Za H,

I didn't mean to imply that there is truly a Wrong way to play. I was just being humorous. In a way.

My personal preference in these types of games has always been to play the smaller maps, otherwise a single game takes too long to play.

You tend to get a very different game with small vs. larger maps. With small maps, you get tossed into the action right away, but with big maps you have some time to expand and build before encountering enemy civs.

I would lose a lot of games with SMAC simply because the AI had a big starting advantage (and continuing resource advantage) that I had to overcome very quickly. But there was a tipping point. Once you achieved parity with the AI, the AI was doomed because it wasn't smart enough to fight as good a war as you.

As far as I can tell, GalCiv follows the same play deficiencies as SMAC and other games. The AI civs start with a big advantage, but then you can overcome it with your superior military tactics.

Now, the Stardock people says that this isn't "cheating". Maybe it's not "cheating", but the bottom line is that because of the AI's advantage of knowing where all the good stars and resources are, and because maybe the initial expansion algorith was written really well, the end result is the same as every other game of this type: the AI starts out with an advantage that you have to overcome, but the AI isn't very smart about fighting military battles.

GalCiv is a very different game from smac, but I would say that if you enjoyed smac, you should buy galciv.

SMAC was probably the best game system ever designed for a turn based game.

Of course when you have such an impressivly complex game system the AI will have problems. Much like MoM's AI had "problems."

SMAC had far better AI than MoM, but still it's AI had difficulty due to the great flexibility the player had at his disposal.

Still SMAC is, probably, the best turn based game ever made.

GalCiv is a fine game and a worthy effort do doubt, but as it stands today SMAC is the champ.

SMAC is, hands down, the best computer game I've ever played. I spent more time with that game than any other in my life. I just bought a new PC and I'm resisting the urge to install it.

~SDC~

go ahead install it!

BTW it's not fair to bash the military AI of a game as complex as SMAC, especially if it was written 5 years ago!

SMAC is much more than military conquest (which I hope also applies to GalCiv) and after you've become good at it you should customize it to make it more balanced and (perhaps) challenging.

For example, I added Economy bonuses to the Morganites because they kept getting creamed and they "cornered the energy market" really fast on a small map.

I've heard that GalCiv is also highly MODable can anyone comment on it?

SMAC has about the very best storyline for a turn-based game, too, huh?
Of course, it would be interesting to play a mod that let you control a nation or faction on the doomed Earth before Unity launched, too, eh? he he he

miquv,

SMAC *was* a game of military conquest. That's why it was so great. There was really no way to win without attacking the enemy and defeating him in battle.

With Civ3, the designers attempted to soften the game and make it possible to win without fighting. What happened was that the game became really boring. You hardly ever see anyone talk with excitement about Civ3 they way they did with Civ1 or Civ2. Or SMAC for that matter.

My take on GalCiv so far is that you can't really win by fighting. Your supposed to win by peacefully building trade routes (the key to wealth). When war starts, the trade routes all fall apart, and the effect on your economy is very painful.

everybody keep your shorts on. different people play differently...some folks are quicker to learn than others; some play better than others etc. its not a question of playing right or wrong.
Both games are great! some like one over the other for whatever reasons. Lets not turn this into a Moo board.
Cheers

Miguv:

I found the following things superior about SMAC (BRAC, more accurately):

1. Diplomacy.
SMAC's faction leaders were fascinating, and vendettas/pact brotherhoods-sisterhoods were very well developed as a concept. For example, Miriam proved a strong adversary, but a fantastically loyal pact-sister if you gifted her enough techs and energy.

2. Technologies.
Tech descriptions were fascinating. Voiceovers were extremely well done. "The Ethics of Greed" remains my favorite bedside reader to this day. "What right does this forgotten future" indeed!

3. Social Choices.
Planned/Wealth? Or Free Market? Choices, choices...


I find the following things superior in GalCiv:

1. Balance.
Cloudbase Academy was wildly overpowered. Needlejets came too early, and could end games in and of themselves. Crawlers were, bluntly, broken. So far, I have yet to find an unbeatable tech path to take in GalCiv. Ship progression appears very balanced. Even the much-vaunted Starbase strategy has weaknesses (e.g., it is susceptible to an early rush using Frigates, especially on Medium-sized maps, imho). [However, I believe the PQ+15 trait is too great.]

2. Simplicity of Decisions/Actions.
Hour-long turns once my faction reached 30+ bases were customary in my SMAC games. GalCiv moves much faster, even at 30+ systems in operation.

3. Challenging AI.
Put all 5 AI on Brilliant. Enough said.

~SDC~

Funny how some people said the AI in SMAC couldn't handle the late game. I actually had more problems then, because I just stopped caring about playing well once the initial rush was over. I knew that crawlers were a good idea, I might do a better job with the formers than the automatation...but that was just too much work

I never actually lost a game, but that was because I quit before it became an issue. Of all the games of this type I've played, GalCiv seems to handle the late game best. I never get really bogged down with management.

Leader, it certainly can be done, I've got a full Military Conquest on record on a medium map, and of all my games, it was the most fun. Yes, I had to fight to keep my economy going, but I did.

I liked defending the weakest civilizations from the other ones. Sometimes one would force me to beat it to nothing till it begged for mercy then id protect it as it recovered.(If it betrayed me enough id just wipe it out) Not because it was strategically significant but because it was fun. It added challenge to carry a weaker nonaggressive civilization along with you to the win.

Another thing I liked to do is load transports with good defenses with attack heavy/defense light marines and easily wipe out any coastal city i wanted to. Then I could use that city as a staging ground for continued assault. Using the AI's own roads against it as I attacked nearby cities and retreat to said controlled coastal cities. Planes being the best.