Meier does like his sequels.
There is one option not mentioned: a spiritual successor.I think a spiritual successor is more likely than a sequel (I rather have a official sequel, but thats just me).
Not unlikely, either.
Take Master of Magic. That one has had 2 (aguably) spiritual succesors: Age of Wonders and fallen Enchantress.
Now, I like fantasy as well... but how come no sci fi 4x that does not involve faster than light travel that is more SMAX inspired?
Then again, the fantasy 4x guys had to cope till 2002 then 2012... with one abysmal failure of an attempt (Elemental: WoM)
Oh yeah... the "wild card" option.
There is always a chance that a open source atempt to recreate SMAX could happen.
Now, there was a few attempts to recreate it in FreeCiv. However, none of these have come of anything. Plus, FreeCiv looks like utter crud from the days of the Commodore 128.
Maybe a Battle of Wesnoth type deal?
However, I give this a 10to 5 percent. It would be a massive project to take on that would require tons of time and talent and would need massive community support.
There is also a chance for another Planetfall type mod in a more modern engine like Civ 5 or Kumquat/Fallen Enchantress. But then, like Maniac and crew found out for Civ 4, you are burdened with the limitations of that engine and invariably are forced to leave out mandatory features that a SMAX successor would need.
Oh yeah... the "wild card" option.
There is always a chance that a open source atempt to recreate SMAX could happen.
Now, there was a few attempts to recreate it in FreeCiv. However, none of these have come of anything. Plus, FreeCiv looks like utter crud from the days of the Commodore 128.
Maybe a Battle of Wesnoth type deal?
However, I give this a 10to 5 percent. It would be a massive project to take on that would require tons of time and talent and would need massive community support.
There is also a chance for another Planetfall type mod in a more modern engine like Civ 5 or Kumquat/Fallen Enchantress. But then, like Maniac and crew found out for Civ 4, you are burdened with the limitations of that engine and invariably are forced to leave out mandatory features that a SMAX successor would need.
Another downside of Planetfall is that its only accessible to Civ 4 players. (Its not a stand alone game)
I love Battle of Wesnoth and the open source community behind it. IMO most open source games are in poor shape (graphically, gameplay, community support).
List of Open Source Games (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_video_games)
Planetfall has it's own issues too. Enormous amount of work put into it which we should respectAgreed. Programing and modding is not easy, and Planetfall is a fantastic mod, just not sequel.
Come to think of it... and how far AC was for it's time... has ANY modern engine handled terrain/ weather/ sea levels and terrain levels rising and falling since? Not sure any mod of anything out there could do it.
That's because Alpha CentauriCome to think of it... and how far AC was for it's time... has ANY modern engine handled terrain/ weather/ sea levels and terrain levels rising and falling since? Not sure any mod of anything out there could do it.No strategy games have these features that I know of.
You have that right! SMAC introducted many concepts that the later Civ and other 4x games still have not matched.That's because Alpha CentauriCome to think of it... and how far AC was for it's time... has ANY modern engine handled terrain/ weather/ sea levels and terrain levels rising and falling since? Not sure any mod of anything out there could do it.No strategy games have these features that I know of.
( •_•)
( •_•) >⌐□-□
(⌐□_□)
Was ahead of its time.
The team considered several ideas, including a return to a post-apocalyptic earth and the conquest of another planet in the Alpha Centauri system, before deciding to keep the new title on Planet. The premise allowed them to mix and match old and new characters and delve into the mysteries of the monoliths and alien artifacts
I think that the smart money would be to do what might be really SMAX 1.5 (but call it SMAC 2 to avoid confusion).
Several great ideas being floated around here. Personally, one extension of SMAX I'd love to see is the opportunity for a fully-teched-out group of human factions to attempt to defend Planet against a fully powered Usurper or Caretaker fleet - in other words, the aliens' successful contact with their homeworld does not automatically mean an end to the "human age" on Planet.
But I also love the idea of expanding to other planets in the Centauri system, some of the other Manifold worlds, or returning to a postapocalyptic Earth (which perhaps has one small "native" faction still alive). MULTIPLANET civilization building? Absolutely.
(Edited due to failure by the forums' vulgarity filters.)
What I would prefer rather than a spiritual successor is for the stratetic factors that made SMAC such a great game to be propogated to other 4x games.
It blows my mind that we could have 3 sequels to Civ after SMAC, and not one of them is even close to being as stratetic as SMAC. This goes for the other 4x games since SMAC as well.
I listed 6 factors in an earlier post on this thread, but I am sure that there are other important factors that I overlooked.
I listed 6 factors in an earlier post on this thread, but I am sure that there are other important factors that I overlooked.
Ah, I didn't realize those were what you meant by the strategic factors.
That said, I think that 2, 5, and 6 (crawlers, specialists, satellites) actually might be better if they're there but somewhat weakened and/or easier to counter; you get richer strategy when powerful options come with significant costs as well.
Satellites are pretty expensive. Yes, they provide a global benefit, but each satellite costs a lot. Also, sats can be targetted by other players. Still, if you want to weaken sats, make them only give half resources to each base regardless of whether you have an Areospace complex or not. As for the probe team, it should only be able to affect a single sat, not the entire sat network at one time, if such a thing were implemented.
There is no way that one probe action, regardless of the cost, should be able to take control of 20+ sats in one action. A sat is very expensive; subverting a single sat with a probe team is MORE than enough.Why not? You can take a base in one action :P. I think your right about the whole sat network, but I would think one satellite is way to low. Maybe a random amount (1-5) and random type would work?
OK, lets just make a probe team action that subverts some random number of enemy units, or even enemy cities.I disagree, and we are off topic (i would love to discuss this though... Maybe in a Probe Team discussion thread?). However we can both agree that SMAC 2 needs to be made. :danc:
Just as you can only subvert a single unit with a probe team action, you should only be able to subvert a single sat. One sat is plenty of reward.
I always thought it would be nice if a probe team had the option to take down/take over another faction's satellite net. The probe team could only do that in the HQ of a faction.
I think the crawler have a pretty easy counter if you focus some military on destroying them.
I don't think crawlers are overpowered, but rather rightly priced. 30 minerals to harvest 1 square seems fair (where a colony pod can harvest 2 squares and get other benefits for the same cost).
Crawlers are also very vulnerable to combat, particularly air units, and can be subverted.
Specialists also do not seem overpowered. Until late game, you get at most 5 energy for a specialist, whereas in midgame your workers are typically getting 3/2/3.
Satellites are pretty expensive. Yes, they provide a global benefit, but each satellite costs a lot. Also, sats can be targetted by other players.
Firstly, that colony pod is worth only 1 square, as you give up a population point (and thus a worker) when you build it.
More importantly, that colony pod then requires all those production-multiplying facilities you mentioned in order to get full benefit; a crawler uses the production-multiplying facilities of its home base, and is therefore better compared to another population point in that base.
A worker in a city can fully harvest a square; a supply crawler can only get one resource. They are fine for a single resource square, but most squares are better than that. A worker can harvest 3/2/3 or 6/6 from a hybrid forest square or a borehole; a supply crawler gets only half or less of the value.
A city created by a colony pod can grow. After 10 turns (with a 2N square available), it works 2 squares, and so on. Furthermore, it can spawn other colony pods for more cities. A supply crawler has no growth potental; it harvests exactly one resource, period.
However, a supply crawler can serve a strategic role. It can harvest squares that are small gaps between cities, rather than take the ICS approach and build another city.
It can concentrate energy into a single city, perferably the HQ. It can provide food to a base that otherwise would face starvation. But I do not think these strategic roles in any way make it overpowered.
It is just another great tool in a thinking man's arsenal. I would hate to see this tool removed
Your analysis neglects the city square itself. A city with no worker (just a doctor/empath/etc) still produces a lot of resources, particularly with Free Market/Wealth.
The extra resources added by the worker definitely make the total MUCH more than a crawler would give. My crawlers typically provide either 2-3 N or 2-4 M or 1-3 E. This does not seem overpowered to me; it seems fairly valued.
Normally, when someone says something is overpowered, there is apparently one overpowering strategy enabled by the overpowered item. I don't see this at all for crawlers. They can support any kind of strategy you want: large city, small city, builder, momentum.
So perhaps you can better explain to me what is the problem that you are trying to fix?
I am not familiar with the term FOP. What does it mean?
FOP=Factors Of Production (Energy, Mins, or Nuts)
And.. I do find Supply Crawlers are a very interesting addition to the game, but probably too cheap for their effectiveness overall. Unlike cities which require maintenance, increase inefficiency, require drone control, etc, they can pay for themselves pretty quickly and give strongly exponential increases in production power. A 4 min crawler (quite reasonable with enough formers) will pay for another crawler every 7.5 turns once in place (ignoring any Mineral boosting facilities, with a GJ factory it's 5 turns), which even accounting for former turns and time to move into position is a very impressive doubling time without any significant limiting factor (it's the lack of limiting factors which seems to be the issue, bases have all sorts of things slowing their exponential growth).
I like crawlers, but imo they are so cheap that even if they don't imbalance the game much in any particular direction (other than maybe towards people who get them sooner, or builders in general), they feel like they're the core of any competitive strategy. I'd prefer to play with Crawlers as a useful and interesting tool which can be powerful than with them as something absolutely required in huge numbers to win against a human. Reducing the doubling time by just upping the cost seems like the simplest way to do this.
First, until mineral limits are limited, which does not occur until early mid-game, a crawler can obtain at most 2 minerals. So it takes 15 turns for a crawler to multiply, AFTER it has made it to the square.
Second, it might take 5-10 turns (or more) just to move from the city to the square being harvested.
Third, you have to have a suitable rocky square with 8 turns of terraforming to produce a mine. There are not that many rocky square available, so that constrains how often you can do this.
Furthermore, a city can harvest this just was well.
But you have missed the real culprit here: Terraformers. It is terraformers that are grossly overpowered.
1. In actual play, if I have a reasonable city spot that I can defend, I will always preference a city over a former.
2. I typically build at least 4 clean formers for every 1 supply crawler, even though they are the same cost, because formers are overall more valuable and give faster paypack. Crawlers as just built for special purposes, to fill in games, or save cities the burden of having to bother harvesting a single resource square (possibliy producing specialists instead).
3. EVERYTHING I build better have a pretty reasonable payoff, or I won't bother to build it. A Genejack factory in a decent city has a far higher return than the same resources spent on crawlers. Same with most energy multiplying facilities as well.
I don't know what got you on your rant about the cheapness of crawlers, but they are just not any cheaper than competing items, like colony pods, formers and resource multiplying buildings.
I think recycling centers are a much better value than a crawler because:
1. I get 1/1/1, something no crawler can give.
2. I don't have to terraform a square, or even have a square available.
3. It is a lot less vulnerable than a crawler.
And a recycling center is not the most valuable building by any means. The mutliplying buildings can be MUCH more valuable.
I was comparing colony pods to crawlers; you are comparing workers to crawlers. This is an apples to oranges comparison because you don't build workers. The workers build up automatically.
Specialists are not free; they cost you workers, which could harvest multiresource squares.
Clean reactors are at the same tech level as mineral limits. In fact, I usually preference obtaining clean reactors first.
Clean reactors are at the same tech level as mineral limits. In fact, I usually preference obtaining clean reactors first.Ecological Engineering (tier 4): 6 preqs
though perhaps some beelines skip mineral lifting for a very long time.
What I get from these posts is that SMAC2 will have no solo-play. Solo-play is not broken, except for the obvious programming errors (read: bugs) and unimplemented features that don't break the game. Yes, please! Those are the changes I would want way before rewriting the game entirely.
Every argument I see is about things that are seen as either overpowered (in multi-play), underpowered (in multi-play), or just plain wrong (in multi-play). All those changes "solved" to fix multi-play will certainly make for faster and shorter games.
But don't force on us a change of unbroken things. Leave them as they are and keep them editable for all those who like it this way or that way.
Let's see if I can slam-bash through the next one in less time and get a better score (for what?) while I'm at it.
Don't get me wrong; I wrote all this with a smile not a frown, see: :D. I know the majority rules and whoever gets the privilege of writing SMAC2 must then act realistically to satisfy the fans. I won't be one of them, but that's okay; I'm only one person: Not having my $60 won't bankrupt the producer. Rewrite it as you must for the majority, the MPers. I will shut up now and return to Misson Year 2674 (impossible in the unedited alphax.txt), and continue solo-playing my copy of SMAX, a true original, a great game (with a little help ;)).
BTW, Yitzi. I do believe there is a market for a mod if it is possible to correct some of the issues the MPers are having. Even if it is solved via an external e-mail wrapper program.
On the way to the MMI beeline, I usually go for Neural Grafting and Gne Splicing first, before D:AP, unless I feel hard pressed to defend myself right away. And I then go for Bio-Engineering next, even though it is a sidetrack from MMI. Because the support minerals that I save by upgrading all of my formers and other units to clean is a much faster and higher payoff than I could get from lifting the mineral restrictions. This allows me to now be able to produce clean terraforms in mass quantities, without worrying about crippling my production with support costs.
Since I typically starting with 90% roads and forests, these techs don't have such an early payoff unless the map starts with enough terrain features that can be exploited without my terraforming.
Whoa, you must produce a lot of clean formers if that's a bigger boost than being able to use boreholes.I do make a lot of clean formers!
How do you use those forests? Crawl them or work them? Because pre-Environmental Economics, they only produce 1 nutrient.I almost always work them. With a normal base (not on a Nut special or jungle) with recycling center, I can work 3 forests. The rest of the work land has to be 2 or more food. (I often get rid of the Nut limit early with Gene Splicing.) When I really need to boost food, I will occasionally farm; each farm means one more forest worked. Rather than crawl a forest and get 2 M, I will sometimes insteasd crawl a square for 2-3 N, which allows me to fully work 2-3 more forests.
So here are the way (in my opinion) SMAC 2 could happen. - Likelihood
EA produces SMAC without Sid Meier. (i.e. Alpha Centauri 2) - 60%
EA has the register trademark, and could be looking for a good 4x strategy game or some Facebook piece of...... Well you get the idea.
EA buys out Take Two and subsidiaries for its considerable game library - 10 %
This has been tired and failed.
Take Two/Firaxis buy the rights back from EA - 10 %
Not unlikely, Sid Meier does like his sequels.
EA sells the rights to another buyer - 5 %
Unlikely anyone other than Firaxis would be interested in the game
EA pigeonholes the game - 10%
I hope not, but it has been over 10 years since the original game came out. Most companies like to capitalize on an audience that actually remembers playing the game.
Miracles Happen: When Brian Reynolds get fired from Zygna, Sid Meier buys the rights from EA. - 5%
There is another way.please elaborate.
There is another way.please elaborate.
There is another way.please elaborate.
My company is currently creating a turn based historical strategy game (colonisation/imperialism eras) based on an engine designed to cater for any era........ or planet. I intend on using the engine for other time periods...... or planets.
After the engine has paid for itself via this game, there will be a low cost to translate the engine to another era....... or planet. But of course, there still needs to be commercial viability in such a project. Which is what I fear has stopped other developers from addressing the lack of SMAC-style games. It's a very niche product, maybe 250,000 sales max (about the same as Civ 4: Col I'd estimate).
I do make a lot of clean formers!
It is really a chicken and the egg problem. If I don't have a lot of formers, it takes forever to terraform things, especially boreholes. So rather than prioritize mineral limits to take advantage of boreholes, I prioritize clean to be able to build more formers. By the time the I have enough formers and other terraforming done to consider making boreholes, I usually have gotten MMI and am ready for the EE and EE.
Forest are much more of a priority, because I can make 5 forests for the time formers take for 1 borehole. And I get the benefit of self-growth of forests, which can save a lot of terraforming time if you get your forests started early, particularly since spreading forest squashes fungus.
Plus, forests don't trigger ecodamage like a borehole does. I generally try for a very close to zero ecodamage game.
There is another way.please elaborate.
My company is currently creating a turn based historical strategy game (colonisation/imperialism eras) based on an engine designed to cater for any era........ or planet. I intend on using the engine for other time periods...... or planets.
After the engine has paid for itself via this game, there will be a low cost to translate the engine to another era....... or planet. But of course, there still needs to be commercial viability in such a project. Which is what I fear has stopped other developers from addressing the lack of SMAC-style games. It's a very niche product, maybe 250,000 sales max (about the same as Civ 4: Col I'd estimate).
.... and Age of Wonders and Master of Magic are niche games, too. Yet, Stardock sold that amount as well even after having to give away thousands because of the War of Magic debacle. Triumph sold quadruple that amount! What do you expect? Halo 2? lol.
If you do, Hope you guys have a VERY good world building engine capable of handling orbital/inter moon-planet/ and extreme terraforming options and a damn good AI programmer.
Otherwise, you become an indy also ran to other historical sims if you just try to redo Call to Power/ Civ/ Total War.
Be different! You know you want to...
Oh yeah... and we get free betas....
Guys, I hate to rain on your parade, but I honestly would advise against trying to recreate SMAC or a SMAC/X clone/sequel on any platform. I've seen MANY ambitious fan projects come close to fruition, only to have the copyright holder carry out a Cease and Desist order.
On the other hand, if you could get a legal contract with EA Games (or the correct current parties) to develop the game for, say, 10% of the profits, then I'd say go for it.
I definitely would not be out to recreate SMAC in a modern engine. Like you say, dangerous ground. But there is nothing EA, Firaxis or Brian (the three license holders of SMAC) can do if I make a game similar to SMAC, to different enough to not be SMAC. All companies do this, including EA and Firaxis.
I would also be treating this as a commercial project. It must make money. Fan projects usually fall down because they have no money, so use the existing graphics and directly copy the concepts of the game (even the name). So many issues with that.
I definitely would not be out to recreate SMAC in a modern engine. Like you say, dangerous ground. But there is nothing EA, Firaxis or Brian (the three license holders of SMAC) can do if I make a game similar to SMAC, to different enough to not be SMAC. All companies do this, including EA and Firaxis.
I would also be treating this as a commercial project. It must make money. Fan projects usually fall down because they have no money, so use the existing graphics and directly copy the concepts of the game (even the name). So many issues with that.
If it's different enough to avoid legal problems, then it won't really be SMAC 2 (a lot of the appeal of SMAC comes from the story, which would definitely need permission to replicate.) It might still be worthwhile in its own right, though.
Look I'm sorry but you guys need to be realistic here. A remake of SMAC is not going to happen. I discussed this with Firaxis/2K years ago for scient and the license is too split to consider it. EA owns the publication rights, Firaxis the development rights and Brian Reynolds the creative rights. Even if Firaxis made SMAC2 they can't distribute it. Buying all the rights would cost way too much and at the end of the day I don't think even the three parties themselves really know what exact rights they own.
The creation of a TBS game based on the colonisation of another planet with a hostile environment is the easy part. Names must change but the concepts aren't unique. The story is what MUST go. You are dead in the water if you rip the story. But there is nothing to say the story can't be different but still lead to a similar situation.
The story is a large part of why it's so good. TBS about colonization of another planet with a hostile environment is easy, but the idea of the Planetmind is really what makes the whole thing work and be better than all the other TBS'es.Agreed wholeheartedly. Furthermore, as a fan, I'm not interested in a game that's "sort of like" SMAC; instead, I want a fullblown SMAC2 or expanded original SMAC on a modern-day engine. Such a game would instantly get name recognition (both on its own, and due to association with Sid Meier, Brian Reynolds, Firaxis, and the Civilization series) that I would think could more than offset any SMAC purchasing rights/royalty costs.
It is worth noting that if Dale makes a game which is similar to SMAC in concept/implelentation but has none of the copyrighted/protected parts and has plenty of modification options (unit, facility, terraforming, faction, technology, etc data stored in text files somewhat human readably) and has all the hostile planet features in place, it would be very simple for a group of SMAC fans who have absolutely no connection to Dale and nothing to gain financially to offer a modpack which turns Dale's game into a true SMAC2 (switch <other hostile planet> to Planetmind, add SMAC factions as custom/extra factions, include the map of planet and other landmarks we know, edit a few minor flavor things (since hopefully the tech tree/facilities/units/etc will be well done anyway. A carbon copy style modpack would also be possible, but there are many minor improvements to be made, and we've got plenty of new possible future science ideas in the last decade and a half.) and whatever else they'd like to change), and that group of SMAC fans may well be able to claim fair use. Plus Dale and his company would have absolutely nothing to do with it, so could not be accused of foul play.
Question :
I really loved Alpha Centauri! Are you planning to make Alpha Centauri 2?
Answer:
We’re all big fans of Alpha Centauri as well. However, the rights to that game are owned by Electronic Arts (we were making games for them at the time) so any decision to make a sequel is up to them.
It'll be interesting to hear what, if anything, Dale hears from EA. What is the basis for believing that Firaxis and Brian Reynold own any rights to SMACX? According to the Firaxis FAQ (http://www.firaxis.com/company/faq.php#3)QuoteQuestion :
I really loved Alpha Centauri! Are you planning to make Alpha Centauri 2?
Answer:
We’re all big fans of Alpha Centauri as well. However, the rights to that game are owned by Electronic Arts (we were making games for them at the time) so any decision to make a sequel is up to them.
On the other hand, Brian Reynolds may be looking for a new project (http://www.joystiq.com/2013/01/29/brian-reynolds-departs-zynga/).
I definitely would not be out to recreate SMAC in a modern engine. Like you say, dangerous ground. But there is nothing EA, Firaxis or Brian (the three license holders of SMAC) can do if I make a game similar to SMAC, to different enough to not be SMAC. All companies do this, including EA and Firaxis.
I would also be treating this as a commercial project. It must make money. Fan projects usually fall down because they have no money, so use the existing graphics and directly copy the concepts of the game (even the name). So many issues with that.
If it's different enough to avoid legal problems, then it won't really be SMAC 2 (a lot of the appeal of SMAC comes from the story, which would definitely need permission to replicate.) It might still be worthwhile in its own right, though.
Look I'm sorry but you guys need to be realistic here. A remake of SMAC is not going to happen. I discussed this with Firaxis/2K years ago for scient and the license is too split to consider it. EA owns the publication rights, Firaxis the development rights and Brian Reynolds the creative rights. Even if Firaxis made SMAC2 they can't distribute it. Buying all the rights would cost way too much and at the end of the day I don't think even the three parties themselves really know what exact rights they own.
Your only hope is something almost but not quite SMAC.
The creation of a TBS game based on the colonisation of another planet with a hostile environment is the easy part. Names must change but the concepts aren't unique. The story is what MUST go. You are dead in the water if you rip the story. But there is nothing to say the story can't be different but still lead to a similar situation.
Dale, I am right with you here. I want the CONCEPTS of SMAC preserved, but I don't care that much about the science fiction format. As I said earlier, I don't care if you make it stone age or medieval or whatever you think will sell, as long as we finally get some new 4x game that has certain key feature (apologizing for the redundancy here with my earlier post).
SMAC introduced many concepts that the later Civ and other 4x games still have not matched:
1. A versatile terraformer, with the 20 or terraforming options in SMAC, including raising land from the sea (or lowering it into the sea), some altitude based enhancement, multiple classes of terrain enhancement on the same space, etc.
2. The equivalent of a supply crawler.
3. Lots of good multiplying structures that can be built in the cities with maintenance costs. This solves the ICS problem.
4. A technology that allows units to be built without long term support costs, at the cost of higher initial construction costs. (equivalent of clean reactors)
5. A way to build global enhancements that benefit all bases a small amount up to their population (like sats).
6. A variety of tech based roles for citizens other than just working a particular square (like specialists).
I am sure that there are a few key features I have missed, but this is what I believe is lacking the the 4x games that followed SMAC.
Note that I did not say that the spiritual successor has to be Science Fiction. As far as I am concerned, if it has the features I listed, the game can be fantasy, or stone age, or whatever, and I would consider it a worthy successor to SMAC.
Those are all gameplay/mechanical aspects; IMO, the gameplay and mechanics are only part of what makes SMAC so great.
This whole discussion makes me wonder what GOG.com did to secure rights to retrofit and distribute SMAC/SMAX - particularly, which group(s) it talked to.
Heck, they might even be willing to partially fund this venture. After all, they do sell recent games too. And I've found them surprisingly amicable towards any ideas I send them.
But they are gameplay mechanics that create a very rich strategy for the game.
If someone does not produce a game to reintroduce these mechanics, and hopefully generate follow-on games that reuse these mechanics, these mechanics, and the rich strategies they permit, will be lost forever.
And then the best 4x game that any new player will be aware of is some dumbed down game like Civ 5.
This whole discussion makes me wonder what GOG.com did to secure rights to retrofit and distribute SMAC/SMAX - particularly, which group(s) it talked to.
Heck, they might even be willing to partially fund this venture. After all, they do sell recent games too. And I've found them surprisingly amicable towards any ideas I send them.
and loath the direction strategy games have taken since 2000.
and loath the direction strategy games have taken since 2000.
Ok, now I'm curious, what direction is that?
Well as far as I'm concerned, the two worst offenses strategy games have made since 2000 are simplification ("they" call it streamlining) and hybridisation (combining two genres into one).
Well as far as I'm concerned, the two worst offenses strategy games have made since 2000 are simplification ("they" call it streamlining) and hybridisation (combining two genres into one).
What are some examples of each?
I called this "dumbing down" the 4x games. I was shocked to see the Civ III had only maybe 1/3 of the complexity (at best) of SMAC/X, the immediate predecessor! And it has not gotten better, but mostly dumber and dumber with each new product/release. None of them have even a fraction of the strategic complexity of SMAC.and loath the direction strategy games have taken since 2000.
Ok, now I'm curious, what direction is that?
Well as far as I'm concerned, the two worst offenses strategy games have made since 2000 are simplification ("they" call it streamlining) and hybridisation (combining two genres into one).
I called this "dumbing down" the 4x games. I was shocked to see the Civ III had only maybe 1/3 of the complexity (at best) of SMAC/X, the immediate predecessor! And it has not gotten better, but mostly dumber and dumber with each new product/release. None of them have even a fraction of the strategic complexity of SMAC.and loath the direction strategy games have taken since 2000.
Ok, now I'm curious, what direction is that?
Well as far as I'm concerned, the two worst offenses strategy games have made since 2000 are simplification ("they" call it streamlining) and hybridisation (combining two genres into one).
So I was hoping a new game would emerge that was not dumbed down. Maybe it has a normal (dumb) mode for mass appeal, and then an expert mode where the strategy of the game comes alive!
That sounds very ambitious, and a SMAClike game based on an engine capable of doing that with community input (ideally plenty of values tweakable by non-programmers to help you make it balanced) and reasonable multiplayer support (synchronous turns would be _amazing_) would be truly spectacular.
Simplification:
- Civ series (need I mention CivRev and CivWorld?)
- Civ4Col
- Age of Empires (now a monetised crappy game on FaceBook)
- WotA
- EWOM (partly rectified by the sequel, but still a hybridisation)
- Patrician series
- Anno series
- BlueByte games
- Many many many others.
Hybridisation:
This is so obvious I'm not listing examples. Any game that advertises "combining strategy with RPG" or any of the other combinations.
I called this "dumbing down" the 4x games. I was shocked to see the Civ III had only maybe 1/3 of the complexity (at best) of SMAC/X, the immediate predecessor! And it has not gotten better, but mostly dumber and dumber with each new product/release. None of them have even a fraction of the strategic complexity of SMAC.
Firstly, I will say, I'm a hardcore modder. Please don't ask if any game I make will be moddable again. :)Glad to hear it, did not get something clear before :p.
Simplification:
- Civ series (need I mention CivRev and CivWorld?)
- Civ4Col
- Age of Empires (now a monetised crappy game on FaceBook)
- WotA
- EWOM (partly rectified by the sequel, but still a hybridisation)
- Patrician series
- Anno series
- BlueByte games
- Many many many others.
I'm looking more for a sense of what features were simplified.
QuoteHybridisation:
This is so obvious I'm not listing examples. Any game that advertises "combining strategy with RPG" or any of the other combinations.
Ok, that I get, but why is it bad? It shouldn't replace "pure" game types, but such games can be good in their own right.
I called this "dumbing down" the 4x games. I was shocked to see the Civ III had only maybe 1/3 of the complexity (at best) of SMAC/X, the immediate predecessor! And it has not gotten better, but mostly dumber and dumber with each new product/release. None of them have even a fraction of the strategic complexity of SMAC.
I think that Civ4 actually has more strategic complexity when it comes to improving squares; in SMAC, you generally want forests (if you're expanding fast and your formers don't have time for more) or boreholes (when you have more formers) or crawling nutrients (later in the game); Civ4 has a lot more options. Certainly Civ4 seems better than Civ3.
Firstly, I will say, I'm a hardcore modder. Please don't ask if any game I make will be moddable again. :)Glad to hear it, did not get something clear before :p.
And I took a look around your site out of interest earlier, which did incidentally include reading through all of that blog post. Multi device is very cool indeed. But, my main curiosity was whether you have any intention to make synchronous turns possible in the engine, since that cuts down time taken for a game immensely (especially for games with a moderate number of players).
I doubt synchronous turns for MP will make it into A New World, just simply because it is actually very difficult to do right. Also, you have to consider that synchronous turns (if you apply how Civ/SMAC processes a player's turn) creates a situation like RTS's where the fastest clicks win. Or even worse, the double-attack! These were problems highlighted in Civ4, and without proper methods in place to address these issues, it's pointless putting it in.Understandable, I see how it's a particularly complex feature both in design and implementation. One possible way of removing many issues (including the fastest click wins thing) would be having a mode to process turns differently (each player gives units movement/movement with auto-engage orders for a turn, and once all orders are locked moves are made. ideally apply this for only units capable of interacting with another player's units, so internally it would feel the same), though that does bring up separate issues like how to deal with various niche abilities and changes engagement significantly. Probably worth it for players because speed of play change is massive, but still complex to implement so fair enough if you're not building with that in mind.
However in saying that, A New World is being made such that you can be single player "online" or "offline". If "online" then you are connected to the MP servers, and if you have a game and your turn comes up you get notified and can switch across to it. Once you finish your turn, switch back to your single player game, or any of the other MP games you may have going. Think of it like multiple windows, where you alt-tab to the relevant window and can alt-tab to others.Having good ways of handling many games at once like that would help a lot with the slowness of MP games.
Does that answer your questions? :)
* apologies for spelling etc. Posting this from my phone.
I doubt synchronous turns for MP will make it into A New World, just simply because it is actually very difficult to do right. Also, you have to consider that synchronous turns (if you apply how Civ/SMAC processes a player's turn) creates a situation like RTS's where the fastest clicks win. Or even worse, the double-attack! These were problems highlighted in Civ4, and without proper methods in place to address these issues, it's pointless putting it in.Understandable, I see how it's a particularly complex feature both in design and implementation. One possible way of removing many issues (including the fastest click wins thing) would be having a mode to process turns differently (each player gives units movement/movement with auto-engage orders for a turn, and once all orders are locked moves are made. ideally apply this for only units capable of interacting with another player's units, so internally it would feel the same), though that does bring up separate issues like how to deal with various niche abilities and changes engagement significantly. Probably worth it for players because speed of play change is massive, but still complex to implement so fair enough if you're not building with that in mind.
- Lack of strategic planning (the "Panzer General" concepts make it a tactical game).
- Map, a lot smaller and "simpler" than they used to be.
- Diplomacy (enough said).
- Difficulty levels (enough said).
- Economics and trade.
- etc etc
It's bad because they HAVE replaced the pure game type.
Yes, Civ4 has "some" parts of it that have strategic depth. But there are also chunks of Civ4 that LACK strategic depth. For instance, religions.
The near complete removal of anything the player may deem "negative" is a massive simplification too. No negative events. No negative diplomatic responses. And this removal creates brand new problems of its own.
Quote
Does that answer your questions? :)
* apologies for spelling etc. Posting this from my phone.
Yes, it does. Do not worry about the spelling. I think smartphones are user hostile when it comes to posting.
I have one more question.
One of the weaknesses in Civ - and SMAX - I believe is the handling of aerospace and orbital "units"/ "improvements". I read WAY too much spacewar.com (http://spacewar.com), nasaspaceflight.com (http://nasaspaceflight.com), and watch a lot of near future war stuff than is probably healthy for me. I still do not think any 4 x game out there handles it quite right. I mean.. come on.... sattelites just "reveal" world map? what about special sattelites that reveal hard to find resources? What about spy sattelites that destroy fog of war on certain regions? Treaties where you can build space labs to give research bonuses? The sky, to forgive the pun, is the limit!
Think a true 3D sytem like what you are working on could handle orbital units? What about earth - moon conflicts ala The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Not saying all genres would need this capability, but near future and far future mods really hurt from not having a good engine for this. Not to mention the laughable "land on moon" then "land on Alpha Centauri" with no mention of all the cool gameplay you could have in between.
Something with that flexibility would be something I do not think any 4x has ever achieved before. Add that with the true 3D and alterable map, this would be grounbreaking stuff.
- Lack of strategic planning (the "Panzer General" concepts make it a tactical game).
- Map, a lot smaller and "simpler" than they used to be.
- Diplomacy (enough said).
- Difficulty levels (enough said).
- Economics and trade.
- etc etc
I don't really know much about civ5, but certainly civ4 doesn't seem any worse in those areas that any of the other "main line" (i.e. not SMAC/SMAX) civ games.
QuoteIt's bad because they HAVE replaced the pure game type.
I haven't really noticed that, although admittedly I don't think I've bought a new game since Starcraft 2.
[quote[Also, just simply by the nature of combining genres (and why publishers think the more genres blended the better, I have no idea) it waters down the original genres. So instead of a deep strategy game, or a deep rpg game, you get an average hybrid of the two.
QuoteYes, Civ4 has "some" parts of it that have strategic depth. But there are also chunks of Civ4 that LACK strategic depth. For instance, religions.
They have more strategic depth in Civ4 than in any previous game.
Don't think "Civ4 is deeper than previous Civs". That's not what I'm saying. Compare it to other games of the past. Trade in Civ4 is nothing on Imperialism. Specialisation in Civ4 is nothing on Colonisation. Diplomacy in Civ4 is nothing on Ascendancy.
Games in the 90's just were strategically deeper.
Don't think "Civ4 is deeper than previous Civs". That's not what I'm saying. Compare it to other games of the past. Trade in Civ4 is nothing on Imperialism. Specialisation in Civ4 is nothing on Colonisation. Diplomacy in Civ4 is nothing on Ascendancy.
Games in the 90's just were strategically deeper.
Can you name a single game that was deeper than Civ4 in all three areas? Because otherwise you're just comparing a generalist game to games that specialize in the area under discussion, which really doesn't prove much.
All three of them.
Ok, not so much Colonisation in diplomacy, but it was deeper than Civ4 in other areas.
Can I ask something, do you believe Civ4 is the height of grand strategy games? As in, do you believe Civ4 to be a fuller, deeper, better strategy game than all others?
All three of them.
Ok, not so much Colonisation in diplomacy, but it was deeper than Civ4 in other areas.
Can I ask something, do you believe Civ4 is the height of grand strategy games? As in, do you believe Civ4 to be a fuller, deeper, better strategy game than all others?
No; overall, SMAC/X is better (or would be, if a few poor design decisions were fixed.) I'm sure there are others too. But I do believe it to be a better strategy game than Civ1, 2, and 3, and similarly I feel that the trend tends to be upward (not always, of course, but as a trend.) Now, it might be that that's reversed in the past decade; as I said I haven't bought many games recently. But even so, I suspect that it's more a question of comparing all recent games to the old games which are still played (i.e. the very best ones), which of course is going to skew toward the old ones.
Green1 its good to be suspicious. As for me and my philosophy on strategy games I will point to my past. I'm of the table top wargame generation. World in Flames is a good example of how deep I like my strategy games.
When it comes to computer games, I matured on Civ1/2, Colonization, Imperialism I/II, Panzer General and of course SMAC. I love 90's strategy games and loath the direction strategy games have taken since 2000. IMO the only company still making decent strategy games is Paradox Interactive. This is what got me into modding, adding strategic depth back to modern strategy games. Whether it was the SAP for CtP2, Age of Discovery and Desert War for Civ4, Road to War and Dales Combat Mod for BtS, or Age of Discovery II for Civ4Col the goal was always the same: return 90's style strategy to crappy strategy game. And please do not mention Civ5 and strategy in the same breath. Civ5 is a semi-casual game directed to the masses. I helped Firaxis with development of Civ4/5, CivCity Rome and Civ4Col. I got kicked out by 2K because of my opinion of the state of Civ5 and CivWorld. One day I could log in to the secret Firaxis dev forum, the next I couldn't. No explanation till I pushed Firaxis and was told.
I've long planned to make my own games and then seemed the perfect time. So I did. The game I currently have in production is a turn based historical strategy game based on the period 1500 - 1950. The ages of discovery and imperialism. The game gets its heart from Imperialism II, but also the best features of Colonisation, Europa Universalis II and other great strategy games. Civ actually features little since I have always believed its long timeline washes out the best strategic elements from more defined timeline games. I've also included a number of my own ideas to provide what I believe is "the best of 90's strategy". And we all know that was the heyday of TRUE strategy games.
My ultimate goal is to provide a range of strategic time periods in a common planetary environment: Age of Discovery, Medieval, Roman, Atomic, Future, Fantasy. Whatever.
In terms of the world and its construction, the engine that will run my games simulates a TRUE 3D global planet. Using modern techniques such as procedural chunked LOD quadtrees a resolution of 1 metre at Earth's scale is achievable. This provides enormous flexibility in how the planet is constructed, and since its procedural terrain alterations are visible immediately. No tiles, no flat maps. True planetary strategy in a world that operates like our own.
Does that answer your questions? :)
* apologies for spelling etc. Posting this from my phone.
[I think that Civ4 actually has more strategic complexity when it comes to improving squares; in SMAC, you generally want forests (if you're expanding fast and your formers don't have time for more) or boreholes (when you have more formers) or crawling nutrients (later in the game); Civ4 has a lot more options. Certainly Civ4 seems better than Civ3.Are you joking?!? SMAC Formers have over 20 very useful options in various situations, way more than Civ 4. How can you say Civ 4 has more options with a straight face???
[I think that Civ4 actually has more strategic complexity when it comes to improving squares; in SMAC, you generally want forests (if you're expanding fast and your formers don't have time for more) or boreholes (when you have more formers) or crawling nutrients (later in the game); Civ4 has a lot more options. Certainly Civ4 seems better than Civ3.Are you joking?!? SMAC Formers have over 20 very useful options in various situations, way more than Civ 4. How can you say Civ 4 has more options with a straight face???
In addition for forests, mines, and boreholes, I raise land a lot in SMAC. I build sensors. I build bunkers when needed. I build roads and magtubes. I build echelon mirrors. I build airbases when needed (see Nomads). I remove fungus and occasionally plant fungus. I occasionally terraform level (reduce rockiness). Then there is soil enriching, condensors, drill to aquifer, etc. Not to mention all of the different sea improvements!
Are you joking?!? SMAC Formers have over 20 very useful options in various situations, way more than Civ 4. How can you say Civ 4 has more options with a straight face???
In addition for forests, mines, and boreholes, I raise land a lot in SMAC.
I build sensors. I build bunkers when needed.
I build roads and magtubes.
I build echelon mirrors. I build airbases when needed (see Nomads). I remove fungus and occasionally plant fungus. I occasionally terraform level (reduce rockiness). Then there is soil enriching, condensors, drill to aquifer, etc. Not to mention all of the different sea improvements!
[I think that Civ4 actually has more strategic complexity when it comes to improving squares; in SMAC, you generally want forests (if you're expanding fast and your formers don't have time for more) or boreholes (when you have more formers) or crawling nutrients (later in the game); Civ4 has a lot more options. Certainly Civ4 seems better than Civ3.Are you joking?!? SMAC Formers have over 20 very useful options in various situations, way more than Civ 4. How can you say Civ 4 has more options with a straight face???
In addition for forests, mines, and boreholes, I raise land a lot in SMAC. I build sensors. I build bunkers when needed. I build roads and magtubes. I build echelon mirrors. I build airbases when needed (see Nomads). I remove fungus and occasionally plant fungus. I occasionally terraform level (reduce rockiness). Then there is soil enriching, condensors, drill to aquifer, etc. Not to mention all of the different sea improvements![I think that Civ4 actually has more strategic complexity when it comes to improving squares; in SMAC, you generally want forests (if you're expanding fast and your formers don't have time for more) or boreholes (when you have more formers) or crawling nutrients (later in the game); Civ4 has a lot more options. Certainly Civ4 seems better than Civ3.Are you joking?!? SMAC Formers have over 20 very useful options in various situations, way more than Civ 4. How can you say Civ 4 has more options with a straight face???
In addition for forests, mines, and boreholes, I raise land a lot in SMAC. I build sensors. I build bunkers when needed. I build roads and magtubes. I build echelon mirrors. I build airbases when needed (see Nomads). I remove fungus and occasionally plant fungus. I occasionally terraform level (reduce rockiness). Then there is soil enriching, condensors, drill to aquifer, etc. Not to mention all of the different sea improvements!Quote from: DaleIn Civ4, if you can you build a mine. If you can't you build a farm.
Great strategic depth there. ;)
And what about cottages, workshops, and various sorts of mills?
And what about cottages, workshops, and various sorts of mills?
And what about cottages, workshops, and various sorts of mills?
You don't bother building them. No seriously, you build mines, and if you can't you build a farm.
Anything else is inefficient use of the land.
BTW....
off topic
BUT --- sigh...
The good Energy Credits are on Triumph Studios ressurecting the classic that was also from the SMAX era Age of Wonders....
according to the facebook page, it should be next week.
Why,Why, WHY can't it be SMAX for EA/Firaxis???...
I am going to cry in a corner for a minute.
Pardon me while I enter a geek depression :(
And what about cottages, workshops, and various sorts of mills?
You don't bother building them. No seriously, you build mines, and if you can't you build a farm.
Anything else is inefficient use of the land.
Dale.. the cottages in Civ 4 grow when you work them. It was a huge strategy to put these on floodplains and watch the cash rake in. Perhaps also combining these with income boosting buildings.
But we digress WAY OT.
While Civ 4 DID add a bit of complexity, it still pales in comparison to SMAX's advantages. Not to say a more modern SMAX could not benefit from some Civ 4 systems. I personally like the Civ 4 "mission" system of handling aircraft. It just feels right. SMAX would be a better game for it. I also like the way Civ 4 handles copters. Copters in SMAX are just retarded with the damage on movement and insane amounts of attacks. Civ 4 has copters right. Civ 4 has a damn good resource system. But, my complaint is they did not go far enough with it. Dammit, I wanted to have to have cows or deer for leather. Or.. have to have different composits and facilities for modern aerospace units. Combine that with a modern unit builder like Fallen Enchantress has, folks would have geek orgasms. BUT - they dumbed it down.
Now.. Civ 5 was really dumbed down. BUT - Civ 5 also has things we can steal. The disembark feature upon tech really is cool. I like micro, but I feel loading/unloading masses of transports is really boring gameplay. Entering "research agreements" solves the whole "no tech brokering" arguement and is just a lot cooler than trade x tech for x.
Keep all the cool things about SMAX. But do not ignore the lessons of what came after, Nor copy the failures of what came after.
If there is some way to rejoin all the rights together, and the cost is not prohibitive, then it also eliminates the 2K-EA stalemate. As I understand it, a lot of the rights standoff right now is due to the two publishers not wishing to give the other ground.
I'm still dubious as to whether there would be enough sales to cover the license purchase costs, production costs, distribution costs, etc etc, and still leave me with enough to fund the next game after any SMAC2.
Probably the best situation you could wish for, is a game that plays like SMAC, but has totally different names for everything. Same game play, just different labels on everything.
EDIT: Anyways, just to actually "do" something, to see what is feasible, I've emailed EA legal department.
Or option 5 they tell you its in development.If there is some way to rejoin all the rights together, and the cost is not prohibitive, then it also eliminates the 2K-EA stalemate. As I understand it, a lot of the rights standoff right now is due to the two publishers not wishing to give the other ground.
I'm still dubious as to whether there would be enough sales to cover the license purchase costs, production costs, distribution costs, etc etc, and still leave me with enough to fund the next game after any SMAC2.
Probably the best situation you could wish for, is a game that plays like SMAC, but has totally different names for everything. Same game play, just different labels on everything.
EDIT: Anyways, just to actually "do" something, to see what is feasible, I've emailed EA legal department.
I received a reply from EA. They want to talk! Note: 4 years ago they even refused to discuss the SMAC/X license.
The person I will be talking to is the Director of Business Development. These people usually discuss anything that could result in new or expanded business for EA. Let me just tell you, this is a VERY positive step. Basically what this means is that my request will not be going round and round a legal department. I'll be talking with someone who actually "does" stuff for a living.
So anyways, I see a number of options:
1. "No". End of story.
2. "Buy the license". End of story, too expensive.
3. "Develop sequel with EA on the label". I assume this would be the desired result.
4. "You have permission to develop something like, but not quite SMAC (restriction list)". I would class this as a 'minor win'.
Option 3/4 can also be split into sub-options:
a. With EA funding/support/publishing
b. With no EA funding/support/publishing
I'll fight for option 3a, as that would be the best option I believe.
Or option 5 they tell you its in development.
This sounds very promising. Good luck to you, and if you do get it I want in on helping make it awesome.
Also, if you get
2. "Buy the license". End of story, too expensive.
is it certain they would want a very large pile of money for it, or is it possible they would be willing to part with the rights to an ancient game for a more modest amount? Or is it the legal fees around transfer of rights which would just automatically make it too much?
You can't make an AAA game right?
You can't make an AAA game right?
Why not? AAA just means "we spent more money and must make more money".
In my view, most of the strategy games have regressed, some badly.
1. SMACX was the pinnacle of Civ style games. Civ 3 was a huge step backwards. Civ 4 was a minor step forward in some concepts, but still way below SMACX. And after you fully analyze Civ 4, you will realize the game has no strategic depth. Civ 5 was another huge step backward.
2. Master of Orion 2 peaked that franchise. MOO3 was a disaster, and unfortunately was likely to have killed the whole franchise. (Although I do hope than someone could base a new game on MOO2.)
3. Heroes of Might and Magic 3 was fantastic! Sure, it had flaws. Might skills were grossly underpowered, for example. But it was amazing for its time. Then HOMM4 was a disaster than I was afraid had killed the franchise. But then HOMM5 came out, was the true pinnacle of this franchise, a really amazing game, with a much better balance between might and magic, and much more strategic richness. Then HOMM6 took a huge step backwards, in my opinion. They added some cool stuff, like weapons that gain experience and power; but they made all of the very rich and varied skill trees in HOMM5 into a single uniform and boring skill tree that all heroes of all factions share.
4. I could give me opinion on the other strategic franchises, but in my view the all follow the same pattern: weaker and dumber sequels.
With the single exception of HOMM5, I can't think of any strategy game that took a true step forward from an older version. They all seem dumber and less strategic.
If you produce a game that advances strategic concepts for the thinking gamers, I think you will have a very loyal (but perhaps not extremely large) fan base of intelligent gamers. If you can make the same game have a dumbed down mode for mainstream, perhaps you can pick up the fickle mainstream gamers as well as the loyal fan base of highly strategic gamers.
Why not? AAA just means "we spent more money and must make more money".
Why not? AAA just means "we spent more money and must make more money".
Because you don't have the money.
If there is some way to rejoin all the rights together, and the cost is not prohibitive, then it also eliminates the 2K-EA stalemate. As I understand it, a lot of the rights standoff right now is due to the two publishers not wishing to give the other ground.
I'm still dubious as to whether there would be enough sales to cover the license purchase costs, production costs, distribution costs, etc etc, and still leave me with enough to fund the next game after any SMAC2.
Probably the best situation you could wish for, is a game that plays like SMAC, but has totally different names for everything. Same game play, just different labels on everything.
EDIT: Anyways, just to actually "do" something, to see what is feasible, I've emailed EA legal department.
I received a reply from EA. They want to talk! Note: 4 years ago they even refused to discuss the SMAC/X license.
The person I will be talking to is the Director of Business Development. These people usually discuss anything that could result in new or expanded business for EA. Let me just tell you, this is a VERY positive step. Basically what this means is that my request will not be going round and round a legal department. I'll be talking with someone who actually "does" stuff for a living.
So anyways, I see a number of options:
1. "No". End of story.
2. "Buy the license". End of story, too expensive.
3. "Develop sequel with EA on the label". I assume this would be the desired result.
4. "You have permission to develop something like, but not quite SMAC (restriction list)". I would class this as a 'minor win'.
Option 3/4 can also be split into sub-options:
a. With EA funding/support/publishing
b. With no EA funding/support/publishing
I'll fight for option 3a, as that would be the best option I believe.
That's good news I'd say.More or less bad news. This means that the game is not currently in development and EA doesn't really have any plans to develop it without someone like Dale expressing interest.
That's good news I'd say.More or less bad news. This means that the game is not currently in development and EA doesn't really have any plans to develop it without someone like Dale expressing interest.
That's good news I'd say.More or less bad news. This means that the game is not currently in development and EA doesn't really have any plans to develop it without someone like Dale expressing interest.
They called SMAC a small license? The cheek! :mad:Pretty much anything that isn't Assassins' Creed or Sports nowadays is "a small license" for EA.
;)
They called SMAC a small license? The cheek! :mad:Pretty much anything that isn't Assassins' Creed or Sports nowadays is "a small license" for EA.
;)
One could base a sequel on a sentient planet like "Avatar", and not bother licensing SMAC. If you actually wanted to use Avatar as a planet name, you would probably have to license it. But Asimov and others had the idea of a sentient planet long before, so if you don't want to pay licenses, just call the planet Gaia. No one can force you to license that.
Of course, there may be other benefits to licensing SMAC, like distribution, support, and name recognition. Once just has to decide whether it is worth it, depending upon how much they charge to license it.
The distribution and support can be worth a lot. I once licensed Car Wars from Steve Jackson Games to do a software package. But once I completed the package, even though it was very professional, they decided they did not want to distribute software with their line, and I could not line up another distributor. I sold about 1,000 copies by direct sales, mostly through contacts at conventions like Gencon and Origins, which is not bad for a pre-internet direct software, but it was nothing like what I had in mind. I am fairly sure if Steve Jackson Games had distributed it, the sales figures would have been more like 100,000 than 1,000. So if the agreement includes distribution, it would be much more valuable.
I want the official sequel, and the official story.
I want the official sequel, and the official story.
Have you thought about how you'd write a sequel to something that ends with what has been described as godhood?
By sequel I mean SMAC2, not a timeline change. You know, like Civ4 is a sequel of Civ3.
I thought I'd made that very clear earlier.
This discussion is making me seriously consider dusting off my computer programming skills and applying for a job at Dale's company :)
Learn C# and Unity and you'll be able to get in most places. :)True! I already have VBA/.NET, SQL and C++ under my belt, so C# isn't outside the realm of possibility. I haven't heard of Unity before though - is it anything like Python?
Learn C# and Unity and you'll be able to get in most places. :)
True! I already have VBA/.NET, SQL and C++ under my belt, so C# isn't outside the realm of possibility. I haven't heard of Unity before though - is it anything like Python?
Okay so I've spoken to EA. It's not a "no", but they want to see how my current "in dev" game goes first. If it goes well, we can discuss using the engine I'm developing (which will run the current "in dev" game) to make a sequel. They want to be kept in the loop of how things are going with the development cycle, so that discussions can be taken up again in a year's time.
...........
Okay so I've spoken to EA. It's not a "no", but they want to see how my current "in dev" game goes first. If it goes well, we can discuss using the engine I'm developing (which will run the current "in dev" game) to make a sequel. They want to be kept in the loop of how things are going with the development cycle, so that discussions can be taken up again in a year's time.
- Unit Workshop: In or out? And if in will the AI know how to use it?
- SMAC or SMAX?
On a related note, Only 7 Factions in a game, or more in a game (more I think would have huge implications on game balancing)?
- Modding: easy as SMAC, or easy as Civ5?
- Raise/ lower terrain?
- Your favorite subject: Global Warming - in or out?
- The original SMACX Worldbuilder was capable of generating planets from tiny fungal encrusted rocks up to huge waterworlds: will the AI be able to understand the differences between these disparate worlds, and optimize its playing style accordingly?
- Ice (impassable terrain for surface ships): in or out?
- Mountains (impassable terrain for land units): in or out?
- Landmarks: in or out?
- Crawlers: in or out? If in, will the AI know how to use them?
- Satelites: in or out? If in, Satelite warfare?
Okay so I've spoken to EA. It's not a "no", but they want to see how my current "in dev" game goes first. If it goes well, we can discuss using the engine I'm developing (which will run the current "in dev" game) to make a sequel. They want to be kept in the loop of how things are going with the development cycle, so that discussions can be taken up again in a year's time.
...........
Okay so I've spoken to EA. It's not a "no", but they want to see how my current "in dev" game goes first. If it goes well, we can discuss using the engine I'm developing (which will run the current "in dev" game) to make a sequel. They want to be kept in the loop of how things are going with the development cycle, so that discussions can be taken up again in a year's time.
This sounds pretty friggin' awesome Dale! :danc:
Just some quick thoughts I've jotted down so I can understand where you plan on taking SMAC2:
- Unit Workshop: In or out? And if in will the AI know how to use it?
- SMAC or SMAX? On a related note, Only 7 Factions in a game, or more in a game (more I think would have huge implications on game balancing)?
- If SMAC only, then plans for xpacs - will they include Progs?
- Modding: easy as SMAC, or easy as Civ5?
- Raise/ lower terrain?
- Your favorite subject: Global Warming - in or out?
- The original SMACX Worldbuilder was capable of generating planets from tiny fungal encrusted rocks up to huge waterworlds: will the AI be able to understand the differences between these disparate worlds, and optimize its playing style accordingly?
- Ice (impassable terrain for surface ships): in or out?
- Mountains (impassable terrain for land units): in or out?
- Landmarks: in or out?
- Drop troops: will the AI understand how to use these units?
- Crawlers: in or out? If in, will the AI know how to use them?
- Satelites: in or out? If in, Satelite warfare?
- Business model: Steam/ DLC approach?
- 1UPT?
- Roughly speaking, when do you plan on releasing ANW?
- IIUC you are planning to use the engine your developing for ANW for SMAC: do you plan on enhancing/ optimizing the engine specifically for SMAC?
- Once you release ANW, what are your plans for ANW? Are you going to completely abandon it for SMAC?
Also, can you give any hints/ basic outline what your plans are for SMAC2?
D
Besides, with EA not prepared till mid next year, it would be at least 2015 before SMAC dev would occur. This is plenty of time to pump out the next game in the ANW series (which at this point would be from the end of the current ANW, 1950, till a space colonisation spaceship launch). So effectively, SMAC2 would naturally follow on from that point. :)
I do wonder about the viability of a non-AAA game. Let's assume the potential crowd for another SMAC game falls into two categories: those who want a clone, and those who are open to changed gameplay.
Why would the cloners buy your game if it has pretty much the same gameplay, but not even better graphics? Why wouldn't they just continue playing the original?
Why would people who are open to new gameplay play your game when there already is Planetfall for free, once again I assume with better graphics than your game will probably have?
I do wonder about the viability of a non-AAA game. Let's assume the potential crowd for another SMAC game falls into two categories: those who want a clone, and those who are open to changed gameplay.
Why would the cloners buy your game if it has pretty much the same gameplay, but not even better graphics? Why wouldn't they just continue playing the original?
Why would people who are open to new gameplay play your game when there already is Planetfall for free, once again I assume with better graphics than your game will probably have?
Maniac, so why does Indie mean "crap graphics" to you? Are you saying a mod made for free, on a game based on DirectX 9, will have better graphics than a modern game developed by a professional game development studio?
Besides, Planetfall is not as free as you imply. You must own Civ4. Last time I checked it wasn't free.
In terms of the gameplay itself, I don't want to make a direct clone of SMAC (ie: SMAC on a modern engine). I want to take the central SMAC story, and make my own game off of it. From the impression I get from talking with SMAC fans (not just from here, but other sites), what makes SMAC so great is the story itself, and Planet. Gameplay wise, it's just another 4X TBS game. That doesn't mean a complete change from the existing game, in all probability it will most likely end up with 80% the same gameplay and 20% my spin on the genre.
The story is great. But after the 800th game and 13 years later, the story isn't what most of the fans care about. It was the well designed and through planning of the developers who created a 4x TBS with myriad of options and gameplay style. I think the story is important, but there are plenty of games that have better stories and plots.
I will love to read your take on the story and play your twists on the gameplay features.
I think you lose the indie developer title if you get the EA seal on your games. ;)
The story is great. But after the 800th game and 13 years later, the story isn't what most of the fans care about.
but there are plenty of games that have better stories and plots.
Actually last night I met up with a writer friend of mine to discuss SMAC2 (or whatever it will end up being called). We hashed through a couple of ideas and one that we both felt would be great, and also keep intact the reverence of the original game is thus:
In 1999, Civilization launched an expedition to colonise Alpha Centauri. Contact with the spaceship was lost shortly before their anticipated arrival at the system, and since then the question of "What Happened?" has gone unanswered. A followup mission was meant to leave Earth in 2005, but due to the uncertainty of what happened to the original mission, it was delayed. Well now, in 2013 the Second Fleet has been given clearnance and the launch codes. What will they find? Did the first mission survive?
Whilst the colonists onboard are in cryogenic stasis, there is an unexpected accident on the ship that renders most of the ship's systems and hyperspace inoperative. Engaging the emergency protocols, the ships main computer wakes the onboard population before a final shutdown. Left drifting in deep space, with only thrusters to guide their ship, the colonists are left to their own devices.
Many generations later, the ship enters the Alpha Centauri system. Having lost contact with Earth centuries earlier, the colonists have survived the best they could. Over time, separate cultures and belief systems grew, and open hostility is tempered by the simple expediant that one misplaced explosion could destroy them all. But now.......
What happened to the original mission? What will the new colonists encounter? What will happen......... on Alpha Centauri?
The premise is that the first mission (the original game) failed, with humanity being overwhelmed by Planet and the Manifolds. Now, nothing remains expect the ruins of the failed alien experiments amongst the ruins of Unity's colonisation attempts.
(Also, they weren't overwhelmed by Planet and the Manifolds; Planet is the only one of the Manifolds anywhere nearby.)
(Also, they weren't overwhelmed by Planet and the Manifolds; Planet is the only one of the Manifolds anywhere nearby.)
Good pickup. I actually meant the Progenators. Original post edited.
(Also, they weren't overwhelmed by Planet and the Manifolds; Planet is the only one of the Manifolds anywhere nearby.)
Good pickup. I actually meant the Progenators. Original post edited.
If the Progenitors showed up and defeated humanity, then what happened to them?
If the Usurpers won, then they'd have already forced Transcendence with them in charge, which I don't think is where you want to go.
If the Caretakers won, then they'd have turned Planet into a no-landing zone to avoid interference, which I don't think is where you want to go.
Who's to say any of them survived? Whilst it's possible one of the Progenator factions won, it's also equally possible that none of them did.
It's also equally possible that Planet metamorphised as predicted and eliminated all alien life (including the Prog's).
Quotebut there are plenty of games that have better stories and plots.
I have yet to see one that can conclusively be marked as better, and few that are not conclusively inferior.
The story doesn't necessarily have to be forced within the confines of existing lore (official or supplimentary) either. Some liberties may need to be taken to fit a second story into it.i like your story. You can easily put the original factions in the game with it too... Even make a DLC to play the original factions on the planet and watch their downfall.. :)
Quotebut there are plenty of games that have better stories and plots.
I have yet to see one that can conclusively be marked as better, and few that are not conclusively inferior.
Bioshock.
I was thinking about this one and the fact that the original mission would've had to bring Planet's wrath on themselves to get wiped out.. and I think it can be made to work with a new game. Remember that the cycle is ~60 million years. In the original, it was fairly near the end of the cycle, but naturally that could've been hundreds of thousands of years away. Human arrival brought it forwards, but if humans had been wiped out relatively quickly (before the lategame supertechs and extreme eco damage) then they may only have partially awakened Planet, and it could've fallen back into dreams rather than finishing the cycle. A full Flowering would have massive consequences, and Planet would be vastly weaker/less full of life after a failed one (or a fully realized sentient god-planet after a successful one), but a partial awakening does not necessarily clash with lore.QuoteIt's also equally possible that Planet metamorphised as predicted and eliminated all alien life (including the Prog's).If so, that will have substantial effects on what the new colonists find...I seem to remember that the old mission came near the end of the cycle, and that presumably had a substantial effect on the amount of worm/fungal activity and Planet's ability to communicate.
And Dale, you're not going to be winning many friends here by talking down AC's storyline :p (also a ranking with the top game having a few 100 votes and entirely public is not exactly.. a great way of judging it).
Bioshock.
Over and ranker.com, SMAC doesn't even rate in the top 110.
http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-most-compelling-video-game-storylines (http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-most-compelling-video-game-storylines)
Do a Google search for best computer game stories. Whilst SMAC is mentioned on Civ-SMAC fansites, it's hardly mentioned at all on industry sites. It's not just one site that says SMAC doesn't rate that high, it's most industry sites that don't list SMAC.
I'm not "talking down the story" as you say. Yes, SMAC has a very full storyline. But it also has a lack of spots to be able to tie other stories into. Basically, you have to accept that anyone (not just me) tackling a sequel, will make changes to the story.
SMAC's "story" is the world not a classic storyline, and it's a 14 year old game.. expecting it to rank very well in a specific google search would be silly. TryAnd Dale, you're not going to be winning many friends here by talking down AC's storyline :p (also a ranking with the top game having a few 100 votes and entirely public is not exactly.. a great way of judging it).
Do a Google search for best computer game stories. Whilst SMAC is mentioned on Civ-SMAC fansites, it's hardly mentioned at all on industry sites. It's not just one site that says SMAC doesn't rate that high, it's most industry sites that don't list SMAC.
That doesn't make the story bad, or diminish it in any way. It could also be a huge reflection on the relative business success of the games involved too.
Critics praised its science fiction storyline (comparing the plot to works by Stanley Kubrick, Frank Herbert, Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov), the in-game writing, the voice acting,....
I'm not "talking down the story" as you say. Yes, SMAC has a very full storyline. But it also has a lack of spots to be able to tie other stories into. Basically, you have to accept that anyone (not just me) tackling a sequel, will make changes to the story. If you can't accept that, then there's no point me continuing. At least if it's someone like me tackling a sequel, you will find I will try to keep intact as much of the original story as possible. Hence why the idea of a "second fleet" is appealing to me.Lack of spots to tie other stories into? If by that you mean it's very open-ended and sandboxy so there's not that many things which will always happen, that seems like a positive thing. And if that's not what you mean, please explain?
Bioshock.
Haven't played it, but from what I've seen I see nothing that can match the scale and tone of Alpha Centauri.
Then you will have to take my word. I have played both. I played Mass Effect 2, Portal, and Half Life. I'm not downgrading the story of AC but these games got it beat on storyline.
However, I don't read the blurbs or the interludes anymore. WHY? because I know the story, I read the books, I have the comic book.
SMAC's "story" is the world not a classic storyline, and it's a 14 year old game.. expecting it to rank very well in a specific google search would be silly.
What makes their storyline so great?
A good story is worth re-reading every so often even when you know it.
At the end of the day, if I got the rights to produce a game using the SMAC IP, as a designer, I would not compromise the game just because of lore. I would change the lore.
Stories don't make games, gameplay does. It comes back to the old Civ rule: gameplay/fun trumps realism.
Baldur's Gate on industry sites is always rated higher than SMAC for story.
Compelling.
Unique. Each story is extremely unique and really hasn't been done before.
Value. The developers value the character/player learning and seeking the storyline rather than forcing the player through storyline via missions.
Nothing substitutes the actual gameplay.
Portal focus on telling the story through graffiti and hidden rooms in different levels. Glados tells a few bits of info, but not is all believable that comes out of her mouth.
Bioshock the story is told through hidden and sometimes overt journals and audio recording as well as the environment . Their is a mission and such in the game, but you learn more by exploring and looking.
In Mass Effect 2 you make the story by interacting with your crew. The side effects are unknown to the player until the end. Also a lot backstory in datalinks and such in game.
I just started reading the books again. I stopped though because I hate how the author made the Spartans look like rubbish warriors.
Alpha Centauri has a story that will help encourage you to start the game over after you've finished it; the only other games I know of that can achieve that are the Starcraft series.
Yitiz, Your telling me in the last 13 years no other game could possible have a better storyline?
The games I listed I played, and I'm telling you that they are better. It's my opinion, but I'm hard press to find someone outside this forum that doesn't agree with me that these game have some of the best story lines.
I love AC, obviously, but we need to face the facts that there just might be a better story out there.
All the Civ game have the same addicting one more turn, and one more game feel. I would argue that AC story adds to the replay-ability, but its the changing interactions with the gameplay that make the game great.
Fallout 3.
Age of Empire.
Any Civ game.
Play some more games. You will be surprised.
I have yet to encounter one that is clearly better (by my standards), and the only one I can think of that might be better is the Starcraft games. The story of SMAC really is that good.
At the end of the day, if I got the rights to produce a game using the SMAC IP, as a designer, I would not compromise the game just because of lore. I would change the lore.
Stories don't make games, gameplay does. It comes back to the old Civ rule: gameplay/fun trumps realism.
Dale, I agree with you on the point that story can be changed, and that you should be given flexibility to create a good sequel.
But you need to do your best to be sensitive to story.... I don't need a CIV 6, I need an AC 2.
On another note, when ANW coming out?
As for replay-ability:
All the Civ game have the same addicting one more turn, and one more game feel. I would argue that AC story adds to the replay-ability, but its the changing interactions with the gameplay that make the game great.
Play some more games. You will be surprised.
Fallout 3 may not have the scope of "galactic powers", but the story has one of the greatest replay-ability. Blown up Megaton or Save Megaton. Become a Cannibal? Trust me I played this game at least 6 times
I totally agree that where possible, lore must remain intact. But like I said, I won't compromise gameplay/fun for lore.
I find it interesting you say that. IMO, SMAC has a very static story. It's the same every play through. To me that does hinder re-playability some what.
Not really; as a very good strategy game with numerous factions (each with its own playstyle) and several ways to win, SMAC can achieve replayability purely through gameplay. Where the story comes in is after you've played it through enough to get tired of it and it's been sitting on the shelf for two years; at that point, addicting gameplay isn't going to get you to pick it up again, but the story will.
There are really three questions going on here:
1. After you took a break, will you come back to it? That can be motivated by gameplay or story (either is enough, with a slight increase for having both); for story, the most important factor is the ability to uncover the story, followed by the strength of the story, with variability of the story being essentially irrelevant.
2. After you just finished it, will you play it again? There, the most important factor is gameplay (and variability thereof), followed by variability of the story, followed by the strength of the story, with the ability to uncover the story being irrelevant.
3. After you stopped playing it for a while, will you pick it up again? That can be motivated by gameplay or story (either is enough, with a substantial increase for having both); for story, the most important factor is the strength of the story, followed distantly by its variability, with the ability to uncover the story being essentially irrelevant.
SMAC has both very strong and fairly variable gameplay and a strong story, making it very strong for (1), strong for (2), and very strong for (3) despite its fairly poor story variability and poor story uncoverability.
Something like Bioshock has good uncoverability and variability of the story, but the story itself isn't as strong (I doubt gameplay is as strong either, simply because RPGs rarely if every can match the gameplay of a 4x game, though they usually make it up in story), so it's strong for (1) and fairly strong for (2), but quite weak for (3).
Something like Civ, on the other hand, has very strong and somewhat variable gameplay (probably not as variable as SMAC, because the differences between factions aren't as pronounced, but not far behind), but its story is fairly weak, with no uncoverability and fairly poor variability (sure, you can re-create history, but it's essentially the same basic path regardless, same concept as SMAC.) Therefore, it's very strong for (1) and strong for (2), but only medium-strong for (3).
Yitiz, when you play fallout 3, Mass Effect, and Bioshock, you will understand. Right now it feel like trying to tell a blind person what sight is like.
Dale: I would like to make a request. I hate having to wait 6 minutes a turn for the AI in Civ 5 to make moves and think. Do you have any plans to fix that process.
IMO, CTP2 has always had the Civ series (inc SMAC) beat on gameplay. I would rate SMAC gameplay the same level as Civ4 gameplay. Both are the top of the series in terms of gameplay.This is the first thing I have seen you write that I strongly disagree with. SMAC has more sophisticated gameplay and more options that Civ4 or CTP2. The amazing flexibility for terraforming, the way that the 4 society choices interact, the unit design studio, the number of technology and structures, etc. give SMAC far better gameplay than Civ4 and CTP2, in my opinion.
IMO, CTP2 has always had the Civ series (inc SMAC) beat on gameplay. I would rate SMAC gameplay the same level as Civ4 gameplay. Both are the top of the series in terms of gameplay.This is the first thing I have seen you write that I strongly disagree with. SMAC has more sophisticated gameplay and more options that Civ4 or CTP2. The amazing flexibility for terraforming, the way that the 4 society choices interact, the unit design studio, the number of technology and structures, etc. give SMAC far better gameplay than Civ4 and CTP2, in my opinion.
As for storyline verses gameplay, in a strategy game, gameplay rules, and storyline is second. I have seen some stategy games that had practically no storyline at all that were very good strategy games, like Go. In a role playing game like Baldurs Gate, storyline is much more important. That is how I see it.
I'm probably a really good example. I played SMAC for a couple of years till CTP2 came out. Then I dropped SMAC in favor of CTP2.
Did I pick it up again? No.
Do I pick up every iteration of Civ? Yes.
The thing with SMAC, is once I played a couple of times and knew the story (which yes, is a good story), you don't play for the story anymore. You play for the gameplay.
Haha, so what? Fight for what you want anyway!I'm probably a really good example. I played SMAC for a couple of years till CTP2 came out. Then I dropped SMAC in favor of CTP2.
Did I pick it up again? No.
Do I pick up every iteration of Civ? Yes.
The thing with SMAC, is once I played a couple of times and knew the story (which yes, is a good story), you don't play for the story anymore. You play for the gameplay.
Maybe it's just me, then.
Another VERY important point of SMAC in terms of gameplay that you should keep or even increase: Factions with differences that substantially affect playstyle. When you get right down to it, there isn't that much difference between playing Civ 4 as the Persians as opposed to the Americans; there are advantages to each, but they're played basically the same way. But in SMAC, the Believers work best with a very different playstyle than the Morganites do, so rather than one game you're really getting several.
Maybe. But it is not all that bad. At least they did an okay job of differetiating the AIs "personality" in SP. Monty is Civ 4's Miriam hands down. I had some pretty memorable times playing Civ 4 with all those psycotic AIs. For a second, it felt like I was playing with real leaders each with different playstyles. As far as differences when actually playing them, I do think the trait system of Civ 4 did lend itself to certain playstyles over others. Civ 5 improved on this a bit with unique special abiliies for each other than 2 choices out of a list... but still not horrid.
4. Only system in Civ series where you can design your own units although, like Maniac once said, a SMAC 2 would have to improve on to give multiple "good" chioces. IE: No point in putting armor on aircraft.
Besides, armor on aircraft IS useful. It's saved several of my aircraft that otherwise would have been killed by enemy dogfighters.4. Only system in Civ series where you can design your own units although, like Maniac once said, a SMAC 2 would have to improve on to give multiple "good" chioces. IE: No point in putting armor on aircraft.
I'm going to take exception to your last point. You may not be able to put armor as in added thickness of material on a basic aircraft, but what if your armor is some kind of high-tech shielding, à la Photon Wall, Probability Sheath, or Stasis Generator?
Besides, armor on aircraft IS useful. It's saved several of my aircraft that otherwise would have been killed by enemy dogfighters.
Imo, best game ever would be something like SMAC with combat from Panzer General, where you'd move around divisions on the strategic maps and go to smaller timescales/maps in combat.
Agreed.Imo, best game ever would be something like SMAC with combat from Panzer General, where you'd move around divisions on the strategic maps and go to smaller timescales/maps in combat.
No, I don't think that's really desirable. SMAC/X is an empire-builder, not a combat game; detailed tactics would detract more than they'd add.
No, I don't think that's really desirable. SMAC/X is an empire-builder, not a combat game; detailed tactics would detract more than they'd add.
With all due respect.. that's only your opinion Ma'am.
QuoteNo, I don't think that's really desirable. SMAC/X is an empire-builder, not a combat game; detailed tactics would detract more than they'd add.
With all due respect.. that's only your opinion Ma'am.
Tactics add a whole new level of enjoyment to Master of Orion 2, which I rate slightly higher than SMAC. Not so good atmosphere, worse graphics, not such great setting, but tricky combat and not a huge timesink.
Panzer General's combat isn't 'detailed' in any sense, it's only a rough outline at best. Something like it though, no point in slavish imitations.
I have trouble seeing how that would work without turning Alpha Centauri into a different sort of game...Slightly different. More like say Age of Wonders, which is almost like SMAC because it has city building, though no terraforming and also research. Has tactical combat which.. could be better.
I have trouble seeing how that would work without turning Alpha Centauri into a different sort of game...It's a good game, but it's not as good that it can't be improved slightly..
Welcome to AC2, I-T! How did you find us?
If you want that turn-based empire building feel, with PG's combat, play Civ5.
It actually appears to be the general consensus.Two people are a consensus?
Oh, and I'm a man, by the way, not a woman.How should I tell? Female nick, female avatar, for all I know you're the spy from TF2.
QuoteNo, I don't think that's really desirable. SMAC/X is an empire-builder, not a combat game; detailed tactics would detract more than they'd add.
With all due respect.. that's only your opinion Ma'am.
Tactics add a whole new level of enjoyment to Master of Orion 2, which I rate slightly higher than SMAC. Not so good atmosphere, worse graphics, not such great setting, but tricky combat and not a huge timesink.
Not complex enough, troops don't need supplies/maintenance or have ammo, which is unrealistic.
Combat could be more nuanced, with infantry/armor/anti-air/anti-ship attack values
different types being able to use different types of cover (infantry can hide better than tanks)
a bigger role for artillery (these days, you already have GPS guided shells capable of hitting a 5m target from 40 kms away.. or tank-busting shells that seek out and detonate armor). It's plain to see that with smart munitions, combat is going to get a lot more interesting, with the addition of the need for anti-artillery defense such as Phalanx / Iron Dome needed to take out smart munitions at a distance.
Two people are a consensus?
How should I tell? Female nick, female avatar, for all I know you're the spy from TF2.
QuoteTwo people are a consensus?
Three now, which on a board this size is pretty substantial.
I would prefer something like this be set up as optional; you can skip the tactical view and managing the details if you like. SMAC(X) has had a lot of success with that sort of scheme, where the more pedantic of us can micro-manage the bases and those wanting a quicker and more casual game can turn on the base governor and not worry about it in an easy game.
I might find out I liked the tactical level. -But I wouldn't want it forced on me...
(Be nice to the new guy, Yitzi - he doesn't necessarily know your very detailed discussion style, and might perceive hostility where you don't intend it.)
Of course they need supplies; you spend 1 mineral per turn per unit on it (with a small amount of freebies per base, and of course later on you can give them the ability to recycle their stuff to not need substantial supplies.)
YitziNot being a native speaker, ... it seemed female to me. Like you know, Mitzi for example which I know is female..
And by the way, "Yitzi" is actually a male nickname; the avatar is to represent the fact that I've done EXE modification.
I would prefer something like this be set up as optional; you can skip the tactical view and managing the details if you like. SMAC(X) has had a lot of success with that sort of scheme, where the more pedantic of us can micro-manage the bases and those wanting a quicker and more casual game can turn on the base governor and not worry about it in an easy game.
There's no fuel/ammo/etc. So you can land and succesfully fight with an invasion force even though you're effectively cut off and all that.
You're one of those lunatics who uses assembler to patch exe files?
I've done a little programming, even some 8bit assembler. Seems like pure insanity to me though.
No luck getting source code out of Firaxis?
EA owns the rights.
The problem is that the rights are all mixed up, between Firaxis, EA, and I don't remember who else.
I don't like Civ5 that much. AI is bad, no way of customizing unit and the combat isn't that good either. If there were 20x as much hexes to move around..
Awesome Info, Dale! Was this told to you via email or is there a link somewhere for this knowledge? I planning to move this info to the first post of this thread.I don't like Civ5 that much. AI is bad, no way of customizing unit and the combat isn't that good either. If there were 20x as much hexes to move around..
So you want PG combat in a high-level strategic game, yet don't like PG combat in Civ5 (a high-level strategic game).
Did you not just answer your own query?
------------------------
BTW on license rights:
- EA owns the brand, retail and distribution rights.
- Firaxis owns the source code and asset rights.
- Various other parties own rights to technologies used in the game (eg Microsoft).
- Brian Reynolds and Sid Meier (not Firaxis please note him personally) hold copyright on the design.
What are asset rights?
Awesome Info, Dale! Was this told to you via email or is there a link somewhere for this knowledge? I planning to move this info to the first post of this thread.
BTW, Firaxis doesn't have a copy of the source code in their code repository anymore. That was one of the first questions I asked.
Did you not just answer your own query?
QuoteBTW, Firaxis doesn't have a copy of the source code in their code repository anymore. That was one of the first questions I asked.
It's like they're doing it on purpose.
I doubt they had no backups. Those days.. no doubt they had regular tape or CD backups.
That was diplomatically put.....still, no answer to date. :confused:
Second to better AI, SMAC2 needs to have better troop management. Anyone who's ever waged a late game war should know that the micromanagement of your army is incredibly tedious. You should be able to group units together so that they can be moved simultaneously.
I am wondering how Civ V could handle a Planetfall type mod... AC would be interesting with hexes and no stacking.
If anyone gets serious, AC2 will give it a dedicated folder, and throw whatever support we can behind the project.
I am wondering how Civ V could handle a Planetfall type mod... AC would be interesting with hexes and no stacking.
All right. Let's start this mod. ;)
Was wondering, where is the source code for SMAC/X? Who has it, EA?