The State of SMAC 2

[Dale]

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).

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.  I found the story repetitive after a few play throughs.  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.

What I find with Civ, is that no matter how many times I start a new game, I always find a new story.  I found I would play SMAC pretty much the same way every game.  In Civ, I would play nearly every game differently.  SMAC's story leads you down one path.  Civ's story opens many paths and allows the play to write their own story.

If I use your 3 points above, MY ratings of SMAC are:
1. Poor.  I found in Civ4, the same level of gameplay with non-repetitive stories.
2. Starts strong, but decreases in value over time.
3. I think this is more personally driven.  I favor historical settings over space settings, so when faced with two equal games (SMAC/Civ4) I will choose the historical setting.

MY ratings of Civ are:
1. Strong.  Civ has always been, and always will be, a game of writing the story of human history.  It will be different every time.
2. Strong, continues to be strong due to every game being totally different to any other game before it.
3. As above.

[testdummy653]

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.

[Dale]

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.

Civ5 doesn't make use of multiple threads and cores, so it can really only do one thing at a time.  If you use multiple threads and cores you can assign AI decision trees to those threads and cores, so some of the AI can process during the player turns, and the rest synchronously during the wait.  This reduces wait time.

The other issue with Civ5 is that data is handled badly within the code.  This slows down everything more and more and more the longer you play the game.

[Earthmichael]

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.   

[Dale]

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.

It's a matter of opinion.  I should elaborate why I place CTP2 above Civ/SMAC.  In the Civ/SMAC series I feel like I am running a string of loosely connected city-states.  CTP2 I felt like I was running an Empire.  CTP2 models national concepts way better than Civ/SMAC.  The focus in CTP2 is at the national level, whereas Civ/SMAC focuses on the city-state level.

If I take this even further, I also rate Imperialism II, Colonisation (the original) and Panzer General above Civ/SMAC/CTP2.  As I pointed out at my blog, the three biggest flaws of Civ are also in SMAC.  That's what lets it down versus Imp2/Col/PG.

[Earthmichael]

1. First, I think that SMAC is FAR BETTER than any of the rest of the Civ series, including Civ 4.  So lumping SMAC with Civ does a disservice to SMAC.  It does not reflect any of the amazing strategic options available in SMAC that is not availble in any other Civ game, nor in CTP2, or any other strategy game I am aware of.

2. I do like the aspect of empire level strategy.  I saw this first done well in Imperialism II, which was an amazing game for its time.  SMAC does have some empire level strategy, in terms of research, energy bank, sats, secret projects, etc., but it is not as rich at the empire level at CTP2.  BUT, if I weight out the unparalleled terraforming and the strategic options provided by this, along with the interactions between the various society choices in terms of fundamental attributes that they affect, supply crawlers, an extremely sophisticated tech chart, a huge number of facilities, and the unit design workshop, there is no way that I think that better empire level outweights all of this.  Simply put, the strategic complexity of SMAC far outstrips CTP, despite being weaker in national concepts.

That would be the major improvement to add in SMAC 2, is to add more national concepts, and that would certainly set it apart from SMAC 1.  But even without this, I don't there is any more stratagic game (that I know of) than SMAX.

[Dale]

Like I said, it's a matter of opinion.

[Earthmichael]

Yes, it is a matter of opinion, as to what each player values most.

What I think would be a huge step forward would be to keep all of the sophisticated aspects of SMAX, and add a strong level of empire strategy.  This way, no matter which you value most, you get both!

[Yitzi]

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.

[testdummy653]

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.

Haha, so what? Fight for what you want anyway!
I still want a good story and with you fighting for it's won't be thrown to the wayside (Not saying Dale's planning to do that, He seems to have the makings for a good one).

[Green1]

At risk of sounding like I am taking the wussy way out, I agree with everyone. But, I want to toss a couple of more thoughts in the ring.

Dale is right. The story is okay, but once you have played the game a couple of hundred times, it does not become as important. He is also dead on that many more modern games DO have better empire management and combat systems.

But... there are a few things that SMAC/X has that keeps it on my hard drive and I am sure everyone on this little forum board's:

1. There are almost no future tech 4xs that are not faster than light/ interplanetary 4Xs.
2. SMAX uses the "hostile world" where terrain and the world itself is as much of an enemy as any of the AIs. Only Fallen Enchantress has come close to the survival game.
3. The transhumanist atmosphere.
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.

Now, if we DO get a SMAC successor... some of the purists (including myself) may need to suck it up and accept some more modern improvemnts brought by Civ 4, 5, and other 4xs.

This includes:

Elimination of transport micromanagement in favor of a Civ 5 or Warlock: Master of the Arcane transport system. Search your feelings, Luke... you know this is not "fun" or "hardcore" but needless boring micro in todays age.

Stacks of Death. Say what you want about the hex based system of Civ 5, But it really is a bit better if they can nail it. Dale's earlier statement of world modeling with "no tiles" sounds interesting if he can pull it off.

[testdummy653]

I don't think SMAC was that bad with SODs (compared with Civ 3). The splash damage somewhat weakened the effectiveness of SOD.

[Yitzi]

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.

[Green1]

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.

But I do think you bring up a great point. I have seen so many games, particularly in thier SP sandbox mode where there seems to be no difference in the AIs. For instance, in Age of Wonders: Shadow Magic, it does not matter if you are playing Merlin, Julia, or Nekron. Other than thier magic spheres ant the racial units, those AIs did not feel "alive" like in SMAX, Civ 4 or 5. AoW is not the only one. There are many other 4xs as well with that flaw.

You are also right about the leaders of SMAX. With the exception of some of the expansion ones that could just use a bit of Civ 5 tweek treatment, AC nailed that dead on.

[Yitzi]

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.

Yeah, it's not bad.  But it's nowhere as much variety as in SMAC.

And I'm not just talking about the AIs; as a human player, you're going to want to fit your playstyle to your faction (or pick a faction that fits your playstyle.)