SMACX: Better Upgrade Paths - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  SMACX: Better Upgrade Paths

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   SMACX: Better Upgrade Paths

Urban Ranger posted 05-07-99 11:56 PM ET
Right now, upgrading is too restrictive. First of all, you cannot upgrade across different chasis types. Secondly, you cannot "upgrade" from a unit with a bigger gun to one that has a smaller gun, even though the latter has more advanced reactor, more special abilities, and better armor.
One of the main reasons for upgrading. Nobody wants to see a good elite unit goes to waste. Logically, the experience is in the organic elements, i.e., humans, and I can't see why they can't be trasferred to units using different hardware. Considering that a turn is a year in length, there's plenty of time to get used to the new equipment.
David Johnson posted 05-09-99 05:24 PM ET
I was surprised to find you could down-grade with an upgrade. I thought it was supposed to be "please add some whistles to my Widget which currenty has only bells, at the cost of only whistles, not the cost of the whole thing".
Instead it seems its the same cost to turn a Widget with bells and whistles into a Widget without them, as vice versa.
So, eg, you could build a supply vehicle with all the trimings and a high reactor, "upgrade" it to a reactor one, and cash it in for [now much higher] cost of the downgraded model.
I'd like to have been able to upgrade my faithful old formers to clean/super formers at less cost than building a super-clean from scratch. With the current rules it can't be done at ANY price.
saruman posted 05-09-99 05:55 PM ET
I agree upgrading is too restrictive. I've been unable to upgrade formers because of different reactor type.
Slightly off topic-why are units designed with more powerful reactors usually less expensive? High tech should be more expensive.
trippin daily posted 05-09-99 08:22 PM ET
Saruman, I have your answer, just I'm way to gone right now to remember it, hence my name, but I know I have the answer. I'll tell it to you in a while.
Trippin Daily
-slighty on topic, but slightly off himmself-
Urban Ranger posted 05-10-99 12:31 AM ET
Sauraman, it's not ALWAYS the case. Some units become more expensive. For example, I found that former units are cheapest to build with fusion reactors. Since they can't run (unless you stick on hovertank hull or something) and can't fight back, why bother paying so much for a sitting duck? Afterall, formers don't work faster (which they should) with bigger reactors.
The Builder posted 05-10-99 05:50 AM ET

BTW, it seems to me, that automatic upgrading and designing does not work properly in multiplayer games for all players but the first one. That's really annoying.
Stopping an colonies, which just finished a facilitiy and have no more in queue don't work either in multiplayer.
Up to the Sky!
The Builder
DilithiumDad posted 05-10-99 09:24 AM ET
The main upgrade bug is the inability to upgrade formers to superformers --that really rankles. I usually end up disbanding all my formers inside a base and using the 50% recovered minerals to build supers. Kinda dumb.
Another bug is that some of the "upgrades" are actually downgrades "DO you wish to upgrade our obsolete tachyon squads to AAA chaos squads for 1,240 energy credits?"
saruman posted 05-11-99 03:57 AM ET
Urban Ranger:Not every chassis is cheaper with a more powerful reactor, but it seems that they usually are until quantum and then singularity is more expensive. This pattern is illogical.
Why use more powerful reactors- IIRC they reduce the maximum damage that can be done to a unit.
Gord McLeod posted 05-11-99 04:18 AM ET
I've never had any problem upgrading formers to Super former status, nor have I ever had trouble upgrading them to a higher reactor type. I do agree they should work faster with better reactors... but I've never encountered most of these upgrade bugs people are talking about.
I should point out that I never use infantry-based former units, except sometimes for one or two at the very start of a game. I move to Rover Formers as soon as they become available.
Urban Ranger posted 05-11-99 07:31 AM ET
Hey Trippin, still waiting for your answer man
Gord - I could not upgrade from one chasis type to another. For example, I kept upgrading a lone foil since it was an elite unit and wouldn't upgrade to a cruiser hull.
DDad - there are a lot of problems with upgrading, and unit design in general, on the easier (citizen/specialist) levels.
trippin daily posted 05-11-99 08:35 AM ET
Hey, I had forgot what post it was in. Ok, here is my answer for the better reactors costing less. The weapon systems take an incredible toll on energy output by the reactor. Agree? Stronger reactors require less complimentary equipment (storage bateries, super efficient wiring systems (superconductors), and more than likely, a huge radiator type unit). While the weaker reactors need those things, the stronger reactor doesn't, for it runs far from maximum capacity. It's like trying to get your car to start on 9 volt batteries... it is possible, but you need a WHOLE lot of them, along with hardware to get the correct volts and amperage from them. It would be far more expensive. For the part about larger engines should make formers work faster, I do not agree. Just because something has tons of available energy, doesn't mean that it can harness it for that application. You can only throw dirt up so fast. Drag Racers have this problem. It isn't that they lose to not having enough horsepower, it is that they cannot harnness the full power of the engine due to simple laws of physics.
Trippin Daily
-sorry it took me so long to respond guys -
Urban Ranger posted 05-12-99 03:33 AM ET
trippin,
I agree that just having the reactors aren't enough, but the game is rather abstract so I assumed that a lot of things, such as bigger and tougher drill bits, are included with such upgrades.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: SMACX: Better Upgrade Paths
Urban Ranger	posted 05-07-99 11:56 PM ET Right now, upgrading is too restrictive. First of all, you cannot upgrade across different chasis types. Secondly, you cannot "upgrade" from a unit with a bigger gun to one that has a smaller gun, even though the latter has more advanced reactor, more special abilities, and better armor. One of the main reasons for upgrading. Nobody wants to see a good elite unit goes to waste. Logically, the experience is in the organic elements, i.e., humans, and I can't see why they can't be trasferred to units using different hardware. Considering that a turn is a year in length, there's plenty of time to get used to the new equipment.
David Johnson	posted 05-09-99 05:24 PM ET I was surprised to find you could down-grade with an upgrade. I thought it was supposed to be "please add some whistles to my Widget which currenty has only bells, at the cost of only whistles, not the cost of the whole thing". Instead it seems its the same cost to turn a Widget with bells and whistles into a Widget without them, as vice versa. So, eg, you could build a supply vehicle with all the trimings and a high reactor, "upgrade" it to a reactor one, and cash it in for [now much higher] cost of the downgraded model. I'd like to have been able to upgrade my faithful old formers to clean/super formers at less cost than building a super-clean from scratch. With the current rules it can't be done at ANY price.
saruman	posted 05-09-99 05:55 PM ET I agree upgrading is too restrictive. I've been unable to upgrade formers because of different reactor type. Slightly off topic-why are units designed with more powerful reactors usually less expensive? High tech should be more expensive.
trippin daily	posted 05-09-99 08:22 PM ET Saruman, I have your answer, just I'm way to gone right now to remember it, hence my name, but I know I have the answer. I'll tell it to you in a while. Trippin Daily -slighty on topic, but slightly off himmself-
Urban Ranger	posted 05-10-99 12:31 AM ET Sauraman, it's not ALWAYS the case. Some units become more expensive. For example, I found that former units are cheapest to build with fusion reactors. Since they can't run (unless you stick on hovertank hull or something) and can't fight back, why bother paying so much for a sitting duck? Afterall, formers don't work faster (which they should) with bigger reactors.
The Builder	posted 05-10-99 05:50 AM ET BTW, it seems to me, that automatic upgrading and designing does not work properly in multiplayer games for all players but the first one. That's really annoying. Stopping an colonies, which just finished a facilitiy and have no more in queue don't work either in multiplayer. Up to the Sky! The Builder
DilithiumDad	posted 05-10-99 09:24 AM ET The main upgrade bug is the inability to upgrade formers to superformers --that really rankles. I usually end up disbanding all my formers inside a base and using the 50% recovered minerals to build supers. Kinda dumb. Another bug is that some of the "upgrades" are actually downgrades "DO you wish to upgrade our obsolete tachyon squads to AAA chaos squads for 1,240 energy credits?"
saruman	posted 05-11-99 03:57 AM ET Urban Ranger:Not every chassis is cheaper with a more powerful reactor, but it seems that they usually are until quantum and then singularity is more expensive. This pattern is illogical. Why use more powerful reactors- IIRC they reduce the maximum damage that can be done to a unit.
Gord McLeod	posted 05-11-99 04:18 AM ET I've never had any problem upgrading formers to Super former status, nor have I ever had trouble upgrading them to a higher reactor type. I do agree they should work faster with better reactors... but I've never encountered most of these upgrade bugs people are talking about. I should point out that I never use infantry-based former units, except sometimes for one or two at the very start of a game. I move to Rover Formers as soon as they become available.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-11-99 07:31 AM ET Hey Trippin, still waiting for your answer man Gord - I could not upgrade from one chasis type to another. For example, I kept upgrading a lone foil since it was an elite unit and wouldn't upgrade to a cruiser hull. DDad - there are a lot of problems with upgrading, and unit design in general, on the easier (citizen/specialist) levels.
trippin daily	posted 05-11-99 08:35 AM ET Hey, I had forgot what post it was in. Ok, here is my answer for the better reactors costing less. The weapon systems take an incredible toll on energy output by the reactor. Agree? Stronger reactors require less complimentary equipment (storage bateries, super efficient wiring systems (superconductors), and more than likely, a huge radiator type unit). While the weaker reactors need those things, the stronger reactor doesn't, for it runs far from maximum capacity. It's like trying to get your car to start on 9 volt batteries... it is possible, but you need a WHOLE lot of them, along with hardware to get the correct volts and amperage from them. It would be far more expensive. For the part about larger engines should make formers work faster, I do not agree. Just because something has tons of available energy, doesn't mean that it can harness it for that application. You can only throw dirt up so fast. Drag Racers have this problem. It isn't that they lose to not having enough horsepower, it is that they cannot harnness the full power of the engine due to simple laws of physics. Trippin Daily -sorry it took me so long to respond guys -
Urban Ranger	posted 05-12-99 03:33 AM ET trippin, I agree that just having the reactors aren't enough, but the game is rather abstract so I assumed that a lot of things, such as bigger and tougher drill bits, are included with such upgrades.