posted 04-01-99 11:47 PM ET        

Being a list of "bugs" the evidence for each is largely anecdotal, but each instance that led me to list it here was noticeable enough to warrant flagging it as faulty program behavior. AI considerations will be left for a later posting.

Graphic Glitches:

(1) On the world view (p24), certain cities are mapped with the color black rather than the color of your faction. I cannot find any reason for this behavior, so I am assuming some underlying issue here.

(2) In resource MFD (p70), when an enemy transport occupies a production tile the MFD displays one of the transported units rather than the transport itself. The latter graphic (the transport) would appear to be the more logical choice for representation here.

(3) For vertical scrollbars [I believe when using the production readout (p78)], the upper arrow is mistakenly right-aligned rather than centered over the scrollbar itself. Trivial, but still of notice.

(4) Occasionally, military units of enemy factions will appear in miniature on the world map (relative to other units on the map). This miniaturization will also occur in the design workshop for the chassis image shoud you try to design a unit (for example, an infantry unit) with the planet-buster warhead. I am not certain what causes this scaling down, but it does not appear to be relative elevation levels.

Military Command Nexus (p115):

(5) When viewing other factions with whom a player possesses infiltrator standing, the command nexus will report that other factions possess destroyed planet busters, even though (a) these missiles have never been used in the game by said faction; and (b) the faction does not even possess the capability to produce such weapons [to cover the possibility that they were constructed but destroyed before used]. Very odd. Very, very odd.

(6) [Anecdotal, but one can generalize the ninconsistency here] I captured two units from an enemy faction in one turn of a design that I previously did not possess. Both the command nexus and the design workshop mistakenly reported that I had only one unit of that type, even though I was looking at two on the map at the time. I then upgraded one of my units to the design just captured, and the active count climbed to two (not three). Capturing a third unit of that type by probe that exact same turn left the active count at two (not four). In later turns (after upgrading some of my own units to that design) the counter was still off by two. Minor flaw, but I can imagine that this mistaken offset in the counter(s) may be produced by other sequences of events or accumulate counter errors (as above) over and over, limiting the accuracy of command nexus readout as a whole.

Production and Bases:

(7) I was able to attain production of four minerals before the advent of ecological engineering by my faction (before which, mineral production is supposed to be limited to three per production tile). The combination producing this faulty output was a forest planted on a terrain tile containing a mineral bonus (2 minerals for the forest + 2 minerals for the bonus = 4, a fact verified on the resource MFD and comparison of the MFD with the resource collection readout). Potentially unbalancing for multi-player games. I have yet to check for other violations of resource collection limits prior to acquisition of the appropriate technologies.

(8) Playing on the difficulty level of Transcend, I notice that at my first base (the one generated on planetfall) produces a drone with the appearance of the second population unit. Subsequent bases produce a drone on the appearance of the third population unit. I do not understand why this would be. Is the 'early drone' syndrome produced by the presence of the Headquarters there? I subsequently lost that first base to mindworms, rebuilt without a headquarters [I'll comment on that later] and just like every other city, a drone resulted only with the appearance of the third population unit. Absent explanation, this is unbalancing. I do not know whether similar effects are produced at lower difficulty levels.

(9) I was able to attain a population level of nine at a base before constructing a hab complex or even possessing the capability of doing so. Since I was playing Gaian (not the Peacekeepers), this is definitely a "bug." What had happened was that the city was already of population size seven (or perhaps it was only six) when it received a random effect population boom, jumping the population right to nine. I did not receive a warning that the city could not grow any further in population until it had accumulated enough nutrients to move to a population size of ten (obviously, it continued to accumulate nutrients despite the lack of a hab complex). Potential bug in population size v. accommodations checking under the effects of this is random event. I assume that the logical result would be growth to housing capacity (seven in this case) and not just a +2 (or +3, whatever the specific effect) to population from the random event.

(10) No safeguards placed on the drill to aquifer order (p50) other than in cases where drilling next to a pre-existing river. You can start multiple formers drilling in contiguous terrain tiles provided that none of them have finished the terraforming task (so, you can start all of them at once, or order additional formers to drill in adjacent tiles provided that none of those already drilling have completed the task). Not really a bug, but the results when each respective former finishes drilling can be a bit odd ... one will produce a long river and then another finishes tapping an aquifer, and rather than adding a tributary to the first river, it will completely redraw a new river, potentially erasing the first. Perhaps checking formers ordered to drill not only for a neighboring river (as is now the case) but also other formers drilling would be in order here.

(11) Whether or not a captured mindworm will have an attached support cost appears to be determined in a rather odd fashion. Here is the supporting anecdote: A base with a population size of three and a social support level of 0 (two free units per base) is garrisoned by two mindowrms supported by that same base. A mindworm emerges from a neighboring fungus tile and one of the garrisoned worms moves out and captures it. The newly-captured mindworm is assigned to this particular base, but the forces supported readout (p76) for the base shows three mindworms [which was right] but with none of which with mineral support costs [which was wrong]. Both of the worms outside [the one previously garrisoned and the worm just captured] return to garrison the base. Checking the forces supported readout again, the third worm now has a mineral support cost of one [as should have been from the beginning]. It appears that the support cost is only calculated when the worm returns to the base supporting it, but I do not know why there would be a support cost one the one hand and not the other.

Loopholes:

[Behaviors noticed, but I am uncertain whether they are intentional or just plain bugs.]

(12) Normally, units that have moved in a turn cannot be upgraded if a player does it on a per-unit basis. However, if you upgrade all units of a certain type through the design workshop, even units that have moved that turn are upgraded. Others have reported this inconsistency (logically, either units that have moved can or cannot be upgraded), as well. I would think that one should still be able to globally upgrade through the design workshop, regardless of whether or not all units of that type have remained static for the turn, but that the upgrade action through the design workshop only upgrade the unmoved units that turn and either (a) upgrade the moved units the following turn; or (b) not upgrade the moved units at all.

(13) Supply units that expend all their movement points in a turn can still be activated and issued a convoy resources ("O") command that takes effect on that turn. As with upgrading units and ordering terraform orders, the convoy resources order should logically not take effect at all if the supply unit has moved completely (or at all?) on a given turn.

(14) When you capture a unit from a faction through probe activity that incorporates technology unattained by your faction, you are able to use the design workshop to design different units with the new technologies if you work from (select and then alter) the captured design - going from, for example, a missile skimship to missile infantry. However, if you work from scratch (select a blank cell and add components to the design) in the workshop, you are unable to incorporate these new elements into a design. Logically, you should either be able to incorporate captured (though unresearched) components into designs or not. Anecdote: this loophole is terribly unbalancing, as I have captured a unit from the University for as low as 33 credits that was equipped with both armor and weapon unresearched by my faction but now able to be used in any number of designs provided I work off the captured design and not a blank cell in the workshop. [Comments on probe activity costs will be covered elsewhere, but you can see that 33 credits can go a very long way under the right circumstances. <g>]

(15) [Anecdotal, but points to a potential flaw:] I had a probe team adjacent to an enemy faction's stack containing both a military unit and an enemy probe team. Moving my probe team into the enemy's terrain tile began probe team combat. After I won the combat, I noticed that my probe team could still move, so I again moved into the enemy terrain tile and proceeded to capture the military unit through probe activity. This seems to violate the rule of only being able to mind control solitary units (p135). It also does not make sense that the stack would not only prevent any probe activity, but the presence of the military unit should have "protected" the enemy probe team from psi combat by (logically) providing cover fire to defend the stacked probe team from possible assault. Moreover, that my probe team was not only able to destroy the enemy probe team but also mind control the military unit in one turn seems a bit much. This loophole makes it impossible to "protect" probe teams from other probe teams with stacked military units and it all means that a probe team does not prevent mind control (if defeated) of a unit, even though it would seem logical that if two stacked units prevent mind control, when one of those units is a probe team the protection should be all the more complete. At the very least, being able to kill the probe team AND capture the military unit in one turn is a bit unbalanced.

Miscellaneous Display Problems:

(16) The Borehole Cluster interlude appears before you ever encounter it. I presume it is triggered by AI factions locating the boreholes. [Others have reported it.]

(17) The status view window for the current terrain tile does not have enough display area to present all the tile's information at once. This is quite apparent for an ocean square that is both a geothermal spring and covered with sea fungus (one sees: "Geothermal, Sea") in terms of horizontal area. In terms of vertical area, a geothermal ocean square with a kelp farm and mining platform displays with only the top half of "mining platform" visible. Trivial, but a bit distracting.

(18) Replay of territorial expansion during the end-game sequence does not appear to function at all for custom-sized maps. With both 128x128 and 128x96 [the only ones I tested so far] maps, the year counter advances but the window reserved for the map of Planet is entirely black. Is this a subtle way to discourage using oversized maps? <g>

(19) [Anecdotal, unsure of underlying issue.] I attack a oceanic base of an enemy faction with a needlejet and destroy the last remaining military unit in the base. Immediately, I receive a pop-up alert that I have destroyed the last unit in the base and captured an alien artifact (see p107). I have no idea where the artifact went, but I assume it was destroyed as there was nothing in the base I attacked (or in any of my bases) after the message [I had infiltrator status with the enemey faction in question]. I would guess that this should not happen at all, since the air unit could not possibly transfer/capture the alien artifact since it is banned from occupying bases altogether.

Combat/Movement Inconsistencies:

(20) The odds for psi combat do not appear to be calculated properly when there are a large number of modifiers (high planet rating, secret projects, etc.). Others have reported this as well.

(21) If a player has the "calculate combat odds" option enabled and encounters alien lifeforms (mind worms, et al.), he/she can decline to enter combat and keep ramming the alien lifeform until a successful capture. [Again, others have mentioned this as well.]

(22) Airdropping into a fungal tile will prevent the airdrop unit from moving that turn. That perhaps makes sense, but units from factions with the Xenoempathy Dome SP are also prevented from moving if dropped into a fungal tile. Since the special project permits fungal squares to be travelled as roads are, it would seem the the movement restriction should be lifted in this case (so the airdropped unit will get a chance to move).

Design Workshop:

(23) Prototyping costs are inconsistent. It seems from personal experience and comments made on these forums that prototype expenses are incurred only for the first unit type that uses a new technology. This does not make sense, as placing some accessory on a needlejet will be radically different from placing the same accessory on a rover (for example), if only to resolve issues of aerodynamics, etc. On occasion, the protoype cost will reappear even after I have a unit of the same design active in the field. At other times, completion of a prototype at one base will nullify prototype costs for newly designed units that begin construction at other bases on the same turn. In a word: huh?

(24) The scout design (1-1-1 infantry) will return again and again even after it has been removed from the workshop inventory through global upgrades or outright retirement of the design - this is with the autoprune and autodesign options turned off.

(25) [Anecdotal:] After capturing a 'better' unit through probe activity from an enemy faction at the beginning of a turn, I entered the workshop and selected a lesser design of mine from the same class [in this case, a skimship] and hit upgrade [presumably, to the newly captured design which was a step up from my own]. Instead of being prompted whether or not I wanted to pay a certain cost to upgrade to the new design, I was presented with a pop-up message declaring that the "upgrade was complete." Clicking "OK", I exited the workshop and checked the unit I had attempted to upgrade on the world view screen. It had not been upgraded. Manually upgrading the single unit [through the right-click menu] did the trick [and did cost energy credits], but I do not understand the strange behavior I encountered by performing the same action from within the design workshop.

That's it for the second post in the series, there should be two more of these overly-long posts before I am through ... I hope someone can assist in explaining or working through the things I've detailed above.

posted 04-02-99 12:36 AM ET            

(7) Working as designed ... bonus squares are exempt from the "cap" on resources.

(10) Possibly related ... you can interrupt a Former after it has spent some turns on a task (such as Aquifer) ... and it retains the number of turns "invested" in tasks ... now move the Former elsewhere and start a new task ... that new task starts as if the number of invested turns were already spent on it. I have set formers on Aquifer just to build up their "invested turns" ... interrupted them and sent them off to a new land and they instantly could build farms and roads. This is a feature (and I think it adds to the game strategy). Not sure if this has any relation to your comment on the Aquifer.

(23) I imagine this decision was made to make the game more "fun" (I think "fun" has precedence over "realistic").

posted 04-02-99 01:44 AM ET            

re: (10) They "fixed" this anomaly for boreholes (in v3.0 patch) but apparently forgot about the aquifiers! Maybe in v4.0?

re: (11) Native lifeforms do not require support when in fungus tiles. Keep them out of your cities and you won't have to import so much Purina Worm Chow! It can really be a bummer when you forget and move a stack of domestics out of the fungus and suffer a mineral shortfall, because you can bet it's gonna be your best unit that gets disbanded!

re: (15) I think that the protection from probe team subversion by stacking is a game mechanic to represent "strength in numbers."
The number of individuals in a probe team is relatively small compared to a combat team. So, it's not too unreasonable to think that after the psi vs psi (or spy vs spy) combat has played out, a combat team which has just witnessed the repudiation of their faction's power would be willing to switch allegiances.

Keep on posting.

posted 04-02-99 02:32 AM ET            

But you did bring to mind an odd sort of bug that I have encountered: sometimes "Automatic Obsolesence" obsoletes perfectly viable units!

In particular my "Liberty Ship", a 1-5-6 Clean Destroyer Transport, seems to get black-balled regularly. My "Combat Transport" isn't clean and fulfills a different role than the "Liberty Ship". The computer seems to think otherwise. Clean units should probably only be obsoleted by superior Clean units.

Certain air units also get thrown on the scrap list, like a 13-x-x*4 Chopper might get obsoleted if I also design an 8e-x-x*2 Chopper, or maybe vice-versa? I don't know what triggered my air units to get canned.

posted 04-02-99 03:21 AM ET            

Second to that is fault-free typing, but as I look over my post I can only apologize for the silly errors that crept in while typing in the miniscule text box. <g> Beg pardon.

CaptComal -

As far as (7) is concerned, I will take your word that this is the way things were designed to be, I wonder how you know this though ... I guess I could see where bonus tiles represent resources so plentiful that it doesn't take much work (= advanced technologies) to pull them (turnips, ores, what have you) from the ground. I guess I had approached the bonus tiles as representative of areas potentially bountiful in resources but requiring quite a bit of labor to tap into them (e.g., oil drilling in some locations on earth) and that the resource cap was absolute - it certainly reads that way in the manual and datalinks. I guess this leads to an unspoken (thus far) revision in the datalinks so that these "hidden" rules become accessible to all and not just the observant. <g>

Regarding (10), I do not think it is related, but what you describe does not make much sense to me, personally. I do not see (logically) how a former could "carry over" [potentially divergent, as you describe] labor from one tile to another ... I wonder, for comparison, whether this was a feature in Civ II. Back to the point, what you describe is more troubling to me - "he who prefers reasonable game options" - that what I originally described.

Regarding prototyping in (23), I find the way things are far more confusing that fun. It would be one thing if you had to build a prototype of the component apart from whole units in the game (which might make the "way things are" more reasonable), but whole unit prototypes are all about combinations and not just components. Here, again, available documentation is cloudy at best.

JAMiAM -

In regards to (10), the ability to pack in the boreholes was probably more of an issue than tapping multiple aquifers in a confined area. The reason being that you never know what will result when you do the "multiple aquifer tap" -- I got a circular river once. How odd. Down to the roots odd.

Your explanation of (11) clears much up, but here again, I wonder where you get your information ... it makes sense, but how was I to know? Please, where is this mystical trove of SMAC lore that you and CaptComal have found? Where are the answers to the mysterious rule applications in the game? On the other hand, tame mind worms have human handlers (reinforced through every life cycle advancement pop-up), so I would assume that the units should still require support as any unit would, if only for the handlers - danger pay, you know, handling mind worms is no joy.

For probe uses in (15), I have no problem with stacked units possessing a "strength in numbers" that would guard against subversion [heck, I wrote a SCM for StarCraft that emulated this behavior!] but I guess I view a probe team and a military unit as a "stack" and not two discrete collections for purposes of probe activity. Anyone know what happens if you ram a probe team into a stack of two military units and another probe team?

One underlying concern of mine that relates to my comments in (15) is the inordinate strength of probe abilities at times. More on that later.

ViVicdi -

Yep, I've noticed the auto-obsolete at times, too, even with autopruning off. It is quite infuriating. Thanks though for your other comment, as it answers a question of mine under my thread on the user interface. Now, if only the 'obsolete' button switched to a 'recall' button when examining an obsolete unit in the workshop - then I would have known (as you obviously do) that the obsolete function toggles obsolescence rather than simply forces it.

Thanks all for your insightful comments, I had hoped that I could expand my understanding of "SMAC the game" by throwing out the discrepancies (real or delusional) I had run across.

posted 04-02-99 08:05 AM ET            

1. Could the black mapping you refer to be the Spartan cities?

2. I have noticed this also. and I agree with you.

4. I have gotten small sprite units also. It seems to be a factor when changing from hand weapons to any other weapon (I.E. via a unit upgrade, as opposed to building the unit fresh). It does not appear to effect gameplay, but may be the underlying cause of other bugs.

7. Resource bonuses are just that, bonuses. The limitations on terrain are for the base value of the terrain. "Special resources, enhancements, xenofungus, monoliths.." are considered terrain modifiers. pg 37, second paragraph.

9. Did you have the Ascetic Virtues built? it relaxes the population limits.

11. already answered. worms in fungus require no support. (That being the case, units inside a base should not require support either, but don't hold your breath.)

12. It is possible, that this is a design. I look at it this way, the movement points are not eliminated to compensate for having to upgrade all of that type, even the ones you would not upgrade on a one by one basis. (ok maybe i'm reaching)

13. makes about as much sense as not being able to stack supply transports (i.e. 2 supply transports on 1 borehole to get both minerals and energy)

15. in your example, it sounds like the enemy probe team was either damaged, or you had an elite probe and got lucky on the battle. the remaining unit was no longer stacked and was able to be captured. probe teams can not be protected from other probe teams. elite probe teams are the best defense against enemy probe teams (or the H/S algorithm).

posted 04-02-99 01:57 PM ET            

As to the source of SMAClore that CaptComal and I draw on...it is here in the forums. Check out CaptComal's profile. 241 posts and
counting since Nov 98. I have been lurking in here nearly as long but only recently bothered to register and get involved. I wanted to see where the flamejets were aimed. (yin, I'm coming for you! )

JAMiAM

posted 04-02-99 03:52 PM ET            

Thought as much ... I guess knowing the lore arises from the board alleviates my fear that all the "good stuff" was hidden behind a price tag in some strategy manual.

cousLee -

For (1), the black cities are my own [Gaian] - the same continent will have both black and "normal" colored cities on it when all of the cities are controlled by the Gaian faction. Odd.

Your comments regarding (4) reinforce some of the experience I have had in the design workshop. At first I found it funny when the Peacekeepers were throwing midgets at me to jazz up their defenses, but ...

Checking page 37 in search of a solution or reasonable explanation for (7), and I find that it [the page] ends with: (emmphasis mine)

"The amount of minerals ANY given square can produce is limited until the discovery of Ecological Engineering."

Insertion of the word "any" leads me to think that either (a) the manual is wrong; or (b) resource limits are not being applied properly in the game. I guess one's evaluation depends on whether one thinks "square" refers to a tile in its entirety (with improvements, etc.) or simply the base terrain ...

For the population boom error encountered in (9) - the short answer is "no, I had not constructed the Ascetic Virtues Secret Project." I did not construct it for several turns *after* the belated warning [when the city attempted to grow to size 10] that a hab complex was needed. Of all the items on my list, this is the "bug" of which I am most certain.

For (11), I am wondering how I could go so long not knowing that worms are self-supportive in fungus? Now that others have enlightened me, this state of affairs defuses another [unposted, as of yet] suggestion I had to offer. Only time will tell whether I dare open my mouth on this subject again.

I think you are reaching a bit in working through (12) - but that is ok, as I was trying to apply similar logic when I first encountered the global upgrade loophole.

I, too, have thought that supply convoys should be "stack"-able, but I am guessing the issue of play balance is at stake (so that players do not replace their workforce with supply crawlers and set every citizen to transcendi) ... That the docs [manual and datalinks] do not make the "one convoy per tile" rule evident should also be corrected - at least the datalinks, for newcomers to SMAC.

For (15), the two probe teams were equivalent in terms of morale level (it was early in the game, so "disciplined" or something like that, the combat odds were 2 to 2). Perhaps I am the lone dissenter here, but I still see probe + unit as a "stack." I'm definitely thinking this one through in light of everyone's collective commentary.

posted 04-03-99 01:49 AM ET            

(26) The volcanic island just emerged from the sea, the leader of my faction greeted with the following pop-up message at the beginning of the turn:

"Lady Hab Complex! Our seismic readouts have just shot off ..."

Lady Hab Complex? Somehow the name of my leader [Deirdre 001 -- don't ask what the number is for] turned into "Hab Complex". Has anyone else encountered this strangeness?

I've a few more thoughts to share on the counter offset for active units described in (6) and the impact this error has on the design workshop when working with units. However, not right now.

posted 04-03-99 05:05 AM ET            

Reading your post makes me wonder just who did beta test this game or whether firaxas simply elected to ignore there comments.

(15) page 133 of the manual states; " --Probe teams can attack other teams even in squares containing other units. Since Probe Teams have no "official" existence, destroying another faction's Probe Teams does not violate a treaty or pact." This suggests that Probe Teams never really "exist" in the world of AC. Therefore, when you defeated the enemy Probe Team, presumably the other unit was totally unaware of the Probe Team combat to begin with. Apparently Probe Teams are only noticed when attacked. This would be consistent with a covert team conducting its own operations (attacking) vs. being caught by surprise (defending).

(20) Firaxis doesn't seem to reply to these type of questions in the forum. Therefore, I am reconstructing the equations and /or algorithms used for psi combat from empirical data (results obtained from playing the game). Hopefully, I can tell you what is actually happening in Psi combat in a couple of days!!

(23) Prototype costs are for components of unit designs only (see page 82). However, I have noticed that the components only consist of weapons and armor. Apparently, reactors and special abilities don't need to be prototyped. I haven't fully documented enough possible design combinations to determine if prototyping discriminates between various components.

posted 04-03-99 03:27 PM ET            

Thanks for for the thoughtful reply.

As far as (15) is concerned, I appreciate the citation provided in your post. More and more, I will assume that the behavior I noticed is "the way things should be" as far as SMAC is concerned. Permitting a probe team to first attack an enemy probe team and then execute subversive activity against a military unit in the "stack" [as described in (15)] is similar to a probe team defeating a counterpart in order to subvert a base. I'll have to revisit this line of thought in a later post.

You are correct for (20) that the best thing to do would be to document the situation as best as possible. Honestly, though, the odds for psi combat *are* being miscalculated. If you compare the information in the pop-up odds window to the information provided further below [where the data MFD was prior to battle], you will notice discrepancies between the lower strength/power figures and the pop-up odds figure. I'll provide [better] examples, too, when I can.

I also believe your suspicions regarding prototyping and the combination of elements mentioned in regard to (23) are correct - have you verified your thoughts against the prototyping formula available in the datalinks under "Advanced Concepts"?

Here's to the search for answers,

posted 04-03-99 04:44 PM ET            

(27) [Anecdotal:] My faction is waging war with Lal and his hoodlums, and after one of his units approach a base taken [originally] from the Peacekeepers, Lal [presumably] attempts to open diplomatic channels. I am greeted with a pop-up message reading: "I have an urgent message from Brother Lal. Switching to main viewscreen." The only option available is "OK", so I press it. I am immediately presented with the exact same message. Press "OK" again, same pop-up. Press "OK" again, same message. Press "OK" one more time, and the pop-up notification closes, but Lal never delivers his urgent message. I have experienced this sequence in previous games in a war against Sister Miriam [see reply to another's post in this forum] - in that case, this meaningless cycling of pop-ups must have occurred about twnety times before vanquishing Miriam and restoring my diplomatic sanity. Are the AIs attempting to rattle me, or is this some sore of "bug"? <g>

Emendation to (1): I am beginning to suspect that the mis-coloration of cities to black is the result of playing on a custom-sized map. Also, the mis-coloration happens not only to my [Gaian] cities, but cities of any faction. If I could, I'd send a screenshot.

Emendation to the upgrade loophole identified in (12): Should one globally upgrade a needlejet design through the workshop, jets mid-flight [outbound and in need of refueling the following turn] will also be upgraded - this is definitely something that should be disallowed as a matter of principle. More troubling, though, is that it will cause jet to crash prematurely as they run out of fuel. Anecdote: I globally upgraded a 10-1-10 needlejet design (fission reactor) to a 10-1-12*2 design (fusion reactor). The lone jet in flight at the time had its available return movement reduced from 10 [what it would have been prior to upgrading] or 12 [potential value with the new fusion reactor] to, if I recall, 2 [the difference between the old and new designs?]. Needless to say, the jet in question crashed.

Emendation to (6): The "counter offset" I describe affects players through the design workshop more than it does through the command nexus readout [which I am now convinced is not reliable at all as a measure of an opponent's forces]. Reason being that one could check a design in the workshop with "0" active units when in fact, there are units of the type active at the time. From observation, it seems that units "captured" from an enemy faction through subversion of the base housing them are also not added properly to the number of active units of a given design.

What happens when one retires a design displaying "0" active units when, in fact, there are active members of that design? From observation, apparently nothing - the uncounted units belonging to the retired design appear to remain intact, though with no "blueprint" in the design workshop. How this can be, I do not know. I had preseumed that units *must* have a design in the workshop in order to exist.

What happens when one attempts to upgrade a unit design with an incorrect number of units listed as active for that design? I tried it once, globally upgrading a 6-1-10 needlejet design to a 6-1-12*2 design. The design workshop listed two such jets in existence, so I went ahead and upgraded them. After doing so (and continuing with the turn), I noticed that I had, in fact, six units of the older design, only two of which had been upgraded through the action in the workshop. The four that were not upgraded [and also not listed in the workshop as active for the older design] had been captured from an enemy faction when I subverted one of his bases. So, wishing to upgrade these four manually [since the design to which they belonged had been erased from the workshop inventory as a result of the previous upgrade action], I found that I could, but with the rather odd option of "upgrading" these lost jets to the *exact same* [6-1-10] configuration at a cost.

I am beginning to think that the counter offset in (6) is a more serious problem than I first imagined. No longer a nuisance, I think it may be the origin of other oddities I've noticed in relation to the design workshop. More investigation is necessary, but I hope that the above example(s) bring home the point I am trying to make here.

posted 04-04-99 05:27 AM ET            

Correction to (3): I was mistaken as to where I saw the mis-aligned upper scroll arrow. This graphic glitch appears when viewing the base operations status, secret project report, and military command nexus readouts - *not* the production readout as I had previously guessed.

Example for (20): Here is a sample confrontation lending creedence to the claim that psi combat odds are being miscalculated when several modifiers appear - Locust of Chiron against AAA Silksteel Sentinels. The data is from how the MFD read at the time of the combat.

Locust of Chiron - ?-?-8, Psi: 3, Demon Boil +50%, Planet +30%, Strength 5.84, Power: 10.

AAA Silksteel Sentinels - 2-<4>-1*2, Psi: 2, Veteran (+) +37%, Base +25%, Tracking + 100%, Strength: 6.87, Power: 20.

Calculated odds on this match in the pop-up odds window was 2 to 7 in favor of the AAA Silksteel Sentinels. This is at odds with both what the MFD read and also how the combat played out [yes, it could have gone either way by chance, but believe me, this is only one example of odds not matching combat resolution]. Not that I want to hazard a guess here, but could the problem be that the function in the game engine calculating odds "does not realize" that reactor strengths have no bearing on psi combat? Just a guess.

New ones:

(28) A minor graphic glitch, but present. I was able to tear a hole in Planet. That is, the three dimension [raised] map rendering displayed a tear between terrain tiles. It is a bit difficult to reconstruct how this came about, but it involved the following situation. Sea levels were rising as a result of excessive production on the map, and I noticed that a nearby river valley was in danger of submersion so I sent a former out to save as much of the valley as I could. The former begins to raise one tile of the river that was removed from the ocean by one tile [that is, if one followed the river from mouth to source it was the second river tile]. In the meantime, sea levels rose, the former was somehow destroyed but the tile it was raising remained above sea level and became the new mouth of the river. However, since it was [I'm guessing] higher than it should have been because of the raising action, a black tear appeared between it and the adjacent ocean squares [representing the gap in elevations]. Odd. Have it saved in case anyone cares to see it.

(29) [Anecdotal:] Same game, still saved in case one wants to deconstruct the issue here. I have a series of units I am moving outward to the shoreline as sea levels recede [having launched the solar shade, thankfully]. As each awaits the next recession, I place them on sentry with the 'L' command. Meanwhile, AI pact brother Lal gets really interested in what I am doing and moves his units toward the shore as well [odd in its own way]. More shore appears from the sea, so I go about clicking each sentried unit to awaken them and move outward one tile. However, I find that the occupants of one tile will not awaken when clicked upon ... I check the tile's contents by shift-right clicking and notice that Lal has a military unit "beneath" the one that I cannot awaken. I leave it alone and figure I'll try again next turn. Then, I try to move a probe team through that tile to get them to the newly formed shoreline. No dice, I get a pop-up saying that Lal has a probe team in the tile and that I have the option to engage in psi combat or simply move through. Not a big deal, but *where is the probe team when I shift-right click that tile*? Lal's team does not appear in the status view line no matter how many times I check, only his military unit. Odd, odd, odd. Lal has cemented one of my units in place and effectively hidden a probe team from me. Anyone else run across this trouble? As I said, I have the savegame stored for the curious.

posted 04-05-99 05:39 PM ET            

I'd like to add a few more items to the list to counter-balance the grievous error I made in ever decided to post (8) in the first place. <g> Here they are:

(30) [Anecdotal:] A graphic draw error exists where the base outline will "outlive" the city for which it was originally drawn. Obviously, it will only appear if one has the "show base grid" preference set. The chain of events that brought about the particular instance in mind: I purchased a sea base from Lal and set about de-populating it by building a sea colony pod for the one unit of population remaining. Before I finally "cashed out" the base by hurrying remaining production of the pod, my pact brother Zakharov landed two needle jets in the base. I immediately hurried production to see what would happen to jets in a disbanded sea base [another discrepancy, I hoped <g>]. Base disbanded the next turn, and Zak's jets were left floating on the waves to fly off to another base. However, the base outline persisted [even though the base no longer existed] and continues to do so in the game, many turns later. Odd.

(31) The design workshop, when auto-upgrading from one reactor type to the next, will upgrade [land] former models from, for example, *2 [fusion] to *4 [singularity] reactors even though this results in a more expensive unit, in this case. Example from my last game: 0-1-2*2 super clean [speeder] former already exists as a unit design [cost: 60]. I achieve singularity reactors and SMAC automatically introduces into the design inventory 0-1-2*4 super clean [speeder] former [cost: 120]. The suggestion here would be to either permit the player to turn off auto-improved designs from reactor discoveries, or add a verification routine to the automatic procedure that will only add units that cost less than the pre-existing designs. I realize that the singularity units will have more "hits" than fusion designs, but for formers [at least] it is cost that matters most, as the bonuses to "hits" and cargo capacity for the later reactor designs don't matter in this case.

(32) The automatic reactor upgrades to designs will raise previously retired designs from the dead. I find that the improved designs upgraded to implement the new reactor model will include on occasion designs I had deleted from the workshop several turns earlier. Here, the suggestion would be to verify that a design exists in the workshop inventory at the time of automatic reactor upgrades. I am not certain where the game engine is pulling the previously retired [= deleted] designs.

That's it for now, I hope to get to the remaining two posts in this sequence [mechanics/enhancements and AI] sometime in the next couple days or so.

posted 04-06-99 04:51 AM ET            

After finishing up another game, a few more additions to the list:

(33) When a player attempts to disband a coastal base of population size one by purchasing [or constructing, if one has the patience] a sea colony pod, the player will receive the disband pop-up but >poof< the base disbands leaving nothing (i.e., no sea colony pod) behind. The preferred behavior here would be for the sea colony pod to appear in an adjacent ocean tile, where possible, acting as described above (i.e., disband without leaving anything behind) only should there be no adjacent ocean tile available (e.g., blocked by forces from an opposing faction).

(34) When a player attempts to plant sea fungus on an ocean [not ocean shelf] tile, the warning message that appears is: "That enhancement (sea fungus) has already been built here!" even in clear [no fungal growth] ocean tiles. The preferred message would be the one players receive when attempting to build other improvements (mines, tidal generators, etc.) on an ocean tile, something along the lines of "that action cannot be performed ..." I forget the exact wording, but I hope one gets the idea.

(35) Although I am uncertain whether it is an error or not, rivers flowing through the boreholes in the special "Borehole Cluster" boost energy production from six to seven for each borehole. I do not build boreholes as a general rule, so I do not know if this is the case for "regular" boreholes or not. Anyway, this seems at odds with the manual's statement (p50)that: "A thermal borehole yields +6 minerals and +6 energy, regardless of terrain type." This behavior also seems to disprove the statement that "No other enhancements except roads and magtubes may be built in the same square as a thermal borehole." Inconsistency or bug, I ask.

An extension to (30): The graphic display error I described occurred twice more in the same game, each time as a result of purchasing an ocean base from another faction and [more or less] immediately disbanding it by producing sea colony pods until the population level reached zero. That I was able to reproduce the error so readily leads me to conclude the flaw described is, in fact, a graphic glitch and not the result of random error.

posted 04-06-99 06:15 AM ET            

Two more to add to the list:

(36) Planting sea fungus [have not tried with regular, land fungus] in a pact or treaty mate's tiles ought to be prohibited as are normal terraforming actions. I have found that I can even plant sea fungus in a tile already being improved by a pact brother's [or sister's] former! Before gaining the ability to garner more resources from a fungal tile through technological advance, such actions on the part of a player can be quite harmful to another faction's infrastructure and should be blocked by the treaty/pact agreement. Classify this as a loophole.

(37) The game engine does not seem to be "aware" of the +1 nutrient for fungal sea tiles granted to Gaians [again, I forgot to check for land fungus]. So, when assigning new laborers within a base's production radius, the game will readily assign a worker to a clear ocean tile [nutrient production of one] rather than a fungal ocean tile [nutrient production of two for Gaians prior to advance technologies] - necessitating that the player intervene and reshuffle the labor pool to maximize nutrient production. I believe this arises as a "problem" only in regard to the Gaian nutrient bonus, as the game seems to handle labor assignments well enough when technological advances begin to add to the output of fungal tiles in the ocean. Classify this one as a micromanagement nuisance.

Anyone looking to hire an in-house tester?

posted 04-06-99 06:25 PM ET            

Goobmeister -

Your comments are in line with one that I was saving for the [yet uposted] third thread of my own on game mechanics / wish list for a future enhancement pack. However, it seems fitting to include the item here, as you have already raised the issue. This is more of a nuisance than a true inconsistency or outright "bug", but (oh,well) here goes:

(38) Improve automated labor placement. I have found that automated labor placement [when not using governors, an option I refrain from using at all] by the game could be tuned to reduce micromanagement. Specifically, labor placement appears to be largely static, in that there is no "re-shuffling" of the labor pool when tile improvements or techonological breakthroughs improve the output of specific tiles within a base's production radius. I suggest adding routines to determine whether such "re-shuffling" of the labor pool would boost output and to take the appropriate course of action when: (1) a player completes a tile improvement through terraforming [plants a forest, drills a river, etc.]; (2) a player discovers a breakthrough that enhances tile production [for example, any tech that improves fungal harvesting, tree farms, hybrid forests, etc.]; or (3) a tile improvement spontaneously appears within the production radius [fungal bloom, forest expansision, etc.]. From personal experience, I have found manual re-shuffling base laborers to take advantage of a new or recent improvement to be one of the top micromanagement chores in SMAC. Should I be able to rely on the game engine to intercede and automatically adjust labor assignments whenever the tiles shift before/after each game year, I would not have to spend my time as a player scanning each production radius for the maximal production scheme [no, I do not trust the "click on base" maximizing routine, either]. Call me lazy, but it would really cut down on the time required to manage the mid- to late- game empires that develop in SMAC.

Guess I should get that third thread going, no?

posted 04-06-99 11:27 PM ET            

At various stages during the game I am being attacked by missiles that:
1) have travelled further than is allowed by movement rules and
2) The A.I does not seem to have owned prior to this attack (not confirmed, but strongly suspected).

posted 04-07-99 12:22 AM ET            

That would be (39), not (37) ... <g>

I intentionally left the infinite missile "bug" from the list, as I have been unable to reproduce it of late. Not that I do not think that range-checking is failing for the AI - in fact, I warm to your suggestion of a little cut-and-paste with the code from CivII. Presently, I am wondering whether there is any connection between playing on a custom-sized map and the frequency with which the missile range "bug" appears .. probably not, but I'd like to find a cause one way or the other.

posted 04-07-99 08:56 AM ET            

Anyway, another round of gameplay produces a few more addenda to the list of "bugs":

(40) Planting forests in Garland Crater does not garner the +1 mineral bonus expected. This situation is terribly odd for a number of reasons: (1) the manual explicitly states a blanket bonus, which I assume applies to forest tiles, too; (2) unimproved, the tiles [which are rainy/rolling] produce 2 nutrients and 2 minerals, which means that the bonus is being applied in this case; and (3) some forested squares *are* receiving the +1 bonus [producing x-3-x] but the great majority are not [producing x-2-x] *at the same time*. I am uncertain whether or not forests are "supposed to" receive the mineral bonus, but the fact that they are simultaneously receiving and not receiving a mineral production bonus leads me to conclude there is something fishy going on here.

(41) [Anecdotal:] I capture a sea base held by Miriam by brute force, then check to see which base facilities survived the assault. Surprisingly, the sea base *lacks* a pressure dome. Checking to see whether the base is simply located on a one-tile chunk of land [and so, not requiring a pressure dome], I find that the base in question is indeed a true sea base [resting on an open ocean tile]. It seems that there is either a fault in determining which facilities are destroyed after a forceful capture or somehow the AI is permitted to build sea bases lacking pressure domes. I do not know which, but [for the time being - I play ironman] I have the savefile handy in case anyone wishes to see for him or herself.

(42) [Anectdotal:] In the same game, I mind control a sea base held by the University. After assuming control over the base, I check to see which units inside the base were also snagged by the probe action: three University units, which have reverted to my control [as should happen] and one laser foil belonging to Yang [who I am at war with at the time] which is *still under his control*. Very odd. I try anything and everything to activate or select the unit, but no dice. I wait a turn, but Yang's foil is still interred in the base. I figure that it will remain there for the rest of the game only to watch three turns later as the laser foil emerges from the base to immediately turn around and attack it [again, Yang and I were at war for this entire episode]! Thinking back, the foil was originally damaged when I mind controlled the base, and it was only after it had regained full strength by "resting" that Yang's foil finally emerged. Definite fault here in the handling of mind control when the base in question houses units from multiple factions. If I ever have the opportunity to test this set of circumstances again, I will. I presume that the desired handling of such circumstances would in some manner "do away" with units from a third [fourth, etc.] faction during a mind control - either relocating them to a nearby base, destroying them, or placing them under the control of the probe team's home faction, as well.

(43) A rather general point, but one that I think must be made. As others have pointed out [Shining1 is one to do so, I believe], updating the datalinks to reflect the latest revisions to and fullest extent of SMAC would be greatly appreciated. I could list several instances of documentary "lack" here [I'll save it for a later post], but the one that struck me in this latest round of SMAC was the presentation of a probe activity option called "Assassinate Prominent Researchers." Not only is it not in the manual, but I discovered that the datalinks give extremely short shrift to any and all probe activites in the game. I did not succeed in carrying out this mystery task [and, playing ironman, I had only one chance], but I am guessing that it is a probe activity that can only be carried out against a rival faction's base containing the factional headquarters. Got me, but greater documentation would really help out here, not to mention elsewhere.

Extension to (15):

I still think that permitting a land-based probe team to both attack another probe team *and* carry out probe activity for other units in stack [or base] that same turn is a bit unbalanced. I have noticed that a naval probe team, when encountering a rival probe team in a base, can engage in psi combat but that its turn ends at the conclusion of psi combat [regardless of how many movement points remain for the naval probe team]. This is not the case with land-based probe teams, and I now wonder why the discrepancy here?

Extension to (32):

It seems that the designs "raised from the dead" as a result of the automatic reactor upgrading are, in fact, designs active on the field of play but not present in the design workshop inventory. Recall that this situation can occur as per the "counter offset" described originally in (6) and later expanded upon in the above thread. Since the # of active units listed in the design workshop may not always include units captured through mind control [directly, or from a containing base], retiring designs with zero active units [when in fact some are running around on the map as a result of mind control] will not disband these "extra" units. However, it seems that the automatic upgrade to a new reactor type cycles through units in play [both counted and uncounted designs] and not just those presently in the workshop inventory - thus, the apparent "resurrection" of deleted designs. I hope this clarifies the behavior I have noticed and how some of the points raised relate to one another.

posted 04-07-99 09:46 AM ET         

- When you change the industry factor in social engineering, the amount of minerals "stocked" in production boxes doesn't change, but the amount of minerals "stocked" in supply units does (the *worse* the industry factor, the *higher* the value of supply units). Say if you build your supply units at wealth (IND+1), you'll benefit (by 30% of their original cost) if you switch to power (IND-2) before you assign them to a secret project, then switch back to wealth before the project is completed (you can even get the full upheavel refund if you do this in one turn). For more elaboration on this, check the thread "social engineering/INDUSTRY/supply crawler serious flaw" I posted here about two months ago; there was also a discussion on how this could be fixed. I consider this one of the serious flaws in the game design. Unfortuantely, they had done nothing about it in the latest patch.

- Drone riots should really never happen after a population growth. A player can completely avoid any drone riot if he checks every turn for every base whether the population will grow the next turn, and if it will, whether a drone riot will be caused by the extra citizen. There is no reason that a player will want to let a drone riot happen, except that it is tedious to do all the checking. My suggestion to fix this is that whenever a drone riot is going to happen after a population growth, the extra citizen should be automatically assigned to be a specialist (doctor/empath/transcend) instead of a worker. This was a flaw in Civ/Civ2, I'm sure that someone had complained about it, but it is still a flaw in SMAC. Oh well...

- Regarding (13), if the "convey after moving" feature is indeed intended, the "select resources to convey" menu should appear not only after you use the "O" command, but also whenever a supply unit expends all its movement point. Is there a reason for a supply unit *not* to convey resources when it is eligible to?

posted 04-07-99 02:03 PM ET            

re: (40) I believe that the mineral bonus only applies to the tiles comprising the rim, and not (as stated in the manual) "the squares inside."

FIRAXIS,

Please, please, please respond to the two SMAC mysteries threads. I know there is a heck of a lot of stuff here, but even an acknowledgement that you have read them would be GREATLY appreciated!

p.s. to dbrodale,

You should start another thread, the first two have become monsters. Maybe the Firaxis team is being scared off by the length of them??? We can occasionally post to these to keep them perked to the top (or others will) as there is plenty of meat here. But, really now get working on SMAC Myst v3.0!!!

JAMiAM

posted 04-07-99 02:41 PM ET            

dbrodale,

You are right, something is weird about the Garland crater. I went back into 2 saved games and here's what I found.

Game 1: I am Gaians, occupy Garland crater with a base, have built Tree Farm and Hybrid Forest and am getting the same 3/2/2 production out of all non-rivered squares.

Game 2: I am PK, have pact with Yang, click on his base(s) in/around Garland crater, he is getting 2/3/1 inside the crater, 2/2/1 on the rim for a base with a tree farm. He has another base w/o tree farm and is getting 1/3/1 and 1/2/1 respectively.

Sorry for the screw-up. I really need to get more sleep!

posted 04-08-99 07:05 PM ET            

JAMiAM -

Regading (40): yes, there does seem to be something very strange with the bonus that the crater should generate ... I still have not found an acceptable solution as to why undeveloped tiles in the crater receive the +1 minerals bonus when most tiles, when forested, will not.

VictorK -

Thank you so very much in calling attention to your prior thread on supply crawlers. It was eye-opening, as I had not thought through the issues involved with production to the extent that you already have.

I don't think that I'll number your thoughts here [after all, they are your own!], but I will reply a bit right now. First, I highly recommend all to find and read what VictorK had to say in his own, aforementioned post - he is absolutely right to point out this flaw in the logic of production costs. Intertwined with his concerns is the ease with which factions can jump back and forth in terms of SE choices without penalty, delay, or significant cost. I'll comment on the latter in a later post.

Regarding drone riots - I understand your point, but I think that the drone rioting is ok [if highly annoying from a micromanagement standpoint] as implemented, if only to add the extra challenge in managing booming populations. It forces people to "plan ahead" of population growth, which, I think, is how the game should be ... I have found that if you begin to think in terms of quelling future riots in times of high-growth [and not just present riots] most micromanagement issues related to drone rioting from growth dissipate. On the other hand, I can see where adding the option to automatically change drone to specialist would be nice. Thing is, the use of specialists is but one way to eliminate the "extra drone" problem you outline, so I would not want to make it mandatory.

Regarding covoy after movement and the whole notion of supply crawlers always convoying at each point along a journey's path ... yes, as long as it is permitted, you are right that crawlers ought to automatically convoy each turn. However, this would be troublesome if the crawler happens to reside within a tile under production by a base, and it would also lead to too much management, having to set the "default" resource to be convoyed at each point along the path. I prefer my solution [naturally <g>], which is to ban convoying of resources after all moves. Under this scheme, the crawler must begin its turn with either all, or at least one full, movement points to begin convoying resources "back."

As far as the separation of roles between crawlers as convoys as crawlers as constructors for SPs ... I agree with you wholeheartedly. It seems the supply crawler is simply a translation of the caravan from CivII that does not work as well after substituting convoying for the establishment of trade routes.

The addition:

(44) Loan payments appear to extend to an indefinite period of time for AI factions. I've noticed that an AI faction will continue to make loan payments far beyond the length of the original agreement, to the end of the game or the end of the AI faction. Evidence for this flaw: *negative* balances on loan payments, payments being made *centuries* after the original loan agreement. This is a serious "bug" in the game engine.

(45) After the advent of the "Cloning Vats" SP, the game will occasionally add laborers to a base's production radius that were originally specialists. This is a problem for those attempting to "starve out" a base or limit population growth by assigning all members of a base to a specialist class. The solution here is to guarantee that the "Cloning Vats" SP does not re-shuffle the assignment of populations among laboring and specialist classes at all.

Extensions:

For (41): I have now noticed that the destruction of a sea base's pressure dome after forceful capture is a regular, though infrequent, event. There is clear evidence that the routine for destroying base facilities after conquest is not preventing destruction of the pressure dome. On the other hand, perhaps it should be the case that destruction of the dome *can* result, but at the cost of destruction of the base itself. Certainly, the way things work now is a bit flawed.

For (28): The tearing of "holes" in the surface of Planet also arise without the aide of human intervention. Rising sea levels will also produce "holes" and "tears", especially around plateaus [Sunny Plateau, esp.] that are also islands.

That's it for now,

posted 04-09-99 02:40 AM ET            

(46) [Anecdotal:] A rover issued a standing "L" order is attacked by another unit, taking half of its "health" in damage and scuttling back one space because of its speed advantage. However, on the subsequent turn, the "L" order is still in place because the opposing unit is no longer adjacent to the rover, and so the rover does not "wake up." When fielding large armies, this can lead to problems, as the player owning the rover may forget about this unit and leave it in a compromising position [damaged, enemy units nearby]. I've been able to reproduce this inconsistency like clockwork, so I assume that this is the intended behavior. However, I would suggest that units with standing "L" orders automatically awaken [have the "L" order cleared] whenever they take damage, to allow for the above set of circumstances.

posted 04-09-99 05:23 PM ET            

I'm not sure if this is a real bug, or more of a "Hole in the Plot" thingy, but anyway:

I was thinking, and how exactly do mind worms kill each other? I mean, they can't burrow into each other's skulls like they do to humans, so how do they do it? Do they explain this in the book?

If they don't, I have a few ideas to fix this problem.

1) Mind worms never fight other mind worms. They ignore "Zonez of Control" also.

Ex. A Peacekeeper boil, a Gaian hatchling, and a native great boil all converge on the same spot. All the units move into the square. Nothing happens.

2) If a native mind worm encounters a captured or breed mind worm, both mindworms go native.

Ex. A PeaceKeeper Demon Boil encounters a native Larval Mass. Both mind worms go native.

3) The smaller mind worm boil gets asimilated into the larger group, giving it +1 lifecycle, no matter if breed, captured, or native.

Ex. A native hatchling encounters a Gaian Boil. The hatchling becomes part of the Gaian Boil, and the Gaian Boil becomes a Mature Boil.

AND
A Gaian Boil encounters a native Great Boil. The Gaian Boil becomes part of the Great Boil, making the Great Boil a Demon Boil.

4) The two Mind worm units balence each other out in the case of lifecycle (read the Ex.) If the two units are beside each other in lifecycle, (Ex. Mature Boil and Great Boil) the larger lyfecycle unit goes one level lower. Neather Mind worm unit fight each other. (This would be a GREAT equalizer)

Ex. A Gaian Hatchling encounters a Beliver Demon Boil. Some of the worms in the Demon Boil join the Hatchling, and both become Boils. There is no combat.

AND
A Gaian Boil and a Spartain Mature Boil meet. The Spartain Mature Boil becomes a Boil, and the Gaian Boil stays a Boil. Again, no combat.

God... this is resembaling yours d.brodale... I think this is a rather interesting idea, and if anyone has Questions or Comments, E-mail me, ICQ me (My number's 16983531), or just post a message.

posted 04-10-99 05:24 AM ET         

Regarding drone riots: I agree that it would be good to force the player to "plan ahead" of poluation growth, but I don't think the drone rioting as implemented in the game is successful in this. Drone rioting after population growth is easily predictable, just that all the checking is tedious to do - I don't think this is any challenging at all. Moreover, whether I "plan ahead" or not, the specialist is quite often the best way to counter it. If my "plan" to prevent future riots in a particular base is to use the specialist, I will want to convert a worker to specialist only at the turn just before the population grows. But then I'll have to check the base for population growth every turn, even though I have well "planned ahead" of it. I know that the specialist is just one way to deal with drone riots, but it is the only way that has no cost, and I think it is always better than letting the riot happen. I think the best solution is that whenever a riot is about to happen after a population growth, the extra citizen should automatically be assigned a specialist (so the riot doesn't actually happen), and there should be an option for a pop-up warning message so that the player can go to the base to choose another method if he desires. The automatic specialist assignment could also be an option, though I don't see why anyone would want to turn it off (opting to let the drone riot happen instead).

Regarding convoying after movement: I agree with your solution to ban convoying resources unless the supply unit has full movement points (so it cannot convoy even after spending just 1/3 movement point). I think it would not be enough if we only ban convoying after it has expended all movement points, since it would not eliminate the management for finding "convoy points" along a jorney's path if one would prefer not to spend all its movement points so as to be able to convoy.

posted 04-10-99 08:21 AM ET            

Terbo -

In my estimation, what you describe is less a "bug" and more a desire on your part to develop the game to a fuller extent along the line you propose. Truth be told, I have been thinking over mind worms, as well, and find merit in your posted thoughts. I'm thinking that I should get up the third part of the "Mysteries" thread as soon as I can wade my way through the SMACX thread in the Game forum ... I'll reflect on your comments there.

In brief, though, recall that mind worms [and I presume, other lifeform vectors] are controlled by trainers/handlers. I always assumed that the destruction you witness in mind worm combat represents the destruction ot incapacitation of these trainers - the worms themselves, once their "masters" have been eliminated, simply escape back into the wild. Applying this rationale, the gain in experience [for the victorious worm handlers] that occurs from time to time in mind worm v. mind worm combat would permit the victors to "capture" some of the opposing worms before they escape to the wilds - hence, the bumping up in size of the brood still left on the field of play.

VictorK -

Regarding drone riots. I agree with most of what you say, and I do see the need for an option [at least] to enable automatic handling of impending drone riot. [I guess I should address that in part one of the "Mysteries" thread - as it really is a UI issue - but here is fine.] The method you propose [automatic assignment of the new population unit to a specialist class, followed by a warning that such shuffling has taken place] seems workable, though I would prefer to see it as a toggle option and not a forced change to gameplay. I am guessing that, should one implement this change, it would take the form of "weak" governorship, where the game engine assumes this task but leaves issues of labor management and production orders to the player. Moreover, your proposal could be developed into a set of toggle options to enable rebalancing of a base's population [to limit rioting] not only for population growth, but also changes in SE, facilities, acts of war, etc. In sum, your suggestion strikes me as being quite fertile - actually, if base governors could be redesigned anew for SMAC, the idea you have thrown out could join a suite of governorship options that could be set with finer precision than the "build - conquer - discover" paradigm now in place.

Anyway ... as far as supply units are concerned, I think, too [upon further reflection] that the easiest implementation would be to permit convoying only when a particular supply unit possesses its full movement allowance, as you point out. Such a route would put supply crawlers and supply rovers [for example] on an level playing field when its comes to fulfilling their shared functions as convoys. Rovers would still benefit from their additional movement points in *getting to* a site from which to convoy resources, but would share with crawlers the limitation that the "O" order could only be issued at the beginning of a turn. The underlying rationale would run along the lines that it takes a full year [turn] at a site [no expenditure of MPs] to establish the convoy itself. Mag tubes [no MP "cost"] being the sole exception.

Oh, yeah, two more additions:

(47) When attacking opposing bases with units equipped with biochemical warfare agents the following message appears even when the attacking unit fails to inflict damage on its taget: "Nerve gas causes mass casualties at ..." This message should only appear when the attacking unit succeeds in defeating a defensive unit occupying the target base, as failure to do so does not cause *any* casualties, no matter what the message says. This discrepancy is readily repeatable with air units equipped with biochemical agents - I have yet to test it with ground or naval units.

(48) Page 105 of the game manual, in describing what happens to units housed in bases that are annihilated reads: "Land units within the base at the time of its destruction are left intact; sea and air units are destroyed." This simply does not appear to be the case in SMAC - at least, not when it comes to bases held by AI factions. Air units [at least] in annihilated bases *are not* removed from gameplay at the time of base destruction, flying off to another base when the AI gets its turn to move. I do not know whether this rule was modified prior to the final release of SMAC, so I guess I must classify the above as a "discrepancy."

Thanks Terbo and VictorK for again adding to the hearty stew of ideas contained in this thread,

d.brodale

posted 04-11-99 05:33 PM ET            

In response to (20), I have done some extensive calculations with psi combat and have discovered a potential flaw. Locusts of chiron can be attacked by land units without the air superiority special ability. I am assuming in your example (20) that the locusts continually defeated the sentinels. If the strengths are recalculated treating both units as "land" units (the sentinels AAA defense no longer applies), then the odds are certainly against the survival of the sentinels. The computer does take into account the number of available hit points when calculating the odds. A strong psi unit with 80% damage is unlikely to survive a battle with alomost anything. Thus, in determining the odds in psi combat, the computer first determines relative strength between the two units and then calculates the survival of each unit based on the number of hit points each unit has. Note: these conclusions are based on empirical calculations and NOT on any known programming code.

One other interesting note. The value shown for strengh in psi combat is based upon compounding the percentage bonuses or penalties. Example:

From (20) psi 3, demon boil +50%, planet +30%, strength = 5.84

This value was approximately calculated as follows:

3 x 1.5 x 1.3 = 5.84

Calculating the strengh using each bonus independently:

3 + (3 x .5) + (3 x .3) = 5.4

However, based on combat results, I am unsure which formula the computer is actually using for combat and/or odds calculations. I am continuing to refine my algorithms for psi combat. Hopefully, I will have more answers for you soon.

posted 04-14-99 12:55 AM ET         

Grav struts state in game that they increase movement +1 or Reactor*2 for air. I can't mount grav struts on any air units however. Alpha.txt shows that air is NOT a valid choice. Why?

List as discrepancy,
then please get back to me.

posted 04-15-99 05:31 PM ET            

A. The Space Elevator no longer doubles mineral production... sort of. The base # of minerals is doubled, but the # of minerals available isn't. (I.e., a base with 45 mineral production before modification still had 45 minerals available, but the base number read as 90.)

B. Still seeing AAA transports in computer player navies, although I can't design them myself.

posted 04-16-99 04:26 PM ET            

I have posted some bugs a couple of times before, but all that threads are dead now.

I'll express some thoughts about issues mentioned in this thread, but it's somewhat big and, so, sorry if I repeating something -- I didn't read this thread very throughly.

(15):
You know, probe team it specially created to make covert ops, so I don't think it cannot get there and do anything it's ordered, no matter how much militaries are there. It's logically that enemy probe team protects against it then; and for the double attack -- it's the same as with military units -- I don't see why it should differ from it. Note that the turn is a whole year -- it's too much for it, imho.

Ah, you think that if unit can attack (maybe move, too?) more than one times per turn is unbalanced? Wow, great point, but I personally wouldn't play such a horror, though...

(23)
I don't see both problems.
Suppose we prototyping not a design but just a module (technology). I think that prototyping this module is MUCH more difficult than design and debug just a new occupation of module. But I think this is because designers desided so. The alternative point: all developements of module (including some prototypes) are completed by scientists that made appropriative tech advance, and the engineer's task (which building that prototype) is to assemble AND test prototype (for example, any new aircrafts now requires extensive testing and 'debugging' before serial production). I agree that this could be more realistic, but the cost of prototype in this case must heavily depend on the components of units (for example, logically it's not very long to test just a new weapon on the existing design).
And, about completion of prototype. What's the problem here??? I'm sure that the prototype's extensive cost is first of all because of the testing and 'debugging' (sorry for wrong term) of design, so, when one is complete, all others definitely will soon be completed. From the other hand, if, say, we have started one prototype and then the same one in the other base on the next turn. When the first one complete, the cost of the second is completely changed, and all accumulated minerals for it are applied to the new cost unchanged, as they have from beginning worked on the prototyped design -- this is somewhat wrong, but it's hard to count all this.

(10) You can instantly build airbases and magtubes on enemy territory that way. But I think that certain types of improvement must not be done so. The appliable improvements, imho, are airbase, magtubes, maybe mines... Others are definitely must from the beginning be performed on the target square.

ViVicdi:
Uh this ridiculous 'automatic 'upgrades'' and autodesign!!! I hate them, even when they are turned off (always on mine)!
Say we are playing without 'blind research' option. I am about to choose between tech offering R3 and the tech offering R4 (a regular thing, btw). I choose R4. After a while, it's researched. I designing new R4 units. After the while, R3 is researched. And you know what? If you have 'auto prune' option your nice R4 units are becomes all absolete, and 'upgraded' to R3!!! Of cause I don't have 'autoprune', but this bug still bothers me, since it make new designs with new reactor itselves, even if nobody asks it for this! So I spending more 5-10 minutes deleting these designs after every new reactor developed (I hate those names autodesigner gives to units).

(27)
Ha! I funny issue, it's pretty frequent in my games.
I think he understands that he must talk with you, but can't make himself ignore his greed to do so A moral battle with himself, you know.

(1) Ah, it's just a bug in rendering, or more correctly, inept programming of it. Look at this view under WinNT, you'll be impressed (I maybe offending designers, but, clearly, that job offer recently declared (system programmer) was always priority one task for this team)

(35):
I don't think that the river is improvement, like farm or mine. As well as fungus etc...

(36)
I guess that signing a pact is about to show that these two leaders are trusts each other, and this actions are just about one's trustworthy Seriously, certain terraforming options on his territory must annoy him, logically, but how one decides what particular actions (for example, fungus planting is benefical in the end of game, but contrary in the middle)? If to forbid terraform at all -- it's bad, because you then cannot aid your pact brother in terraforming.

About growth rioting.
[imho] The experience shows that any relying on the AI is worthless. So there's no way we can use the governors to manage drone riots due to pop growth (actually, I always turn them off). The good solution would be highlighting bases that are about to grow next turn in the base list (I've forgot it's name) or somehow different way to notify player about it.

Lirix:
Well, I've some times ago asked this question in support forum, and learned that in fact all air units are already has those struts (actually, I haven't noticed it before), from the beginning of game. Man [sorry, can't exactly name it] of Firaxis told, however, that the DL are wrong, not a game.

posted 04-16-99 05:33 PM ET            

-- The capturing bunkers and (?) sensors on the enemy territory. When this happens, all remaining unit's moves abandoned. It's really annoying. I think this must somehow be avoided, especially counting that there's no garrison.

-- Playing game with patch 2 I've once noticed that executive veto in the council applies even when every other factions are pro (DL says that in this case it doesn't applies). This might be fixed in 3.0, unfortunately I didn't have a chance to check it out yet.

Some UI troubles.
-- 'mouse at edge of screen scrolls' option turned off is not applied when some dialog (not every, however; preferences dialogs are one of buggy) active (it then scrolls behind of dialog).

-- It's maybe a matter of opinion, but the terrain improvements graphics is definitely must be fixed. Look how farm+soil enricher+magtube+solar collector tile looks!

-- IMHO Ironman option is incorrectly implemented. It must allow saves freely (perhaps on the case of fault), and no loads (only from main menu). Currently, it still saves autosaves, and lets player freely load them (as well as any other saves). It's ridiculous.

-- Speaking of save/loads... It's a kind of cheat (I mean getting results you need by save/loading some game until get what you need), and it must be avoided. The idea is simple -- generate all the contents of unity supply pods before the first turn; use random number generator with pre-generated (before first turn) random seed and save current seed in saves; maybe try to generate all the possible battle and other random results before the beginning of turn, and keep them in saves and all over the turn (this last is somewhat complex, though). Perhaps this 'better iron man mode' must be switched in 'new game options'.

-- The 'view terrain' option (map option) is unfinished (IIRC, 't' key). Try to use it and then recenter screen (when it's active).

-- The display corruption in audio/video preferences dialog box. It's encountered only (maybe not) in 800x600 resolution. Enter this dialog, and try to switch bottom options and sound volume and other sliders, it corrupts.

-- 'Zoom to base recenters screen' option doesn't work (I mean it always does, regardless of this option).

-- Try to switch sound options off, then play movie or exit the game, and these options are 'on' again (or they are 'off', but sound exists anyway). Ahh, I finally have just removed all that sound files (under NT, you know...)

posted 04-20-99 01:19 AM ET            

I don't think you're dealing with a glitch here. Not all "clean" water tiles that are TFed into land tiles will be clean. There is a randomizing algorithm at work to determine the resulting new land. I couldn't tell you exactly what it may be, but TRUST me, it exists. I've TFed a LOT of sea tiles.

posted 04-26-99 01:16 PM ET            

The slashed zero indicates that there is sea fungus in the tile and you don't yet have the tech to take advantage of it. However, it seems to me that if you had the tech to raise/lower you should have been able to get a nutrient out of the fungus. I'm not sure here since I don't have the manual handy.

posted 04-27-99 03:29 AM ET         

1. Some supply pods cause quakes and land to raise. However, if I have an isle of the deep in the area, it is destroyed. But if an isle of the deep is caught when somebody is raising terrain, it turns into a mind worm.

2. The same quakes destroy Monsoon Jungle tiles.

3. Oceanic resources are destroyed when raised to land.

4. Psi defense doesn't seem to do anything. The way I read it I thought it would reduce any attacker's Psi to 2 (same as the defender).

5. Some unit designs cannot be killed, esp the AAA transport.

6. Formers built on gravship hulls are treated as air units on bombing runs when removing tile improvements.

7. Colony pods built on gravship hulls cannot build sea bases.

8. Gravship units end moves in bases even when they don't need to refuel and have lots of movement left.

9. How do computer players know what techs I have - and what social engineering choices I have in place - when they don't even have any spies or infiltrators? They also seem to know how many energy credits I have. Very, very, odd.

10. Do tachyon fields add to psi defense? It doesn't seem so.

Some Thoughts:

1. Psi attacks are too weak, esp when you only get it (other than native life forms) so late in the game.

2. I agree that ocean borders must be established. The computer players love to hog up human players' coastal and sea resources by building sea bases.

3. For the planetary council, the governor should be able to cast a tie-breaking vote in case of ties.

4. Hover units should be able to move on shallow water.

5. Advanced air units should be able to carry missiles for a stand off attack.

6. It is quite silly that air units require a special ability to attack other air units. I would think they need a special ability to attack non-air units.

7. The inability to build space units (other than satellites) is quite implausible, when players can control singularities.

Some Questions:

1. How do you build mines with other improvements on the same square? The computer players can do so.

2. How is the human player stacked up against computer players on various difficulty levels?

3. How is eco-damage calculated? It seems that Centauri Preserve, etc., do not help a lot.

posted 04-28-99 04:55 AM ET            

Want to check if a Base will riot next turn? Hit F4. If the base is in red, it is going to riot next turn.