[Dobian]

I agree with Couslee. I have SMAC, and it was my favorite TBS game until SE4 came along.

You may think the unit design in SMAC is flawed, but it's still fun. And Civ 3 doesn't even have unit design. SMAC also has a complex tech tree that keeps the late game intersting with all the facilities and units you can build. Contrast that to the tedious late game of Civ 3. Like SE4, factions in SMAC are unitque with their own strategies. Miriam plays different than Deirdre, who plays diferent than Morgan, etc. In Civ 3, the strategies among the diferent civs isn't as diverse. SMAC also has a complex government and social model that doesn't exist in Civ 3. What are there, four government systems in Civ 3?! In SMAC, you have abou a half dozen government types, and social and economic models to choose from. SMAC also lets you play the game how you want, just like SE4. You can be a reckless expansionist if you want. You can also be like Israel, a tiny little powerhouse. In Civ 3, you have to play every game the same, as an expansionist. Don't expand, and you're finished. Again, makes the games too similar and repetitive.

I don't totally dislike Civ 3. I give it kudos for its random resources concept, which is well implemented. I also like the idea of the cultural borders. Diplomacy is very well done, too. Too bad the AI cheats when it comes to tech trading, though (civs will trade with everyone else except you, unless you want to pay up the nose). The AI in Civ 3 is also more aggressive than in SMAC. Civs will actualy attack you with an *army* (especially those Persians!), and not just a few units, like in SMAC. I like the look and style of the game. It's okay. But SMAC is better, IMO.