miguv

Reply to galciv vs. SMAC in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

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 smal

Reply to galciv vs. SMAC in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

The Council had little impact??!!! not at all... changing sea levels alone can make or break your game (not to mention how the planetary governor gets lots of bonuses) BTW I just finished a game in transcend with the tech victory (I hate conquests... don't have the patience for them) so it is open ended. Librarian, The quote is from Doctrine:Flexibility LOL

Reply to galciv vs. SMAC in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Some interesting points were mentioned (cool analyses Librarian and Za H). But I sort of disagree on some things... for example I didn't find combat unsatisfying and SMAC is open-ended (economic, conquest, diplomatic, and tech victories not to mention allied ones). It's also disencouraging to hear/read that GalCiv has worse presentation values than a 4-year-old game :( Another thing to keep in mind is where the game's going. I still play SMAC but do so with the lates

galciv vs. SMAC in Galactic Civilizations I Stardock Forums

Hi everyone I'm a SMAC fan still deciding whether to buy GalCiv or not. I think it's one of the best sci-fi turn-based strategy games ever so I was wondering how people (those who've played both games) think GalCiv stacks up against it. which parts are better/worse? are they similiar at all? etc. Since this is a GalCiv forum I expect people here to love the game but please try to be fair to a classic. :p