The State of SMAC 2

[Yitzi]

- 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.

It'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.[/quote]

Sometimes it is better.  Consider, for example, SMAC.  It's so incredibly good because it combines excellent strategy gameplay with a very strong story (more characteristic of RPGs.)  I think the "watering-down" is more likely to happen when the developers just slam the two genres together without thinking on how to properly integrate them, or use the novelty to try to  compensate for poor quality.

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.

They have more strategic depth in Civ4 than in any previous game.

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.

Yes, a removal of "negative" stuff is generally bad (this is part of why I like to play SMAC with random events).  Although the change to the happiness system was probably the right move.

[Dale]

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, 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.

Obviously, a true 3D planet will provide huge benefits in terms of all that you stated, and yes in terms of large scale strategy games like SMAC, it will be truly ground breaking.

Management of orbits is a pretty simple thing in reality.  I've had mockups of the entire solar system and flying in and out of the whole thing (for one of my game ideas).  For A New World zooming will be seamless from space to ground.  But there will be three default levels of zoom you can click a button and zip to: space (see whole planet), orbit (see continent sized area) and tactical (see country sized area).

- 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.

Just a question, but did you play strategy games from the 90's?  Is so, which ones?

Because IMO there is a distinct simplifying of strategy games between the 90's and 00's.

It'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.

Sometimes it is better.  Consider, for example, SMAC.  It's so incredibly good because it combines excellent strategy gameplay with a very strong story (more characteristic of RPGs.)  I think the "watering-down" is more likely to happen when the developers just slam the two genres together without thinking on how to properly integrate them, or use the novelty to try to  compensate for poor quality.[/quote]

A "story" is not a genre.  Every game has a "story".  Some genres are more tuned for developed stories (such as rpg's) but that does not exclude other genres from having stories too.  Civ even has a story.  The story of human history.

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.

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.

[Yitzi]

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.

[ete]

Dale: That plan for synchronous turns sounds sensible, glad there's some long term planning for that kind of feature .

[Dale]

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?

[Yitzi]

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.

[Dale]

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.

I do agree that Civ4 is better than Civ1/2/3/5.  I do however disagree that the trend tends to be upward.  Maybe for a few select franchises (Civ, EU and Total War are two I can think of, but even they had their total bomb games like CivWorld) but in general overall, I would say the trend has been towards making strategy games more "casual" for more mass-market appeal.  As I mentioned above, publishers have focussed studios on producing games for bigger markets, which in itself forces a certain simplification to the concepts of the game.  And note, this is happening in ALL genres, not just strategy games.  One just has to look at what FPS games have devolved into to see the poor state of publisher led games industry.

And I will tell you quite frankly, this was extremely evident to all of us who were involved in helping Firaxis develop Civ4 and especially Civ5.  Civ5 was made to be sold, not to played.

[testdummy653]

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 had fond memories of playing Imperialism 1 & 2. Please keep me updated with you game development, it sounds interesting.

[Earthmichael]

[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! 

[Dale]

[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!

In Civ4, if you can you build a mine.  If you can't you build a farm.

Great strategic depth there. 

[Yitzi]

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???

Because in SMAC, formers generally only have 1 or 2 best options in any particular situation.  Civ4 has numerous options for a single situation.  Thus, more strategic depth.

In addition for forests, mines, and boreholes, I raise land a lot in SMAC.

I've noticed.

I build sensors.  I build bunkers when needed.

And those usually aren't a "choose what to build in the square" decision; either it's obviously the right move or obviously the wrong move, without much in between, hence does not contribute to strategic depth.

I build roads and magtubes.

Indeed, all over.

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!

There are a lot of improvements, but how many are viable choices for a given square?  Rocky, your choices are mine or terraform level.  Rolling or flat, your choices are farm/(enricher)/condenser (to crawl), farm/(enricher)/solar, or forest, perhaps with some mirrors and boreholes and rivers sprinkled in (but it's usually obvious where to put those).  Sea, you want kelp/tidal, with maybe some mining platforms if it's a sea base.

[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!

In 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?

[Dale]

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.

[Earthmichael]

Yitzi, I am coming to believe that you argue just for the sake of argument.  You can't possibly believe what you have been posting!  It is sheer nonsense!  It is not worthy of debate.

[Green1]

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.

[Green1]

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