How does SEIV compare to SMAC?

[dmm]

While everyone's holding their breath waiting for the release of SEIV, and my program is calculating:

How does everyone think SEIV compares to that great game, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC)? (If you don't know what SMAC is, then probably you won't find this an interesting thread.) Of course, a straight comparison isn't possible since SMAC is planet-based rather than space-based, but what the heck, I'll start anyway. (This is all based on playing the full Version of SMAC and the .56 demo of SEIV.)

1) Without a doubt, combat in SEIV is much better. Even strategic combat is much better; tactical combat blows SMAC out of the water. When it comes right down to it, SMAC only has five kinds of combat -- regular, artillery, air, psi, and satellite. These are all very simple. You can't even have multiple units attack/defend at once. In contrast, all SEIV weapons have strength, range, accuracy, rate, speed, target limits, and special attributes. Ditto for SEIV defensive stuff.
2) Graphics are prettier in SMAC.
3) Storyline is great in SMAC. I don't think SEIV even has one.
4) SMAC has sound bites and videos when you complete research projects. I thought this was amazingly cool when I played the first few times, but now I usually cut them off. Does the full Version of SEIV have anything like this?
5) Music: SEIV demo doesn't have any, so I can't compare here.
6) Victory. I like how SMAC has multiple ways of winning. SEIV victory seems basically limited to the 4th X, eXterminate. (With variations like assimilate and subjugate.)
7) Tech tree: On the whole, I like SEIV's much better. I like the way you can ignore huge areas if you want, and that some areas are restricted to certain races. SMAC's is all tied together with overlapping prerequisites, so it is hard to ignore low-level techs. However, SEIV's is heavily slanted toward combat techs, which I don't like as well as SMAC's balance.
8) Base development: I like SMAC better here. The tech for base development (i.e., resource development, research enhancement, population control, etc.) is richer, more incremental, and has more immediate gains so there's much more incentive to develop sophisticated megabases. You don't need to have the most "acreage" to win in SMAC.
9) Base defense: But then here SMAC loses.
10) Intel: SEIV has more variety, but SMAC intel is easier to do early on in the game. And I like how the researchy guys in SMAC (University) are susceptible to covert ops.
11) Politics: Roughly even. I like how SMAC computer players will ask for specific help, and get more/less friendly if you help/decline.
12) Trade: I still haven't figured out trade in SEIV. I never do it. So I'll let someone else comment on that.

Well, that's enough for now. Anyone else have comments/opinions/rebuttals/info/flames/etc. ?

[Seawolf]

Um,

Seems you want to be convinced to get SE IV. Either you like it or don't you really can't compare the 2. Unless you a reviewer and you trying to get us to do your work for you.

------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

[Comar]

Played them both, didn't care for SMAC. It was okay, but didn't push my buttons. This is a lot more fun.

[dmm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seawolf:
Um,
Seems you want to be convinced to get SE IV.

---

Hmmm, is that how I sound? That wasn't my intention. The only one in my family who doesn't love SEIV is my wife, who hates all computer games. (Other than that, she's perfect!) I'm planning to buy SEIV for Christmas (for the kids, you know).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seawolf:
Either you like it or don't you really can't compare the 2.

---

Why do you think they are so totally different that one can't compare them? They're both 4X games, after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Seawolf:
Unless you a reviewer and you trying to get us to do your work for you.

---

LOL!!! Man, are you cynical! I hope its just a temporary election-year effect. I'm a scientist, actually. We like to compare things.

[Seawolf]

DMM,

Sorry my post did come out a bit strong.... Will replay later but consider yourself lucky that your wife does not like computer games as she is not fighting for computer time with you!




------------------
Seawolf on the prowl

[dmm]

Hey, you're right! My wife IS perfect!

[Comar]

Mine hates computer games but will sit on the computer for hours playing solitare. It bores me to tears, but it's hard to kick her off. You are really lucky.

[Iron Giant]

I have a headache and cannot articulate:

Simply put, SMAC held my attention for around one week.

I think I've played the SEIV demo longer than I played SMAC....

[Taqwus]

SMAC is fundamentally a builder. Build bases, build bases, build more bases... if there is non-rocky space, you can colonize it. There's an emphasis on micromanagement (SEVERE problem on large maps, as the autoformer AI isn't exactly clued, and neither are the governors), and far less on military logistics (for instance, sea and ground units never, ever run out of fuel).

SMAC is decent, but I wouldn't call it great. Too many obvious bugs when released, too many age-old design flaws (The handling of air units is STILL extremely poor; even missiles are blocked by unarmed formers. Your own artillery shelled other pieces of your own artillery. The AI still cheats like a bandit; for instance, it *knows* what tech and resources you have, even when it can't. And the tech model is silly; why is tech cost based solely on the number I have, and not the type/level? And so forth).

The one thing it did pretty well was the socioeconomic model, and even that was skewed (Morgan, for instance, got less benefit from choosing wealth/free market than anybody else because of the breakpoints -- e.g. +1 -> +2 Econ being much, much more useful than +2 -> +3, especially compared to the cost; and the game seemed weighted towards Green).

SE4's a lot better suited as a wargame -- logistics matter, for instance. Tactics matter. Unit design matters; it's not just monolithic attack/defense factors anymore. It's possible to actually benefit a LOT from a surrender due to the vast tech tree, whereas in SMAC a surrender often meant that you got 1-2 badly terraformed bases and a horde of obsolete units to support.

And the endgame (especially on a really huge map) is tedium incarnate due to the lack of stack support, the ability to develop faster engines for ground units, a GOTO command that had problems realizing that Planet was round, and so forth.

Incidentally, I prefer SE4's art to SMAC. The interface is a LOT crisper and to the point, IMHO.

[General Hawkwing]

To put it blankly. Having only played the demo for both: I will buy SE4, I will not buy SMAC.