[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.