posted 04-01-99 07:44 PM ET        

It is far from exhaustive, and because I have not frequented these forums much, I am certain that some of the oddities noticed by me have been reported by other SMACers. One further caveat: I play at Transcend level exclusively and 'helm' the Gaians more often than not, so prepare yourself for a Green slant to the commentary. Again, so be it.

I am posting all this in the hopes that it will (a) intrigue others enough to reply with their own thoughts on what I have found and/or propose; (b) uncover answers to some of the questions I pose about the underlying mechanics of SMAC; and (c) perhaps even move Firaxis to consider correcting some of the less involved inconsistencies I've discovered. I will also admit to having some mixed feelings over SMAC - it is incredibly addictive, but at times I am dismayed when things "aren't as they should be" - some are a matter of personal taste (oh, to have the source code!) others involve 'true' flaws or conflicts in the game as it now is. Enough about me, on with the list.

USER INTERFACE - I've tried to break these comments down into sub-categories through use of the language in the SMAC manual. I do not know whether this leads to greater clarity or not. So, I've also added page numbers for those unfamiliar (or disinterested) with the manual jargon.

The motivations behind these suggestions are a desire to ease micromanagement, lessen the amount of mental (or pencil and paper) tracking required to manage your faction, and to render vital information more accessible to players. I would think that, implemented in concert, these suggestions would benefit both single- and multi-player games by placing the burden of low-level information management on the game engine and not the user.

Base Control Screen (p69):

(1) Somewhere (somewhere!) indicate whether a particular base has already attached an alien artifact to its network node - maybe add a character or [artifact] to the end of the network node entry in the base facilities window. I cannot tell you how much paper I have wasted tracking this single fact in games to date.

(2) Add (as an option) the ability to list the date which a base was founded in the base control screen. I originally thought that this could be appended to the name of each base, but found that the character limit of names will prevent this from working with quite a few of the 'default' names for SMAC factions. Why add this? I have found that the end-game sequence does not replay territory expansion for custom sized maps (see elsewhere) and this is the only tool I have to track expansion over time when reviewing games that have come to a close.

Production Readout (p78):

(3) Introduce information for each unit describing the morale [life cycle] level at which they will enter service from each base - possibly below each unit's picture in its production tile so that one need not mentally add up all the modifiers that will impact unit creation.

Forces Supported (p76):

(4) Differentiate between resources lost (support cost) and resources gained (supply caravans) from particular units. When I first used supply crawlers, I almost stroked out when I saw that it, too, had a mineral icon below its unit picture, just like some members of that base's garrison. A simple green plus or red minus in front of each resource 'train' below each image would get across the point of resource gain/loss more clearly than at present.

Build Orders (p77):

(5) Add information that describes the energy cost to hurry the unit or facility currently in production. Presently, the user must select the hurry option to uncover the associated cost before decided whether to go ahead and spend the energy. Personally, this leads to a lot of excessive clicking when I periodically check to see whether the cost has reached an acceptable level. Were this cost displayed in the current production window, it would save quite a bit of time.

Status View (p25):

(6) For active (selected) units, add information below the unit picture for those that have already visited a monolith. It is difficult to track 'monolith' status for several units at once, leading one to test monoliths more often than necessary.

Planet Map (p26):

(7) Add a map overlay that would color/shade terrain squares that are endangered as a result of ecological damage, so that players can check at a glance what real estate will be lost if no action is taken. [Someone else has mention this, I know.]

(8) Add a map overlay that will display rainfall patterns or banding in a manner intelligible to players. At present, terraforming elevations is more of a mystery than it should be -- I grasp that a moutain will trap moisture on the western slope and deprive the eatern slope of rainfall, but to what extent in terms of surface area? Any nummber of things could be 'west of' a new mountain range I raise, but which will be impacted?

(9) Find a way to retain 3-D sculpting of discovered terrain but force undiscovered territory (that which is all-black) flat no matter the elevation. The allure of 'discovering' new land masses is gone once one realizes that the undiscovered portions of the map are also raised in the display and that you need only target your forces for the ridges ... Possibly add this as an option, so that one could simulate both a 'rough survey' of Planet before planetfall (elevations known, but not terrain -- the way things are now) and no survey (the above suggestion) for those that choose not to reveal the entire map from the beginning of gameplay.

Design Workshop (ca. p85):

(10) Add a button to 'un-obsolete' (sorry, I haven't thought of the military term other than 'return to service') designs previously made obsolete (but still in the design queue), so that one can quickly recall an earlier design mothballed in haste rather than re-design from scratch.

PopUp Messages:

(11) Add new pop-up message option to warn players when the ecological damage of any particular base reaches some threshhold level (preferably, the player should be able to set the value of this threshhold).

(12) Add new pop-up message option to warn players when a particular base comes to rest on 'endangered' terrain as a reult of terraforming or ecological damage. This would put an end to 'click-checking' of each base when sea levels start to rise.

(13) Add new (actually, complementary) pop-up message option for the end of a multi-year random event. Frequently, these events require a substantial shift in which base tiles are being 'worked' to overcome the ten-year shortfall that players will want to return to the pre-event configuration after the shortfall ends. As it now stands, players must either track on paper or return periodically to check the base screen in order to know when things can be shifted back to the way they were.

(14) Add new pop-up message option for bases (and possibly units) struck by enemy missile fire. Basically, this message would inform the player of the coordinates from which the missile was originally fired. I imagine that this would accomplish two things: (a) it would aide tracking of the unlimited-range missile bug reported elsewhere and still encountered in version 3.0 [see elsewhere]; and (b) it would permit players to learn which bases and/or units are being used as staging areas for missile fire. I would also imagine (if implemented) that this capability would only come to factions with some requisite technology (deep radar tracking? orbital facilities?) that would reasonably permit such long-range scanning.

NB: I am beginning to realize how lengthy the complete post will be, so I will break it into (somewhat) logical parts. Be on the look-out for the rest of my thoughts.

posted 04-01-99 08:29 PM ET            

Base Facilities (p75):

(15) Denote when recycling tanks have been rendered obsolete by the presence of a pressure dome at a particular base. At present, one has to check the facilities list in order to determine whether the latter has replaced the former.

Pop-Up Messages:

(16) Add a pop-up message (option?) for occasions when a base already containing recycling tanks constructs a pressure dome (as the latter includes the capabilities of the former) giving the player an option to then recycle the recyling tanks for energy credits. This should not be automatic, as I can imagine people who will want to have both (just in case).

Detailed Right-Click Menus:

(17) Rates for terraforming are static (or appear to be) and do not reflect the 'true' durations as modified by either the Weather Paradigm or the Super Former accessory. I say 'appear' because the right-clikc menu says [for example] four turns and my Former does it in two. The suggestion here is to list durations for terraforming options as they actually are rather than simply the default [or base] rate.

(18) Add to the right-click menu for units in the garrison window (p76) an upgrade option. At present, if you want to upgrade units in a base that are being 'H'eld [and do not wish to perform a global upgrade - more on that in a later post], you need to activate the unit, upgrade it in the world map, recenter the map on the base to which the unit belongs [if the game has advanced to the next active unit], and then reenter that base's control screen to resume working with the base. In a word: tedious.

(19) For the right-click menu assigned to units in the garrison window (p76), activating a unit will dump the player from the base control window to the map window. Considering bases with multiple units a player wishes to activate, one has to jump back and forth between map and base control screens to activate the entire garrison (or more than one member of it). Possibly alter the activate option from this right-click menu to NOT exit from the base control screen until the player explicitly does so?

Diplomacy / Infiltrator Reports (ca. p123):

(20) Add to the diplomacy screen for each faction an entry for the cumulative (i.e., total of all controlled bases) ecological damage produced by each faction. Global ecological harm (rising sea levels) is a real pain, and as I play Green quite often (go Gaians!) it would be nice to know in advance of the brink of ecological disaster who among the other factions are potential threats to my coastal cities. I do not know whether one would require infiltrator status or some technology (some level of planet empathy or orbital facilities capable of mapping harmful factory output), but I do know that it fits the persona of Deirdre to 'go after' those with greatest disregard for Planet. I would also think that players with a large number of coastal cities might also be interested in prioritizing factions that will place their cities in greatest future jeopardy.

(21) Alter the output of the diplomacy screen information to display whether or not a particular faction possesses the commlink of other factions (for those with infiltrator or Pact status with said faction). Presently, the screen will simply display nothing for that faction's relation to other factions (even with infiltrator status), and it is unclear what this means - no commlink? no productive relationship?

(22) [This is probably too much and simply window-dressing, but ...] Add the capability to view other factions' monuments when one attains infiltrator or Pact [or any level?] relations with a particular faction. The game already tracks which factions accomplishes particular tasks first, so I would think that it would only be a matter of extension to add this capability. As I said, window-dressing, but I imagine the AI factions are also building monuments in need of an audience outside of that particular faction <g>.

(23) [Again, probably too much, but ...] Add diplomatic histories for each faction, so that players can begin to gauge the level of trust they should possess in relation to the other factions. Probably of more worth to multi- than single-player games, but if one could call up the history of relation of each faction (broken down according to each other faction it has contact with) it would really add to the depth/color of diplomacy. Whether or not one requires infiltrator or other diplomatic relations with a faction to view this history remains an open question.

(24) Add to diplomatic screen some indication of each faction's current social engineering .. perhaps I am missing something, but even with infiltrator status, I cannot learn whether another faction is green or a police state, etc. This would aide single-player games where one is trying to match their society with the AI to get into good graces with another faction. I feel that this should already exist and that I have simply missed it in one of the screens.

So, that (I think) concludes my thoughts on the user interface ... on to the next post. Is there anything that I have overlooked [knowing that I certainly have]?

posted 04-02-99 12:52 AM ET            

(9) I also have thought that uncharted map areas (all black) should *NOT* show how the elevation is for the squares!! With grid squares turned on you can tell where you know there is NO water because of the elevation indications by the grid lines. This is not something you should know (my view anyway).

And once again, very nice post!

posted 04-02-99 02:54 AM ET            

Glad to see that I was not the only one mentally turning over issue (9) ... yes, playing flat map does remedy the situation as cousLee points out, but at a cost to how accessible elevation information is to the player (again, as cousLee points out). I still think [hope against hope, maybe it will be "fixed"?] that offering the option to sculpt uncharted territory or not will expand map options for those playing MP and add to the mystery of exploring Planet in SP games ... my guess (but what do I know?) is that checking to see whether a tile has been explored or not and "forcing" elevation to zero for purposes of graphic rendering [only] on-screen could not be that hard.

As I see it, unexplored territory mapped with elevations detracts somewhat from the fun of exploration and is probably not what most think of when they check the option to have a fully unexplored map that first time.

Thanks for the replies,

posted 04-02-99 03:14 AM ET            

Thanks for another thought provoking thread. In keeping with your precedent, I will give responses in two postings. Besides, I think that the guys at Firaxis are so overworked by this forum that they gravitate toward the longest and most recently posted threads, so this might help draw their attention. This tactic propounded and perfected by that most prolific of posters, yin26.

re: (1) I agree, completely. Now, I might be imagining things, but I could have sworn that one of the earlier versions had that info...somewhere! Was it the demo???

re: (3) Good idea, but keep in mind that what you see might not be what you get, if you change social engineering or have a special project come online.

re: (5) You obviously have a large monitor!
I can't imagine them putting much more in that window! But then, I'm using a 15" myself and 1024x768 is REALLY pushing it.
I've got 20-20 (or at least I did pre-SMAC!)
and I'm having a tough enough time seeing everything that goes across the CRT.

re: (6) YES! YESS! YESSS!

re: (7) Good ideas, but again, with my old 15 incher, the map is already busy enough by the time global warming usually becomes an issue.

re: (9) Good idea for an optional setting, though personally, I would not choose it. I prefer to think that as the escape pods were orbiting Planet they were able to perform a topographical survey by radar. After all, you NEVER come down in the drink.

re: (10) The term you're looking for is "recommission."

re: popups, I agree on all but (14). As frustrating as it is to be on the receiving end of those seemingly endless barrages of Hive/University/Believers infinitely ranged missiles, I'd rather not be bothered by knowing exact coordinates for the launch sites of the dozen missiles that just hit me! Besides I'm not sure that would be consistent with the the general treatment of spotting and fog-of-war. I know of the implications of that line of reasoning regarding orbital defense platforms vs PB's but I'm willing to live with that inconsistency for playability and GAMING reasons.

Thanks again for proffering such a meaty post to respond to! I'll get to your second post on this thread tomorrow. It's getting late and Deirdre's calling me. I've got a great game going as the Gaian's and I think I've got just enough brainpower for one more turn before I crash. Just one more turn.

posted 04-02-99 05:46 AM ET            

First, the extension (it is truly trivial):

Base Operations Readout:

(25) The small window that will list "best bases" is prone at times to text overwriting (though the game does tend to split category and city name onto separate lines more often than not). The example that just caught my eye was the best bases list for the University, category INFRASTRUCTURE, city Relativity School. However, both were fit on one line for some reason, so the E in INFRASTRUCTURE (and the colon) is overwritten by the R in Relativity. Trivial, but noticed.

A refinement to (19):

You can activate multiple garrison units with minimal difficulty when centered on an active unit on the terrain tile of the base owning the garrison you wish to activate by using the status line on the map view screen (right-clicking on each garrison member in turn). However, if you are already not centered on that particular terrain tile, you have to click on it. This action immediately calls up the base control screen, so (for at least the first unit to be activated from the garrison) the player must jump between base control and map screens to activate more than one member of the garrison at once. A partial work-around, but I think that the core diificulty mentioned in (19) remains.

Replies in reverse ...

Dvorak first, as I will be brief -

Someone also mentioned the toggling function of the obsolete button in the workshop screen under the second part of this thread (Inconsistencies/Bugs) ... I'm still trying to figure out whether this is documented or simply discovered. Thanks for the info, and I think that I mentioned under the second thread that the obsolete button label should also toggle, as well, dependent on whether the player is currently working with an obsolete or production design (the label changing from "obsolete" to, say, "recall") to reinforce this functionality.

In regards to the 'G' command and (1) ... again, thanks. I never use the 'G' command, myself, so I guess I closed myself off from discovery of this functionality. I'll have to try it out. Question(s): Does this work-around function only for artifacts given a 'G' command, or also for transports carrying artifacts? Where is this documented?

JAMiAM -

In general, I do play on a largish monitor (19") but my eyesight isn't the best, so I think things offset a bit. I cannot imagine playing on a 15" monitor.

Regarding (3) ... I had imagined this information to be dynamically generated when needed for display, permitting the factors you mention to be tallied into the morale of units considered for production. Once units enter the field, all bets are off. <g>

As far as (5) is concerned, it looks to me (again at 19") as though there is a blank line below the time to completion listing that would nicely accommodate a hurried production cost listing. Mind you, this area is far less cramped than some others in SMAC [see my comments on the terrain tile window in the other thread].

For (7) - and (8) for that matter - I was thinking of overlays that one would toggle on or off for brief periods of time [one needs only to check for endangered terrain every now and then]. I agree that playing with additional layers of information would be a nightmare, but I feel that being able to visually overlay the information mentioned in (7) and (8) onto the map of Planet is somewhat better than the click-fests and confusion I've already encountered.

Yes, "recommission" fits the bill, but it appears others have located a feature I had thus far not [see this thread: vorak, the second thread in this series, too] ...

Finally, (14) - I will admit to it being born of frustration on my part with those pesky missiles by the AI. I thought it might be a quick hack to test missile ranges <wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more ...> I was also thinking along two other lines. First, units that hit you with artillery fire are 'revealed' even when hidden in fungal squares [though how I would like it if they remained hidden - imagine the calamity], so I thought: "why not know the origin of missile fire, too?" After all, with the proper systems [orbital facilities? deep radar?] tracking missile trajectories would be rather simple. Second, I thought that it might limit the effectiveness of stealth missile launchers [subs] in multi-player games. Instead of parking off a coast and not having to budge your sub carrier unless actively forced to, if the coordinates of launch vessel were given to the targeted faction it would promote more movement out in the oceans. <g>

Maybe (14) should take the form of a message in the data MFD rather than a pop-up. Call me paranoid, but I'd like concrete verification that the AI is not firing unlimited range missiles and I'd like to know what I have to knock out in order to get them to knock it off.

Again, thanks to both of you for taking the time to enlighten my opening thoughts here.

posted 04-02-99 08:00 AM ET            

1. the "g" key works for this info when the artifact is on the same continent but is not helpfull or unlinked nodes at sea bases or on other land masses. In the demo 1.0, it would show if the node was linked in the MPD. this should be put back in the game, it would fix this problem but you would have to scroll through each base to determine if the node was linked. (really, I don't mind the scrolling)

3. I like that idea. (but it would change if you switch SE midproduction on choices that affect morale, or build in one of the other bases a SP that gives each base a +moral facility).

4. there is a + or - on the mineral icon for units (the + is blue, the - is red) I can clearly see the blue + on the blue mineral icon, but I am also colorblind. others may not be able to see it).

5. your only talking about 2 clicks. keep this formula in mind when looking at your production. as far as i can tell, the costs are determined as such. Facilities=2 energy per mineral needed, Units=3 energy per, and prototypes and SPs are 4 energy per. this allows me to tell at a glance if it is acceptable to hurry.

6. that would be nice. maybe an ! with the +s shown in parenthesis. i.e. veteran (++) as opposed to veteran (!++).

On the side, I would like to be able to give elite units specific names (like you could do in RRT when an engine set a new land speed record)

7. agree. this could be added to the support display in the MPD without having to adjust the main map programming.

8. this varies depending on the cloud cover selected at the begining of the game. (or did i miss the point you are trying to make)

9, 10. Already addressed.

13. you do get a message that this returned to normal, but a popup would be nice. (I forget to check my messages also).

NB: create your post's offline as a .txt, then cut and paste.

15,16. include in your request, notification of bases that have hologram theaters AND network nodes when the Virtual World is built or acquired.

19,20. that too would be nice.

21. you can get this information by accessing the datalinks when communicating this a faction. it would be nice to include this with the "faction profile" option, but it is available.

missed #s: either no comment, or no experience with the problems mentioned.

posted 04-02-99 01:23 PM ET            

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I KNEW I saw it somewhere. I used to play at 800x600,
also. I went to 1024x768 when I realized that I wasn't getting the full display in the MRD. Of course, I'm now going blind playing on my 15" Compudyne monitor, but what the heck, I've got hairy palms anyway!
At least now I know I was not (planet)dreaming it.

posted 04-02-99 04:41 PM ET            

gotag -

Yes, see my extending comment for (19), but I still feel that the functionality first mentioned under this point is needed.

axe -

Thanks for the clarification. I do not play 800x600 myself, guided by the mistaken impression that 1024x768 offered more, more, more. Now knowing that the lower resolution offers the information on network node status [but not the higher], can we somehow compel Firaxis to bring the two resolutions into agreement on this feature?

cousLee -

As far as (1) and the 'G' command, I had not yet tested it out myself, but thought the peculiarities you mention would exist. Thanks for the verification.

For (3), I realize fully how frequently base morale levels fluctuate, but some information [subject to change] is better than none when planning what route to go with unit production at a base.

For (4), I am a tad colorblind, as well. Obviously not the same way, though, because I do not notice the +/- playing at 1024x768 on my 19"-er. Next sortie into the game and I will check for the signs on the minerals. It seems to me that it would be easier to pick up the +/- on the black background [if placed in front of each resource "train"] than on the minerals themselves.

For (5), it may be two clicks, but carried over a sprawling empire it quickly becomes a click-fest. I'm often too tired [or too rattled by the Chairman Yang] when playing to start adding up a bunch of little boxes <g>, but point taken. From my perspective, though, such mental math should be eliminated whenever possible in the interface.

Regarding the naming of elite units ... I think it would bloat the memory requirements, esp. for late games when one is minting elite units right out of the producion queue.

I will admit that I did not do a stellar job of explaining my point in (8). It is perhaps too difficult a thing to capture with a visual overlay, but here is another go at it. When raising or lowering terrain, it will impact weather patterns to the west and east of a given point, but only so far [I would hope] in terms of immediate area around the terraformed tile. The point I was trying to make is that there is no indication [when terraforming or planning to terraform in this manner] of the extent to which you will alter weather patterns. So, instead of raising a ocean bed to ocean shelf and killing off rainfall some thirty tiles away [happens all the time] and ruining my crop production, I am seeking some overlay that would let the player see which areas would potentially be impacted by changes in elevation. Does this clarify my intent with (8)?

Regarding (13), you are right that a message does appear in the data MFD, but the box is so tiny and often overflows with messages here and there [though sometimes it fails to trap all incoming messages, I have found]. Anyway, if there is an option to display a pop-up for beginning and end for the "Golden Age" why not also for other transitory events in the game. There is a pop-up option for the commencement of random events, but not the conclusion.

For (15), (16), and extension to the Virtual World case: yes, this is a related issue, but carries with it the additional danger of losing the VW Secret Project and thus, the benefits for those bases with network nodes. I guess I was playing it safe by offering only a case where obsolescence arises on a base-by-base basis [odd phrasing] rather than through a secret project - in the latter case, one could also clamor for a pop-up to scrap and recylcle all naval yards with the advent of the Maritime Control Center, etc. Not that I don't agree with you, but the case I presented [recycling tanks and pressure domes] is a "safer" recycle option as it does not depend [potentially] on a facility at another base to arise as an option.

I'll look into your comments on (21), I think your words lead me to think that this is an example of information being available in one place but not another, closely related place in the game.

Again, thanks all for the feedback.

posted 04-02-99 07:57 PM ET            

I did take the time to check for the +/- cousLee pointed out in reference to (4). There are indeed small +/- signs over the resources in the units supported readout. However, I find the plusses on the nutrient icons nearly invisble [green on green - my colorblindness at work?] and the blue signs on the minerals nearly as bad ... I guess I am still of the opinion that placing the signs atop the black background would be much more legible.

Not much new to add [yet] as I really want to finish up the game at hand.

posted 04-04-99 05:01 AM ET            

A few additions to the list:

(26) This has already been mentioned under a thread in the "Game" forum, but I thought I'd raise the issue here as well ... possibly add (somewhere) a visual indicator when you are next able to convene the heads of all the factions together. Having been pressed in a recent game to call a session of the council [and checking again and again when I could because I cannot count to ten reliably], I now see the utility of this addition.

(27) Add to the data MFD messages pertaining to alterations in rainfall caused by a player's or AIs' formers. These messages stream by on the Planet map display itself, but are not captured in the MFD for reading when the player finally has control over his/her turn. I tend not to recollect all the messages displayed atop the map, so it may just be me and my faulty memory motivating this suggestion.

I had a few more comments, but they require some further thought on my part.

posted 04-05-99 03:13 AM ET            

Just now getting back to the second part of your original post (and extensions.) Before continuing, please go to "The Game" forum and read my reply to Nell_Smith in her thread on base governors. It explains some of my preference settings and micro-management techniques and has bearing on some of my comments below. Unfortunately, it is too long to duplicate to here.

re: (17) Are you sure about that? I thought that the base rate for boreholes was 24 turns. It always shows 16 turns after I build the Weather Paradigm. Likewise, other tasks which have 4 turn base rates drop to 3 turns. I don't recall if it further changes for "super" formers. If it doesn't, then your point does have some validity. However, keep in mind that 2 terraformers working the same task accomplish it in half the time. Further complicating matters, if you have a regular former and a super-former performing the task, it only takes one-third the time, 2 supers, one-quarter, etc. Therefore it might be best to simply stick with base rates (adjusted for SPs) in the terraform menu. You can always right click on a square, choose "info on this square" and drag cursor over the former(s). It will show the number of it/they have left until the job's done.

re: (18) For individual upgrades, this is the easiest solution that I've found. Set your preferences so that the game holds at the end of each turn. After your last unit has activated and been moved or skipped, go to whichever base(s) you have units which you want to upgrade, right click on base tile, choose "info on this square," you can then activate your units from the bottom scrolling display without entering the base window. A single left click per unit will activate any/all units you care to adjust/upgrade. This technique can also be used mid-turn to activate multiple units at a base without having to encounter the annoying centering of next unit runaround that occurs when you activate a unit then move it out of base. I guess that this addresses your (19) also.

re: (20) This would be a nice touch (for those Green enough to care!)

re: (26),(27),(28) These are all good ideas.

This is turning out to be a very interesting thread, keep it up.

JAMiAM

posted 04-05-99 05:20 PM ET            

I had already read your post in "The Game" on playing style, and believe me you [I love that tortured phrase], I play SMAC in the exact same way that you do. Confronted with the same challenges in managing a far-flung empire, I, too, adopted the style of play described in your post.

Regarding (17), I have also noticed that [now] the pop-up times for terraforming appear to be "corrected" for advances in terraforming rates. I first noticed the faulty behavior first described in version 2.0, so perhaps the times were corrected in 3.0 and I am only now noticing them? Consider it scratch off the list until I find a counter-example in the latest version to prove otherwise.

For (18) and (19), I have similarly adopted the approach you outline. However, this take on the situation does not address the underlying issues guiding either of these points: greater flexibility in the base control screen. Now that I think about it, perhaps extend (18) and (19) to include greater functionality for the base operations window? I'll have to look into that, as I do not really use the base operations screen all that much, so ...

I'm green enough to care about (20). <g>

Thanks for the support of (26) through (28).

posted 04-06-99 04:59 AM ET            

An extension to (18): After playing around with the base operations readout, I think it would be nice should the 'U'pgrade unit choice be added when right-clicking units in each base's garrison.

Minor (very minor) addition to the list:

(29) Bases in the process of constructing naval vessels when there is no possible way of getting them out to sea ought to trigger a warning pop-up message informing the player of the situation. The anecdote here is that, for once, I managed to launch the solar shade to stave off rising sea levels, but the darn thing worked too well, so much so that I found many of my coastal cities inland after a few turns. One of my bases had continued to produce the latest, state of the art, battlecruiser, only to find that (by the time the prototype was complete) the base was fully land-locked. I probably should have kept a better eye on my holdings, but a pop-up message would have drawn my attention to the problem in no time. <g>

posted 04-06-99 01:56 PM ET            

TeRbO

posted 04-06-99 06:39 PM ET            

axe -

In regards to (1), your observation is welcomed, as it reinforces my own view that there seems to be enough room to [re-]add this information to the facilities list under 1024x768 resolution.

Terbo -

For (26), I cannot claim the idea as my own [after all, I did lift it from another thread], but I would like to extend it a bit in my own fashion after reading your comment. Actually, I'll add it as a new item in its own right:

(27) For the UN resolutions pop-up that appears when a player wishes to convene council, denote [mark, grey-out?] among the possible resolutions to be considered those that cannot be voted upon at that time. As per page 132 of the manual ["No single proposal can be considered more than once every 20 years."], it would be nice to know at a glance whether a particular proposal (though listed) can actually be considered or not. Often, I find myself checking repeatedly for the availability of a resolution that some other faction [too] recently called for consideration but failed to pass. The logic here is that should a resolution not be open to consideration, its unavailability should be reflected in the user interface.

posted 04-06-99 06:41 PM ET            

Major typo, that last reply should add a new item (30), not item (27) ... I knew I'd make this type of error sooner or later. Mea culpa.

The last portion of the last post should then read: "(30) For the UN resolutions pop-up ..."

posted 04-07-99 09:06 AM ET            

JT3 -

See further above in this thread. Such listing of linked status seems to only appear when playing under 800x600. What is being asked for is the addition of this feature to the 1024x768 layout.

The [minor] addition:

(31) Add to the secret project reports readout a "time to completion" for each project underway by each faction with whom you possess pact/infiltrator status. A minor suggestion, but one that might reduce the amount of base-clicking [or scrolling through the base operations readout] required to locate the above information.

I said it was minor! <g>

posted 04-07-99 10:02 AM ET         

in v3.0 with the base governor turned off, if you finish producing a base facility, you get a popup announcing that the base facility was built. If you go to the base screen, you can then add what you want to produce next. If the last item in your queue is a unit, it will not give you the popup and it will continue producing that unit until you tell it to stop.

posted 04-07-99 01:12 PM ET            

TeRbO

posted 04-08-99 06:07 PM ET            

Try hitting F4. This brings up a list of your cities and what they are producing (and if the gov. is on) You can also use the other F keys for other nifty menus like in Civ...

posted 04-09-99 02:31 AM ET            

Sure, terraform your way out ... what else can one do? <g>

Everything else in the most immediate posts seem to have already addressed by other posters, so I thought I might sneak in yet another addition to the list:

(32) The right-hand side of the status view where current energy reserves are listed do not update when one hurries the production of base facilities through use of the base operations status (p113). This is problematic, because one has no idea how many reserves are left when ordering multiple production rushes in this manner. The suggestion would be for the energy reserves readout to refresh with each "hurry" or to add another energy reserves readout in the base operations status window that will refresh [if the former suggestion is unworkable with the current coding].

Thanks,

posted 04-09-99 04:25 PM ET            

TeRbO

posted 04-10-99 08:36 AM ET            

Terbo -

I have "transcended" whether or not someone (anyone? c'mon guys!) associated with Firaxis has read this bloated [my fault] thread. Either they have or they have not, either they are taking things into consideration or not, but they are ceratinly keeping mum about it all. <g> As I soon have to limit my forum browsing (and SMACing) to return to my work, I will patiently await the next round of enhancements from Firaxis and then try to find correlates between what is included and those things I've questioned. What else is to be done?

I was going to add another item to the thread, but my thoughts are a bit muddled at the moment and it has now slipped my mind.

Oh, well,