Inefficiency - this is getting stupid!

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Inefficiency - this is getting stupid!

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Inefficiency - this is getting stupid!

LackOfKnack posted 05-09-99 02:42 PM ET
How is one supposed to play on a 300x300 map when any base further than 20 spaces away receives no energy, even with a +4 Efficiency rating? This is ridiculous! You should be able to have multiple capitals for large countries, kind of like provincial (or state, if you're American) capitals. That would be more realistic and less... crappy.
Lack
trippin daily posted 05-09-99 02:57 PM ET
They warned you not to play on those big maps Lack. But you didn't listen, now did you. <tisk tisk>
Trippin Daily
LackOfKnack posted 05-09-99 03:41 PM ET
Even so, on a Huge map this is still a problem. For Huge-Lack size maps there should be provinces.
Lack
David Johnson posted 05-09-99 05:01 PM ET
If you eliminate your HQ all your cities count as only 16 away. This still means you get no energy if your efficiency is -2, and about 22% lost if it is +5.
You can't just scrap the HQ; you need to eliminate or lose control of the city it is in.
LackOfKnack posted 05-09-99 07:02 PM ET
Interesting, but that sucks - have to give up your capital just because of a design flaw. Thanks. I just wish they'd allow multiple HQs so you actually have to build the thing to get the benefits, no trash it. It could be so that you can only build one every 32 squares or so.
Imran Siddiqui posted 05-09-99 10:04 PM ET
Um, it isn't a design flaw! It is meant to combat ICS.. You know Infinite City Sleaze. If they didn't have the efficency penalty (and the more drones with cities) then you could expand everywhere without a worry. You could probably defeat every faction on a huge map in 100 turns. So, it is not a design flaw, but a way to make the game more fair.
Imran Siddiqui
Urban Ranger posted 05-10-99 12:44 AM ET
Check the datalinks. There's a formula (probably inaccurate as of today) for the computation of inefficiency. It pays to have a high efficiency rating.
LackOfKnack posted 05-10-99 07:15 AM ET
What I tried to say is that eliminating your HQ should not make your colony have less efficiency penalties, if I read David Johnson's post correctly. I do not think there should be NO HQ, but there should be more than one for really big maps. Like state capitals, there's one every given number of square kilometers. So if I have 100 bases, maybe, I could have 4 HQs and divide my place into 4 states/provinces.
Lack
MoSe posted 05-10-99 08:44 AM ET
Well, NO HQ and an average corruption, sounds like ole good Civ Communism...
I'll have to recheck it, but sometimes whe my settings boosted Efficiency above the +6 Paradigm Economy, I had income improvements in the SE display preview! But what about the formula then, with a negative denominator???
Anyway, when (if) you get to Paradigm Economy, you shouldn't lose anything to Ineffciency, or should I recheck my omnisciency?
MariOne
MoSe posted 05-10-99 08:45 AM ET
BTW, you actually CAN'T play beyond 256x256, check my next topic...
DilithiumDad posted 05-10-99 09:17 AM ET
I ALWAYS play Huge Map of Planet (mostly 'cause I have the cool poster that comes with the Strategy Guide!) and I have to defend the efficiency penalty. It forces you to pay attention to your city layout and to aoid overextending yourself. Try giving your outposts to a weak but faithful ally! You might make more in commerce than you could by owning it outright.
I also think it gets tedious managing a huge number of colonies --this factor favors a smaller number of supercities. It is a key part fo game balance. Eficiency is an important check on Hive expansion, which might otherwise be overwhelming. Also note that Lal's efficiency penalty offsets his hab capacity advantage --he needs to limit the number of colonies to avoid inefficiency, but that's made easier by the higher hab limit. Very elegant.
MoSe posted 05-10-99 12:56 PM ET
I have to agree with DDad.
I didn't start a new topic in the end.
I double checked it, and you can't play Custom sizes beyond 256x256.
You can tho edit a predefined setting in alpha.txt (e.g Huge Planet) beyond that limit.
see "gigantic maps" for further details
MariOne
MoSe posted 05-10-99 12:58 PM ET
I have to agree with DDad.
I didn't start a new topic in the end.
I double checked it, and you can't play Custom sizes beyond 256x256.
You can tho edit a predefined setting in alpha.txt (e.g Huge Planet) beyond that limit.
see "gigantic maps" for further details
MariOne
MoSe posted 05-10-99 01:03 PM ET
Darn!
Sometimes they crash,
sometimes they work even when you get a null answer from the proxy's squid!
trippin daily posted 05-10-99 01:20 PM ET
MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before yourant about it.
Trippin Daily
trippin daily posted 05-10-99 01:22 PM ET
MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before yourant about it.
Trippin Daily
MoSe posted 05-10-99 01:23 PM ET
Well, trippin, let's wear our double-seat asbestos outfit!
Actually in "gigantic maps..." Lack himself pointed out the alpha.txt way! Check there.
MariOne
trippin daily posted 05-10-99 01:24 PM ET
MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before yourant about it.
Trippin Daily
trippin daily posted 05-10-99 01:26 PM ET
MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before you rant about it.
Trippin Daily
trippin daily posted 05-10-99 01:30 PM ET
Dammit! Stupid forum.
Trippin Daily
trippin daily posted 05-10-99 01:33 PM ET
You know what MoSe, your probably right. But who cares if I flame Lack. Even if I'm wrong.
Trippin Daily
-right when he's wrong-
LackOfKnack posted 05-10-99 07:04 PM ET
Well, apparantly I don't.
Nice to that people care.

?
Lack
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: Inefficiency - this is getting stupid!
LackOfKnack	posted 05-09-99 02:42 PM ET How is one supposed to play on a 300x300 map when any base further than 20 spaces away receives no energy, even with a +4 Efficiency rating? This is ridiculous! You should be able to have multiple capitals for large countries, kind of like provincial (or state, if you're American) capitals. That would be more realistic and less... crappy. Lack
trippin daily	posted 05-09-99 02:57 PM ET They warned you not to play on those big maps Lack. But you didn't listen, now did you. <tisk tisk> Trippin Daily
LackOfKnack	posted 05-09-99 03:41 PM ET Even so, on a Huge map this is still a problem. For Huge-Lack size maps there should be provinces. Lack
David Johnson	posted 05-09-99 05:01 PM ET If you eliminate your HQ all your cities count as only 16 away. This still means you get no energy if your efficiency is -2, and about 22% lost if it is +5. You can't just scrap the HQ; you need to eliminate or lose control of the city it is in.
LackOfKnack	posted 05-09-99 07:02 PM ET Interesting, but that sucks - have to give up your capital just because of a design flaw. Thanks. I just wish they'd allow multiple HQs so you actually have to build the thing to get the benefits, no trash it. It could be so that you can only build one every 32 squares or so.
Imran Siddiqui	posted 05-09-99 10:04 PM ET Um, it isn't a design flaw! It is meant to combat ICS.. You know Infinite City Sleaze. If they didn't have the efficency penalty (and the more drones with cities) then you could expand everywhere without a worry. You could probably defeat every faction on a huge map in 100 turns. So, it is not a design flaw, but a way to make the game more fair. Imran Siddiqui
Urban Ranger	posted 05-10-99 12:44 AM ET Check the datalinks. There's a formula (probably inaccurate as of today) for the computation of inefficiency. It pays to have a high efficiency rating.
LackOfKnack	posted 05-10-99 07:15 AM ET What I tried to say is that eliminating your HQ should not make your colony have less efficiency penalties, if I read David Johnson's post correctly. I do not think there should be NO HQ, but there should be more than one for really big maps. Like state capitals, there's one every given number of square kilometers. So if I have 100 bases, maybe, I could have 4 HQs and divide my place into 4 states/provinces. Lack
MoSe	posted 05-10-99 08:44 AM ET Well, NO HQ and an average corruption, sounds like ole good Civ Communism... I'll have to recheck it, but sometimes whe my settings boosted Efficiency above the +6 Paradigm Economy, I had income improvements in the SE display preview! But what about the formula then, with a negative denominator??? Anyway, when (if) you get to Paradigm Economy, you shouldn't lose anything to Ineffciency, or should I recheck my omnisciency? MariOne
MoSe	posted 05-10-99 08:45 AM ET BTW, you actually CAN'T play beyond 256x256, check my next topic...
DilithiumDad	posted 05-10-99 09:17 AM ET I ALWAYS play Huge Map of Planet (mostly 'cause I have the cool poster that comes with the Strategy Guide!) and I have to defend the efficiency penalty. It forces you to pay attention to your city layout and to aoid overextending yourself. Try giving your outposts to a weak but faithful ally! You might make more in commerce than you could by owning it outright. I also think it gets tedious managing a huge number of colonies --this factor favors a smaller number of supercities. It is a key part fo game balance. Eficiency is an important check on Hive expansion, which might otherwise be overwhelming. Also note that Lal's efficiency penalty offsets his hab capacity advantage --he needs to limit the number of colonies to avoid inefficiency, but that's made easier by the higher hab limit. Very elegant.
MoSe	posted 05-10-99 12:56 PM ET I have to agree with DDad. I didn't start a new topic in the end. I double checked it, and you can't play Custom sizes beyond 256x256. You can tho edit a predefined setting in alpha.txt (e.g Huge Planet) beyond that limit. see "gigantic maps" for further details MariOne
MoSe	posted 05-10-99 12:58 PM ET I have to agree with DDad. I didn't start a new topic in the end. I double checked it, and you can't play Custom sizes beyond 256x256. You can tho edit a predefined setting in alpha.txt (e.g Huge Planet) beyond that limit. see "gigantic maps" for further details MariOne
MoSe	posted 05-10-99 01:03 PM ET Darn! Sometimes they crash, sometimes they work even when you get a null answer from the proxy's squid!
trippin daily	posted 05-10-99 01:20 PM ET MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before yourant about it. Trippin Daily
trippin daily	posted 05-10-99 01:22 PM ET MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before yourant about it. Trippin Daily
MoSe	posted 05-10-99 01:23 PM ET Well, trippin, let's wear our double-seat asbestos outfit! Actually in "gigantic maps..." Lack himself pointed out the alpha.txt way! Check there. MariOne
trippin daily	posted 05-10-99 01:24 PM ET MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before yourant about it. Trippin Daily
trippin daily	posted 05-10-99 01:26 PM ET MoSe, thanks for pointing out Lacks bull****. You can't play on a 300x300 map unless you edit the alpha.txt. I have a regular old pentium, so am not going to dare try to verify that. I'll just have to take your word for it. Next time Lack, actually try something out before you rant about it. Trippin Daily
trippin daily	posted 05-10-99 01:30 PM ET Dammit! Stupid forum. Trippin Daily
trippin daily	posted 05-10-99 01:33 PM ET You know what MoSe, your probably right. But who cares if I flame Lack. Even if I'm wrong. Trippin Daily -right when he's wrong-
LackOfKnack	posted 05-10-99 07:04 PM ET Well, apparantly I don't. Nice to that people care. ? Lack