The State of SMAC 2

[Lord Avalon]

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?

Also, greater reactor power will enable an aircraft to carry more weight, such that maybe you could add material thickness.  With enough thrust you could even do away with the airframe and have a flying box, if you wanted.

Finally, gravships - when you control gravity, isn't the mass of armor kind of a moot point?

[JarlWolf]

I find that while there is not too many official strategy/tactical games with differences in AI Behavior/ Personality, plenty of mods for them add such changes. Age of Empires 2 recently had an expansion developed by a team of modders, Forgotten Empires.

The AI has at least 4 to 5 different approaches it will use against you, 4-5 separate AI along with 5 brand new civilizations, among other changes.

If there was to be a spiritual successor to SMAC, which is highly possible, using the same style of game mechanics, but while also having it relatively easy to modify, would be a great way for "SMAC 2" to happen. And a company need not be constrained by the legal predicaments from making an official game outside of EA's grasp.

There has been modifications to turn a game into SMAC, namely the planetfall mod for Civilization 4, but Civilization 4 lacks the mechanics SMAC did.

Get a game with the same mechanics, and get players to modify it unofficially. Legal rights are avoided entirely that way.


This game has survived due to dedicated fan's keeping it alive and playing it, and I believe it will be advanced by fans as well. Or, we may have a stroke of luck like XCOM did. But we can't rely on luck alone.

[BFG]

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.

[Darsnan]

When I was building mods and scenarios I placed armor onto the interceptor aircarft: this was beneficial to the AIs in that it added an additional defender to bases. Also, I figured heah if the AIs are gonna build aircraft, then they might as well get some use out of them, as otherwise the Ais just seemed to fly the aircraft around to bases and not do much else with them.

D

[I-T]

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.

Except it'd be an even bigger time-sink.

[Maniac]

Besides, armor on aircraft IS useful.  It's saved several of my aircraft that otherwise would have been killed by enemy dogfighters.

Aren't air fights weapon versus weapon?

[Yitzi]

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.

[testdummy653]

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.

Agreed.

[I-T]

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.

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.

[Buster's Uncle]

I have trouble seeing how that would work without turning Alpha Centauri into a different sort of game...

Welcome to AC2, I-T!  How did you find us?

[Yitzi]

With all due respect.. that's only your opinion Ma'am.

It actually appears to be the general consensus.

Oh, and I'm a man, by the way, not a woman.

[Dale]

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.

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.

If you want that turn-based empire building feel, with PG's combat, play Civ5.

[I-T]

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.

With the spells, it had great combinations. For example, generalist wizards not restricted to single school of magic could get steam hovertanks fireproof faster than horses (regular Dwarven steam tank enchanted with 'float', 'haste', 'fire halo' and some others..

And man... airships before casting haste on those was patched out. Great transports.

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..
Not complex enough, troops don't need supplies/maintenance or have ammo, which is unrealistic. Logistics could use more detail.

For example, building stuff the Nazi way in WWII that is, highly overengineered tanks in small numbers (until late war) vs optimized production of slightly worse tanks in great numbers.

Maybe also allowing caching weapons to mobilize population in time of war, which would hit happiness/production but give you more troops.

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.

But stuff like this would only be possible in some sanely written SMAC 2 with plenty of allowable xml based customization..

Welcome to AC2, I-T!  How did you find us?

I think I was looking for AI patches on SMAC, or maybe some multiplayer.  The Kyrub's SMAC 444? one worked great, first time I had real trouble with AI, also nice terraforming and such.. would perhaps do further playtesting in the next weeks.

If you want that turn-based empire building feel, with PG's combat, play Civ5.

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..

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.

[testdummy653]

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.

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.

And the complexity of MOO3 destroyed the entire MOO franchise.

Adding more strategy and complexity can kill games.  I think combat can be revamped a little but i don't think we need to got the point of logistics planning.

BTW, Welcome to the Forums!

[Yitzi]

Not complex enough, troops don't need supplies/maintenance or have ammo, which is unrealistic.

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.)

Combat could be more nuanced, with infantry/armor/anti-air/anti-ship attack values

May be a good idea to have special abilities that boost situational attack like ECM and AAA do for defense.

different types being able to use different types of cover (infantry can hide better than tanks)

Already there in the form of a bonus for mobile units in open terrain.

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.

Could work.

Two people are a consensus?

Three now, which on a board this size is pretty substantial.

How should I tell? Female nick, female avatar, for all I know you're the spy from TF2.

That's why I informed you.  And by the way, "Yitzi" is actually a male nickname; the avatar is to represent the fact that I've done EXE modification.