posted 05-11-99 11:55 AM ET     

Attack Defense
Civ II Howitzer 12 Mech Inf 6
Armor 10 Armor 5
SMAC Singularity 24 Stasis 12

posted 05-11-99 01:22 PM ET            

I have been thinking of dropping armor from all ship designs as the only way to survive being attacked is to have top armor and be one reactor up (in all of my SMAC experience to date...). So armor seems a worthless expense when it doesn't aid a capital ship UNLESS you have reactor superiority.

I also think that SMAC overly favors the attack in comparison to other Conquest games.
Total up the mods, Xerxes, and its VERY difficult to get a defender that has a chance to win.
In Base bonus only equals +25% defence bonus. What? That should be MUCH higher, BEFORE Perimiter defences. Attacking a City is the single worst possible fighting their is, and cost HEAVILY in casualties. In Base should be +50% to +100% BY ITSELF (at LEAST!). A mundo laser squad (attack 2) should have only even odds at BEST to dig out a scout (defence 1) defending in a base (+100% would yeild Defence 2) = 1 to 1. Still too high in my opinion, but when that Scout unit then has a Perim fortress (+100%), you would get 2 versus 3... favor goes scout. That is a light/recon infantry unit in its HOME Territory defending its friends, family, and children in a prepared and fortified environment. It should take a SERIOUS seige and pounding to displace/defeat/destroy them. However, in the current system, it would be attack 2 +25% Infantry versus Base, and defence 1 +25% In Base bonus... 2.25 vs 1.25 = 9 to 5 odds in favor of attacker. Take Scout versus Scout... (1.25) 5 to (1.25) 5 odds. Even odds to SECURE a defended city! How absolutely SILLY. Having a Sensor within 2 tiles EQUALS sitting in a city garrison for defense value? Seems strange to me.

It is VERY possible for a defending unit to get so heavily dug in and fortified that it would cost more causalties to the aggressor than they have troops in their national armies, or people in their nation. But SMAC doesn't reflect this. SMAC doesn't reflect the basic fact that when all factors are even, you have to drown your opponent with your soldiers blood and smother them with the bodies of yours and theirs dead. World World One Trench Warfare and Deadlocking would never have happened in the SMAC military model. It cannot, as evenly matched attacker and defender favors the aggressor in SMAC. While that makes it great for fast multiplayer games as you are attacking attacking attacking, it doesn't reflect the true world of tactics and strategy. But I suppose if that is what we were after, we'd be playing Advanced Squad Leader or Risk (Victory through Attrition) or any number of games that better model warfare. Its just too bad that SMAC is a Military Conquest game rather than a World Empire Building game.

posted 05-11-99 01:55 PM ET            

Actually, what would be more "realistic" for ship to ship combat would be a mutual artillery vs armor duel. Perhaps, with initiave modifiers each "round" based on reactor size, attack strength, current damage, etc.

posted 05-11-99 02:47 PM ET            

In addition, I think that Cruiser Hulls should have hit points DOUBLED when fighting Foils. I see Foils as patrol and torpedeo boats. They are capable of doing a servicable job, but when I want a Queen of the Seas, it takes at least a Cruiser Hull. After all, its Cruiser, not Frigate. But as it is now, the two different hulls cost the same, despite a Cruiser having a better move and double the cargo capacity of a foil. While speed is a matter of hydrodynamics, drag, etc, cargo capacity is a matter of size and volume.

Of course, Transport, Probe, and Terraforming would need to become SPECIAL ABILITIES, rather than weapon components, if Firaxis wanted to let you continue to design COMBAT versions of those units. Otherwise, its just a waste of minerals...

posted 05-11-99 08:49 PM ET         

It does seem silly that your 8-1-1 will die attacking an unarmed 1-12-1 just because the armor was too tough (did the armor reflect the chaos gun leading to suicide?). I think the weapon should just do the amount of damage proportional to its strength whether it's used to attack OR defend, and just let the armor dictate how much damage the guy can take before dying, which is in essence what you just said, I think.

posted 05-12-99 12:02 AM ET            

I have an idea, but I'm not sure whether it'll work, because I haven't tried it yet...

[end disclaimer]

If you want something resembling WWI or WWII, try waiting until late game ( when everyone has Perimeter Defences and Tachyon Fields ), and take out the following from your war arsenal:

1. Probes [better for defence]
2. The blink displacer [better for defence]
3. Gravships [less flexibility]
4. Orbital insertion [less flexibility]

If you're brave, you can take out missiles as well.

IMHO, now you'll really need those artillery units to soften up those bases. Otherwise, you're going to lose a lot of attacking units. And if your opponent is a good counterattacker, it's going to be a bad day for those stuck on the beach.

As for naval units, I'll probably equip my Sub units with psi defense (1:1 odds) as well as grabbing the Neural Amplifier, and pray that my opponent isn't Gaian with Dream Twister.

posted 05-12-99 12:52 AM ET            

You also have to take risk into account. If you fail in an attack you lost all of the minerals and energy that went into the units. Meanwhile he built a building during the war. Now he is ahead.

So actually the 2:1 ratio is essential, without it the game would fall apart completely. War would be too costly and only pacifists will have a chance. If an attack made up of 2-3 impact rovers doesn't have a very high success rate against moderate defenses then the game is messed up.

Making all battles favor the attacker 3:1 would probably balance the game the best however it would take the tactics out. So while it would make fighting more viable it would be less fun. The original civ was the best from a game design point of view. Civ2 was a huge downgrade and AC was another small step down. However AC made a large leap in interesting features (governments, borders) so might make up for it.

posted 05-12-99 02:56 AM ET            

Attacks ARE supposed to be difficult, esp attacks against a well prepared and entrenched foe. That's why you need a huge build up beforehand and you just don't go attacking everywhere.

Right now the game still favors attackers a lot. Consider how easy it is to kill a demon boil sitting in fungus. Right now, two recon rovers can do it. Yet this is incredibly silly. It should be akin to attacking an elite infantry unit holding a mountain fortress. In other words, you either go around them, or you need probably at least 10 times as many troops.

There are other odds that don't make sense. For example, Once a base gets the defensive perimeter, any units inside doesn't get the base defense bonus anymore.

There should be a lot more different modifiers. Infantry units should have a much higher bonus defending bases, rocky areas, and forests comapred to vehicles. They also should be able to dig in, i.e., a fortification bonus a la Civ. Units defending against attacks from lower elavations should have a bonus. Units attacking from higher elevations should get a bonus (higher for vehicles). Units defending across rivers should receive bonuses. Vehicles attacking into forest, rocky, and fungus squares should receive penalties. Marines attacking from ocean squares should receive penalties. Non-combat units should have at least a -100% penalty.

posted 05-12-99 03:03 AM ET         

The builder strategy is only more powerful right now because of the easy pop-booms. Take that away and research/money will drop off in the early game pretty considerably. In that scenario the attack-defense ratio reflects a horrid balance shift toward the aggressive factions. This is because until perimeter d you have 3 armor normally vs 4 attack. You can't hold your cities.

Normally perimeter eases the situation for 3-4 techs, and then chaos guns or shard arrive. At best I have silksteel now. With guided research maybe I could do better, but blind is a steep handicap. I'[ve countered so far by keeping wars on their dirt as much as possible, and concentrating on better guns. Spartan morale is a very good thing.

With pop-booms I'd say you're right; building up is VERY effective with that in hand. Your growth is phenomonal and population almost directly equates to research. So you get all the big guns faster and easily counter their strikes before going on the offensive.

So has been my experiences anyway.

I'd like to modify the system of combat myself, and some of the ideas here make better sense. The game is civilization building and realism is preferred I think.

posted 05-12-99 03:22 AM ET            

Perhaps you haven't played as the Gaians very often. If the Gaians can gain green economics early in the game, they can create an unstoppable army of native mind worms that will overwhelm any nearby opponents.

At the heart of any good strategy game is balance (this post seems to be about play balance). Each of the seven factions has individual strengths and weaknesses favoring a certain playing style. The more difficult the game setting, the more pronounced these differences become. If you enjoy a conquest game (the Hive, Spartans, Believers), then you want the attack to defense ratio to be as high as possible. If you enjoy a "building" game (University, Peacekeepers, Morgan Industries), then you want a more even attack to defense ratio. The real magic is developing an attack to defense ratio that allows all of the different playing styles at chance to achieve victory.

The 2-1 attack to defense ratio works well in strategy games where military ability consists of: 1)production(how fast units are produced), 2) economics (how expensive are units), 3)technology (how modern are units), and 4)might (how strong are units). The extra attack advantage is to balance the very low production rate of military units in the first half of the game (technology advances much faster that production). However, Firaxis added three new rules that unbalance military ability:

1) The ability to "harvest" native mind worms.

2) Psi combat virtually negates all tech advantages.

3) Planet rating has a large affect on psi combat.

These three new rules give factions with a high planet rating (the Gaians) several powerful advantages. The Gaians can "harvest" native mind worms early in the game creating a huge army (in most cases requiring no support). The Gaians can then attack other worms or units making their armies stronger. Psi combat eliminates almost all tech advances. The Gaians are the only faction that can achieve a planet rating of +5 giving their mind worms a +50% combat modifier. These advantages severely unbalance gameplay in favor of conquest orientated gamers.

Therefore, Glak, the current version of SMAC heavily favors attackers over defenders. However, eliminate psi combat and the 2-1 attack to defense ratio balances the game nicely.

posted 05-12-99 04:17 AM ET            

Building anything other than the bare minimums to keep your people in line is mental masterbation. That's it. The computer doesn't make that mistake, and that is the reason you "builder" people scramble so hard to build up your defensive network. The absolute best defense in the game is *attacking*. It freaks out the AI and it stops doing anything but try and retake that city you just took from them.

You want a builder game, go play Railroad Tycoon, or even Rollercoaster Tycoon. But to think SMAC is a BUILDING game is simply silly. You can TWEAK it to not favor the Sword QUITE so much, but our complaints is that its TOO MUCH Sword, and not enough Shield.

Attacking infantry that are holding a city is SUICIDE for a good number of your troop. It's better to go around (if possible, and not risking your supply train), seize the CAPITAL, and force surrender. You HOPE you really DON'T have to seize the Capital, as that is SUICIDE for your troopers. To repeat what I have posted before, there is nothing worse than city fighting, except maybe the clean-up.

SMAC favors the Attacker. Claiming you need the 2-1 because it is a building game is just delusional. And SMAC does NOT achieve the Perim/Tachy/Command Center/Aero Complex/Sensor/Bio Enhanced Elite Defender 12. Heck, in most of my games, *I* don't achieve SilkSteel. But I probably have Missile against opponent Synth. Maybe Plasma, if the computer cheated, stole it from me, or it took me a while to point the army ant mass heading towards The Promised Land. [But you really only need a seed force to take out most computer factions on standard maps.]

Wtiger, I never build Perimeter Defences. I never build Tachy 'cause I never have the option (not discovered). I have only seen HOVERTANKS because I have played beyond Victory. I have only SEEN Grav vehicles because I built a custom faction that had it at start so that I might see how they work. I understand that the different FACTIONS make you think you should play in certain ways, but doing so is folly. The game mechanics and the AI are all about conquest and denial of resources. While I have picked on the RTS games, SMAC is not very far up the thinking tree from the Twitch games. Incredible LACK of options makes me think that while the GAME is a good application, Brian and Sid seriously missed the mark for the level of FUN this should have been. There is no balance. There is no all encompassing sweeping away that Civ caused me.

Their is no balance because the attacking GUNS always win over defending BUTTER without SERIOUS bad luck. Out produce me? HOW? Unless you are HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD from me, I am going to be sending troops to collect all of your resources for Darkstar's Empire Unlimited while you are trying to build a lab/perim/defender. The only reason the computer is not trashing you while you are playing at "SimEmpire" is that it sucks big green rotten ostrich eggs. Any old World Conquest/Empire player is going to tear you apart. The highest tech you EVER need in the game (for average standard map) is Particle Impactor (My mid to late game weapon), and Foils to get you across the water. In tiny, I don't even need THOSE. Hand weapons and Laser do just fine. Only if I can't REACH an opponent will anything else be actively researched.

Probes are nice if you want to defend against Lal's peaceful invasions while crushing someone else. But more times than not, we will shortly be at war. Until Victory. On a standard sized map (and typical game), I know I have won, for sure, between turn 75 and 100. Just have to go through the moves. By turn 120 to 150, its over, unless I am playing around.

I have been thinking of modifying the game back to Empire. At least the AI knows how to handle that, even though it cheats horribly.

SMAC? A builder game? Would you pass the bong my way? Thanks!

posted 05-12-99 05:05 AM ET            

So, what's a builder to do? First, build an army. Second, master the art of the *counterattack* and the *pre-emptive* attack. Yesss, use that 2-1 ratio against your would-be conquerer. Scout aggresively using your air and sea units. If you can see him first and strike him first, you've won half the battle.

If worst comes to worst, lock your conquerer in a death embrace. Try to stalemate him for as long as you can. Counterattack vicously. Sooner or later, one of the other factions (but sadly not you) will have a significant advantage over your (exhausted) conquerer. Plead(!) for his help. If you're lucky and he helps you shake off your would-be conquerer, then you can probably use your superior human intelligence to get even with the other factions.

The point is, when your homeland is being invaded, it's time to throw off that builder hat and become a conquerer. It doesn't make sense to still produce consumer goods while your empire is burning down around your ears.

posted 05-12-99 05:17 AM ET            

I agree that total build and expansion would be just as silly as total warfare and expansion against a HUMAN. But it seems we are cunning enough to do so against the computer. Not that that takes MUCH...

-Darkstar

posted 05-12-99 07:16 AM ET         

I have never moved that quickly on offense, although I admit the game only lasts as long as you let it.

posted 05-12-99 12:54 PM ET            

The original civ was perfect. You had to balance new city production vs chariot production. Buildings were worthless just like they should be.

In SMAC buildings are useful. I an not talking about building a lot of buildings. However if you mix a few buildings in as you go while maintaining a reasonbly sized army you will win. Combined with a higher growth (booms) and efficiency the Warriors just don't have a chance.

2:1 is a nice ratio, and I do agree that there should be some more defensive bonuses for fighting outside of the cities. However the combat system must be balanced with the rest of the game. Perfecting the tactical part of the game would actually make it weaker.

Swarming is a builder strategy. If you are attacking with more than 6-7 units then you are using a builder strategy. True conquerers only make one building early game: recycling tanks, everything else is either a pod, former, or military unit.

I did not take psi combat into account, yes it does help. However only the gaians can use it early enough for it to be considered for this discussion. If you are going up against the gaians and you notice that they are over extending themselves you won't be fully able to exploit this. You might be able to pump a few units and pick off a city, however they have built another and a building in their capital.

I suppose I should make myself clearer but I don't have time. Ok here is how we can sum it up: rock paper scissors, but scissors doesn't quite beat paper.

posted 05-12-99 02:04 PM ET            

I rarely play Transcend. That's because I find the game just slows me down by forcing me to build Rec Commons earlier than I like. Aside from that one little thing, there really isn't much of a DIFFERENCE. Yes, I will repeat that, there isn't much of a difference. This is due to my basic game plan. While in the lower difficulties you can do more, such as play bully boy (especially with the Spartans), the AI really doesn't react differently TACTICALLY.

I find I build a LOT of Recycle Tanks. They are a great base enhancement... I also build the occasional former. But when I can build three or four military units that WILL sieze control of a city for the price of a colony pod that HAS to have a military unit to guard it or Planet will bust it, what's the point of building NEW bases if there are any ripe prebuilt ones within 20 turns of taking over? I can and DO build a force to seize that city, and if pop is doing well, then build a Colony pod. If I wanted to get NASTY, I can achieve Total Conquest a little quicker, but what is another 50 turns?

I find upping the size of the map just adds another 50 turns per size factor. Huge maps still fall within 200 to 300 turns for a REASONABLE start, depending on water, and how long it took to gain Flexibility. I ALWAYS play with Blind Research On, Spoils Off. Makes the game more interesting. And I have found turning the Unity Pods Off to have significantly slowed me down by about 35%.

Now, what stomps the AI most efficently would probably work against most Humans for the first few go arounds. And as I maintain a reserve of Rovers for home defence/Reinforcing the front, I think it would be a good STARTING strategy for multiplayer. However, Humans adapt quickly, and know how to cut deals with neighbors to take out mad dogs before the mad dogs get them. That is the serious danger against Humans.

As far as what factions I have done this with... ALL OF THEM. Yep, even Morgan. My favorites right now are UoP, Hive, Morgan, Gaian, PKs, Spartans, and TB. Please notice that 2 of the 3 Conqueor factions are at the bottom of my list. That's because they make it a cake walk when I use them. [Hive should be down at the bottom as well, but like Morgan, they are just Kewl (IMHO). ] When playing Transcend, UoP slides down to #4 on my lists due to the fact that all citizens in bases just a little out from capital are drones, but that's the Artificial Stupidity inserted into the game. If it ain't fun, don't waste your time on it. Life is too short.

If you guys are having fun messing around, good for you. But don't count on your opponents waiting on Impact weapons to wage war on you. And especially not Chaos or Shard! In MP, a conqueor is going to be knocking on your door much earlier, and despite the claims of "Oh, my city is going to hold", it ain't. Only the HIVE has a CHANCE of slowing down a conqueor (defence-wise), due to their natural Perim which evens the odds of attacker weapon vs defender armor. And there isn't anything CHEAPER to make early than Weapon Only Rovers and Weapon Only Infantry. Toss just one or two defenders per pile, and the force can roll on in impudence. But I appreciate you building Recycle Tanks, Network Nodes, and Rec Commons for me. Thanks. Lets that new Recruiting Grounds start tossing out the units like a core city that had to wait on building units so that it retained SOME minerals to energy.

Oh, and I NEVER Pop Boom. That capability comes MUCH too late in the game to be useful to me.

SMAC is a rush tactics game all the way. It favors it in that you CAN'T keep a city without performing a defensive pre-emptive strike. Period. Perimeter Defensive is a MID GAME ADVANCE. Yep. That's right, its a MID-GAME ADVANCE in the classic SMAC rush, unless you can convince the Hive to give it up. And as PROBES tend to be the mid game MARKER for me... (End game is Synth Fuel)

If you played 175 turns, you have played way too long on a Standard Map. The mad crusading Spartans/Hive/Believers could have already conquered the world (possibly, twice if Analyst is playing them). Gaians can do it by 200 easy with a little Worm Farming. (Sooner if you SKIP Worm Farming) How advanced would you be in struggling against that? The Smart Conq will sign a truce with you in MP if it takes them to long to get to you, and steam roll a smaller opponent. Then they take their CONSOLIDATED LARGER ARMY And kill you. And You MIGHT have managed to pop off a new colony pod and build an extra building in the meantime.

But Weiny Rushes? Nothing favors the Teeny Weiny Rush as strongly as SMAC. Nothing. To prevent that sort of thing, Civ made DARNED sure that Defensive (Bronze Working) was one of the absolute FIRST techs, and granted that a unit DEFENDING the tile it was in got +50%, off the top. Turned a 1 attacking a 1 into 1 versus 1.5 (2 to 3 odds). Add in terrain mods, and you quickly shot into 1 to 2 or worse. You had to wait on Chariots (4 in Civ) to get you near even odds. And the CHARIOT rush is something all Civers did as a matter of course, to some degree or another. But its that 1:1 to 1:3 attack odds that made Civ a game that made you build and expand. When do the rushes happen in Civ 2? Legion/Ele/Catapult/Cannon/Bomber/Tank. Each one unit advance brings the attack to defence odds from slightly in your favor (4:3 for Legions and Eles) to 2:1. And that is when ALL the War happens. Since SMAC runs almost CONSTANTLY at 2:1 odds (or higher for the attacker), the ATTACK is always favored. For this reason, I think multiplayer games are nothing but a death match... and believe that History will prove this.

posted 05-13-99 03:47 AM ET            

Tactics? Strategy? Boy, I was BORN in that Briar-patch. And SMAC doesn't *really* have much to it. You are talking about past MY end game to get your "Front" city in shape. And you wouldn't survive very long TRYING to do that against a Human Conqueor. That is the PROBLEM. The game's ATTACK favors going from the get go. It just gets BETTER for the Attacker long before it evens BACK up at 2 to 1 odds if you pursue CONQUEST. If CIV was built like that, it would have been a FOOTNOTE to the Make Your Own History game that had a better balance.

But, if you enjoy it, have fun. I do. But its not the level of fun that it SHOULD have been, and that is why I am dissappointed with it. But until the next REAL turn-based strategy game comes along, SMAC will do for a while. But when I want *serious* fun, I currently play Rollercoaster Tycoon... or Railroad Tycoon (1 or 2)... or pull out some OLD classics that ARE well balanced, or don't make an excuse at being an Empire Building game. MOO, MOM, Ruthless.com... the list goes on.

Maybe Patch 4 will address some GLARING game balance/game play holes, but I doubt it. However, I don't think Sid should let his name be used in the future except on games that are HIS baby...

posted 05-13-99 02:15 PM ET            

When you get +900 (or more) bonus for a swift victories (and +700 to +800 as general ROUTINE bonus), don't bet my scores are very low. And conquest gives you a lot of pop, as you eat up your opponents cities FASTER than you can make and place cities of your own. The only bonus I have found that even COMPARES to a quick complete military victory was racing for MMI with Blind OFF, and getting elected Supreme Commander on the turn I gained MMI. I had to bribe half the world, but still... and that was only equal to about my mid point score for being militarily aggressive.

I don't think its cheating in the SLIGHTEST to be military governor and being able to see into what the others are doing. But if you feel that way, build a probe and infiltrate their links. Then you will ALWAYS be able to see what that particular faction is doing, even if you lose being governor (and while it seems a waste, I do exactly this). Remember, unlike Civ, if you have a unit near an opponent's base, you can automatically see what units are in the base, without infiltrating them. Even "cloaked" units such as probes. Think about this - if your company spent a little on intel, they could drive a van around my company's building, and read everything on all the computer screens with just a little bit of tech, and all the INPUT from the keyboard. How much INTELLIGENCE is that? That's real-life bud. How much would intelligence gathering have jumped in an atmosphere of 7 FANATICAL NATIONS led by Insanely Ambitious People that think nothing of destroying whole nations? Don't think for a second that ANY of the Faction leaders are nice humane people. They aren't. They are all stark raving psychopaths that would as easily feed you to the mindworms as bribe or bully you into doing what they want. And they got people following them that are stupid enough to believe that they are only one step away from the Creator... and its a very short step.

Have fun building. Just keep in mind that the Wieny Scout Infantry/Rover rush is a VERY valid tactic from the very start of the game... that as far as DEFENDING goes, 1:2 odds is what the game is stacked for. Even dropping a Perim (+100%) and Sensor (+25%) only changes that to AT WORST FOR ATTACKER 4:5. That means A COUPLE of attackers per defender will wipe you out. Toss one nearby unit in to walk in after the defence is eliminated, and you just lost a city that you were spending resources BUILDING infrastructure. To defend, you are still going to need a worm defender, and a high attack to pop attackers that park beside you. How many units are you going to waste on that? How fast will the attacker roll on? [And keep in mind that as he does so, he is gaining MORALE, improving his attack and defence capabilities.] Will that give you enough time to rush order MORE effective defensive force, which turns out to be ATTACKERS?

See, there it is again. The best DEFENDER is an attacker that gets Them before they get close enough to ATTACK You. That is why the game isn't a Building game... As I've [seemingly] endlessly said... Its a simple war game exercise with some interesting side paths as diversions. Which is why I am so bitchy about it. It should be better balanced between BUILDING and WAR.

posted 05-13-99 04:25 PM ET            

I really wish you had made it into the MP game you were invited to play with me. I'd like to take some of that wind out of your sails. Let's go with a huge map, 50-70% water, mild erosion and dense cloud cover. Thinker level or transcend. One on one, mano a mano, 2 player MP. No accelerated start. No blind research, no spoils. You must win with a faithful or better reputation. You have first pick of factions. I think you're full of hot air about the builders being screwed in this game and I'd like to prove it to you. Now, the gauntlet is thrown. You can spend your time "talking" about how the game is unbalanced or you can try to "prove" it to someone who is otherwise never going to believe you.

posted 05-13-99 04:30 PM ET            

Postscript: As much time as you and I have on our hands, I think we can knock out about 5 turns per day, so that we can finish this before you get bored or I die of old age.

posted 05-13-99 04:36 PM ET            

We can maybe get one or two others to round out the field.

You up for it?

Of course their is the part of me that wants to fire grapeshot through his sails as well...

posted 05-13-99 04:43 PM ET            

In a BALANCED game, the size of the map wouldn't affect your ability to defend your bases.

And it is HARD to win with a Faithful or better level of honor due to a bug in which AI pactmates breaking off the alliance often slams YOUR honor. The only reliable way I have found to do so is to never pact and never truce.

And I'd have to find a way to install SMAC on my Laptop. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to play while at work.

Jam, who are the other players in your PBEM? Is that Yin as True Believers? and who else?

And lets add Analyst, the TRUE master of SMAC Warfare. I know he's retired SMAC for SP play, but I bet we can get him to fire up SMAC for Multiplayer.

posted 05-13-99 04:48 PM ET            

And to truly test it, you would need the Master of Building versus the Master of War. I know I am not either, but I also know which side the combat system favors.

posted 05-13-99 05:27 PM ET            

Ahhhhh... You've discovered the secret, only you don't know it yet. There are many ways to play SMAC. Given the proper parameters, it can be fairly balanced between the conqueror and builder extremes, or it can be unfavored to one or the other. If you "want" it to be a builder game, set the parameters accordingly. If you "want" it to be a rover rush game, set the parameters for that instead. But, don't go on at lllleeennngggtttthhh about it being unbalanced if YOU are choosing it to be. By the way, I regularly win circa MY2400 +/- 20 years on the above settings WITH a Faithful or Noble reputation by transcendence or Supreme Leader. I dread the tedium of having to conquer, but will do it on a "need to squash" basis.

I'm involved in several pbem games at this time. A 2way with Nell, a 3way with Nell and another player, a 7way with 6 "newbies", all of which started from Planetfall. Then there is "Newhon" a 4way created by MoSE, "Weizen" a 4way created by Meister Weizenkeim and of course, the Aredhran Challenge, the 7way that Yin is in also, ironically the Believers and my closest neighbor. Unfortunately, the Aredhran Challenge is moving slower than molasses running uphill in a Vermont winter as there are too many people in too many timezones with too much slacking going on. It's too bad too, because I was really looking forward to playing this one originally, but a turn a week is ridiculous. I guess that I've gotten spoiled by the others who are averaging one to three turns a day.

But, seriously Darkstar, if you want to play builder, set it up for that style game. If you want to see how it's done, play me, with my settings, I'll be only too happy to show you.

posted 05-13-99 05:48 PM ET            

FYI, the player rosters for the Challenges are all on public record in the Multiplayer forum. They are too long to put into a post, but available if you're curious. I've preserved the anonymity of my other partners barring their prior release, with the exception of Nell. She and I have had quite a game going and are considering posting our "transcripts" of the game onto the forums to help drum up support for MP and the roleplaying aspect involved. That is, if there is any interest for us to do so. It has grown into quite a monster of a text file (~200+ kb) and will probably have to be broken down into 10 year chapters or installments.

BTW, I am aware of Analyst's thoughts on the builder/conqueror debate and would consider it an honor to go head to head with him, as well, in MP. Unfortunately, it would probably have to be pbem for several reasons.

posted 05-13-99 06:00 PM ET         

Also, the attacking units get just as little defense as defenders (often less), so after they attack, they are fair game, and also usually reduced in power (must get healed to become effective again).

A strategy that the AI never seems to use, but that I find very effective is pair up a no-shield-max-attack rover with a no-attack-max-shield rover. The latter is used to meet the attacker's charge in open territory, and will retreat after a short skirmish which will render the attacker somewhat weaker and immobile -- sitting duck for the attacking rover. And this is cheaper and more flexible than loading an attacking rover with shields.

- icosahedron

posted 05-13-99 06:07 PM ET            

Humm? HOW does it favor war in huge? Why, the built in efficency limit in the game prevents you from being able to profitably use the cities out past, what? 20 tiles I think, from your capital. That means that most of a large empire is a drain on those beautiful core cities. That you have to SERIOUSLY terraform, using great energy fields to make up for the national drain. The War Monger on the other hand, builds Command Nexus, and has free Command Centers at ALL bases. Cyborg Factory is another of the War Monger's Great Treasures (if the game gets that far). And playing the Hive, with automatic Perims mean you can skip the Citizen's Defense force for raising Perims around newly captured bases. I am VERY serious about the game is BUILT to favor War. If there wasn't the efficency problem, MAYBE Jam, MAYBE, I would agree that there is a point that the Builder gets even. But there isn't in the current game as it stands.

I realize that I can go tweak the Alpha.txt to make it favor the Sword a *little* less. But how many *players* are going to agree to that? Why should I have to? Isn't that one of the gripes against CtP? That you have to go tweak it like crazy to make it PLAYABLE?

How many NEWBIES gripe because they can't play a good game with Morgan, or Gaians or UoP because on Standard maps they start near the Believers or Hive or Spartans and the AI KICKS THEIR BUTT!?! This is what I am talking about. If I want to play Morgan or the slightly less Non-War "Builder" factions, why should I have to go to very large maps to have a decent chance at it? I should be able to play the Merry Builder on a Tiny map using the Great and Perfect Core
Cities and Outer Distractions approach. But are you going to get the time to do so against anything but the current AI?

But thanks for recognizing the fact that the game DOES favor War over Build. And that you have to go to extremes to even gain the breathing room to pretend otherwise. That's appreciated.

And yes Jam, I do occasionally enjoy returning to my Empire building roots to see if I can build a nice peaceful world. But the AI is programmed to come after you if you aren't kicking its BUTT! Once again, reinforcing evidence that War is favored, and preferred. It would be easier to have programmed that AI to build cities INFRASTRUCTURE than to program War Strategies, and easier to perfect, but have YOU seen any evidence that Firaxis did so? I haven't...

But Jam, I really WOULD love to see you play. Just I don't think I will see much from PBEM. Do you live in the Continental States of the US? I can travel a fair distance in the states pretty easily...

Oh, and my absolute FATEST games ever was on Huge world. With PKs. Won it on 2301. Using Rover Rush. That was the AI... I was letting it control a pack of 6 Rovers, and it absolutely DECIMATED the other 6 AI Factions.

I normally favor strong Infantry rush with a light sprinkling of Rovers to act as scouts and outriders for the main army. The suicide troopers assault the cities, the rovers help keep anything dangerous from the troopers and eliminate naughty things such as worms and other rovers... the instant garrison troops and serious expensive troops protect the Suicide troopers while wailing on cities...

-Darkstar
(getting down from the soap box before I get my whole family lynched)

posted 05-13-99 09:06 PM ET            

Nooooooooo! Don't get down off your soapbox. You're a much easier target up there! I live in Santa Clara, CA. That's SMACk dab in the middle of Silicon Valley about 45 miles south of San Francisco. If you're ever out this way, you're cordially invited to stay at my place and we'll play hotseat or (if my finances ever look better) set up a LAN. I usually play pretty fast SP so we could play a few different settings if you're free for a while.

If you're having difficulty keeping your reputation clean; only probe enemy factions, only sign treaties, or, if in pact, talk your partners into calling off their vendettas against other factions. Always let the other break the truce, treaty, or pact first. If stuck in a pact and in vendetta with a common enemy, suggest that they coordinate an attack on a base that you can reach then at least make a minimal effort to take the base. That last one should be a breeze for you. Do not use PB's or commit atrocities. And, speak to your computer in soothing, even tones. It likes that!

posted 05-13-99 09:51 PM ET            

Interesting point of view. Lets take a nice simple situation and do some analysis. Both starting at the same point, with the same modifiers, so we can focus in on the strategy involved.

Attacker has 2 cities, connected by roads. Defender has 2 cities, also connected by roads. All the cities are the same size, all have similar resources, and there are NO planet/worm/fungus issues to slow slow down A's units. It's early in the game and lets assume all the cities have 4 minerals to spend. The cities for A & D are 4 squares apart. A & D are 10 squares apart. This looks like a VERY tiny world to me. The non-realistic assumptions about Planet would not help D at all: A's mobility is maximized.

Now let's look at overall production of attacking and defending units. The A is going to build some 212 Laser Rovers for $20 each, and the D is going to build some 121 Synth Infantry also for $20 each. One unit every 5 turns/city, in other words. The A is going to put together a stack of a couple of 212's and some 121's. [You said the plan was to throw in a couple of defenders so the A's stacks are not sitting ducks while en route]. The A has the additional burden of leaving a couple of Rovers home to guard the home front. It is going to take him 10 turns to cross the intervening land.

20 turns go by. Here's the situation [building in both cities for A&D]:
A: built 8 units: 4 attack rovers, 2 defense units, 2 rovers left home for defense and keeping the drones in line.
D: also built 8 units: 6 defenders and 2 counter attack rovers.

This is almost even *so far* A brings 6 units to the party, D brings 8, but they are split in two groups. But A is still 10 squares from the ponit of attack.

While A is crossing the intervening space [10 more turns at the pace of the slowest unit in the stack], D keeps building more units: say 2 defenders and 2 artillery. By the time A's attack force shows up, they are badly outnumbered and reinforcements are 5 turns away at least. Even given that A manages tactical surprise as to which city is targeted, and that D has to split his defense forces, D's reinforcements, which can be hurried if necessary, appear in 1 turn after construction.

**This strategy works only against unthinking opponents.** Not against an agressive tactician who understands the advantages of interior lines of defense, and the negative impact of long supply lines [here applicable for appearance of reinforcements]

Obviously it would work if the D is surprised by the attack, or fails to build a defense. But that is a victory for tactical skill [or lack of skill if you like], not a condemnation of the game's combat system.

It is also true that there are a dozen OTHER strategies that work against unthinking AI opponents, you have identified one.

--------------------------------------

Dont get me wrong. I agree with you: --The game *IS* flawed.--

But it's not the combat scheme that's the problem.

**THE**AI**SUCKS**

It can be seen in the aimless use of formers, the military units built, the misuse of naval and air units, city development, etc. ad nauseum.

That said, I also agree that the combat factors could be tweaked to make the game more builder-friendly, less bloodthirsty.

posted 05-13-99 10:14 PM ET            

The problem with you all (including me, but maybe not JAMiAM) is that all these calculations, plans, hot air, et cetera are mearly thereotical. You all don't have hard evidence(read: multiplayer) to back up your claims. Druid's right; the AI just isn't cut out to be a significant challenger to humans i.e. any evidence that "my plan works; your plan doesn't" when fighting against the AI is worthless.

Sadly, since I'm sitting on the other side of the globe, it's going to be tough for me to play multiplayer (Okay, I'll admit I'm chickening out..... ). I'll be looking forward to the Darkstar vs. JAMiAM clash though. Keep us posted!

posted 05-14-99 12:25 AM ET            

Unfortunately, I've not gotten far enough into my MP games to give a definitive answer to the conquer/build debate. In two of the games, Weizen & Newhon, there are three common players; cousLee, Goobmeister and myself. cousLee is an aggressive player while Goob and myself are more builder oriented. In Weizen, cousLee is the Believers and has the enviable position of being on the same continent as the UoP (AI). This game can certainly be said to favor the warmonger. If, however, cousLee had my starting location as the Believers, it would be an ENTIRELY different game. He would have been hosed for at least another 50 years. And that would have been enough time for the builders to become too strong for him to catch up.

In Newhon, the game is less advanced and the factions have not made significant contact yet. It should be an interesting game for several reasons, not the least of which are the faction picks made by the players, not what you'd expect, given our prejudices.

What I've taken Darkstar to task on, is not that SMAC can be unbalanced in favor of the conqueror, but that it is necessarily so. Now, Darkstar has mentioned on numerous occasions, his difficulty in obtaining "living space" when his computer seeds the drop sites. I've responded to him previously that he should change his parameters to make his problem go away. If he really wants to play a builder game, then he can. But he wants to give with one hand and take with the other. For example, in my challenge to him, he wants gravship capability from the beginning to compensate for the larger map. But the point is, given a "change in scale" the pressure to initiate hostilities is lessened, the AI behaves differently, the travel time between different factions is greatly increased, leaving more opportunities for disaster to strike, troops to become obsolete, defenses to become prepared, et cetera. Other changes have major effects, such as the map generation model when using specific sets of parameters. My main complaint against his arguments is his absolutist stance in claiming the game is invariably favorable to a conqueror, yet refusing to accept that the game can EASILY be set to favor the builder. It is a matter of personal preference and available to anyone that wishes to employ some very simple choices. My conviction, and one that Darkstar will not shake me of, is that SMAC is designed to accommodate many different play styles. It is flexible enough to be made into a "rush" game, a "sim-city in space" game, an empire "building" game and many shades in between. While I don't think the combat engine is the best available, (People's General is FAR superior) as a "strategy" game, it is, non-pareil.

posted 05-14-99 05:01 AM ET            

I knew there were reasons that I was getting off my soapbox. Visibility is a big one.

I wanted the Grav ships primarily to speed up a PBEM game. For the same reason I would prefer to play on a SMALL map. It would be nice to finish the game before Star Wars: Episode 2 is released. I won't always have free time, and I don't expect others to as well. We both agree that distance is the primary early defense you want. Let my machine (nicknamed the Little Monster) build the game (randomly), and odds are it would be over within 50 turns. The Lil' Monster would probably drop us on opposite sides of Mt. Planet and give all the nice continents to the AI. It would make the size of the map pointless then...

And Jam, you just keep on believing that SMAC truly supports multiple paths to victory, without bias, for a *multiple human player environment*. With some changes to the game, I may give up my position, but that is only with a LOT of changes to the Military Conflict model. Since the defender can't get ahead of the Attacker before Tachy, it doesn't take much attacking power to beat the defender. How many defenders did I read you build in SP? One Reservist Attacker, and a trance scout? How many builders out there are going to get a nasty surprise playing Builder vs AI in Multiplayer? Heck, I expect to in the PBEM that I signed up for. I wasn't thinking, so someone gets to have that fun. I'm going to call it a well-earned lesson...

You people are just FOCUSED on Rovers. You don't need them to wage war and eliminate opponents. Indeed, I often eliminate 3 of the 6 AI factions by turn 60 without ever discovering or building the Rover. But they are helpful. Heck, we have seen post from serious intelligent SMAC addicts that never go to war pre-hovertank. Whatever floats your boat...

How many people only invade the AI Spartan homelands numbering 30+ cities with only 4 troops, and expect to win the continent? I do. That is how bad the GAME favors being the attacker. 2 Top of the Line Infantry, and 2 Miscellaneous troops (Rovers, Worms, Suicide Troopers, whatever). That is all it has EVER taken for me. Air just speeds up the long conquer process.

But really Jam, would your side of the challenge to be to win via only Economic or Build to Transcendence? And that you couldn't take any cities? Otherwise, you are playing Conqueror, and just marking time until you feel comfortable to start War.

And my point about Honor, Jam, is that I don't commit atrocities, nor break any thing I agreed to, but I was getting slammed for the AI doing that. But you said that following through on a diplomatically agreed Attack plan raises your besmirched Honor. I stopped bothering with Pact mates for war, just trade, long ago. They were more trouble than they were worth, and not letting them take those cities just lets me capture the enemy cities and start them towards the Dark side sooner. Maybe I should reconsider when going to maintain a Noble reputation. You know, it wasn't that hard in version 1 or 2. Maybe there is a new bug?

WTiger - The AI is a lot better than many of Brian's before it. As far as whether it's hot air or not... I obviously believe that the hot air isn't from my side. But from OTHERS descriptions of what I am communicating...

I think I am giving too much of an image of the Mad Rover Rusher... My strategy is what others might think of as "Builder", except that I wage absolute and total war from Turn One. The Difference is when are you willing to reach for that Sword of War.

The heart of my strategy is simple... control and process all the resources possible. What does that? Cities. So I build all the cities I can. But as you can't spend the game building colony pods, due to the producing cities shrinking to the point of uselessness, you have a lot of free time to do other things [per city]. Which leads to building military to take over opponent's (read: YOUR) cities. Antiquated (or junk) units play raider/pirates/vandals/Convoy and even double as worm defenders. But you can't just spit out military units constantly (without Clean), due to the fact that production capacity of the cities will shrink to nothing. So, that means you have to find other things to do at a certain level of resources eaten for support. That leads to building infrastructure. Does any of this sound familiar yet? You just can't pop off 20 Rovers... but you can choose to spend that time EFFICENTLY to maintain order in your cities (yielding higher production and growth levels which yield more pods and more military units), improve your future troops effectiveness (morale), or deny your opponent access to Secret Projects.

Most of that is what a Builder does. But as I said, the difference is that I *start* off willing to assault you with those starting military units. And I don't back off... The War Machine continues to crank, gaining momentum. But each city takes a breather from time to time to preserve a minimum size, and minimum production level. Against the AI, you never need to MASS the troops to do an Assault. Against a Human? You would probably need a sacrificial lamb to pull their typically small reserve force out to be destroyed by your main expeditionary force. Then a quick assault, and watch the dominoes start to fall. Even if your opponent is GOOD, with simple reinforcements moving up to expand the beach and incidentally acting as patrols along the supply routes, you are talking about a generally inevitable end for most games. Once cities start to fall, you have to switch your production priorities and mad rush from whatever non-military unit tasks you are doing, and either send your units to an unguarded front of your attacker (to try and refocus HIS forces direction), return troops to the home for Harth Guard services, or bribe side-liners into attacking your attacker. When were you derailed on your path to Transcendence/Economic Victory? Yes, both the Attacker and Attacked can enter a Death Struggle, but once you have thrown over to the Dark side, you won't go back, will you? If you stomp your attacker, you have all these military units dragging down your production economy. And you might as well USE them, as you HAVE them. If they don't succeed, you have freed their support cost. If they succeed, you have freed their support cost. And gained a bonus. Another city to feed the Machine fresh blood.

In a mixed AI and Multiple Human game, the only thing DANGEROUS to you are the Humans. They can think. And if you don't act accordingly, odds are against you being in the game for longer than it takes their forces to start conquering/subverting your cities to their possession.

Not to disappoint you Goob, but everything in between gaining cities (building and taking [and taking is FASTER than building once the War Machine is started]) is simply marking time, or, as has so fascinated people, pure and simple Mental Masturbation. Fun, sure, but still...

posted 05-14-99 09:14 AM ET            

I guess that NO degree of tactical skill or analysis could stop the juggernaut.

posted 05-14-99 09:56 AM ET            

I'll do you one better! Let one of my machines (work or home) build a world. Then we'll sit down and have a "nice" game of SMAC. Or, if you think it'll take too long for us to pbem, I'll send you a dozen or so created worlds for you to play SP. Or, if you just want to see how other people's machines are seeding the drop sites, go into scenario edit mode and check them out.

posted 05-14-99 01:49 PM ET            

When I play a resource based strategy game I want to be a builder. The game is played as an exercise in resource management and warfare is the active extension of my political strategy. A quick conquest victory is less enjoyable than a process of building an empire, and then spreading my benevolent rule from there.

When I used to play Gary Grigsby's Second Front I would look for strategies to annihilate the Germans as quickly as possible and push them back into Germany in '42 or '43, that was fun.

When I start a game of SMAC or MOO my purpose is not to rip the AI a new one from turn 1. Rather I prefer to build an empire and then use that empire as the tool for the AI's destruction.

My horror at reading Darkstar's assertion that SMAC was just a game for quick rushes and conquests, was because I allowed myself to think that is all the game was. Sure you can do that if you enjoy it, but my victory in 2450 through cooperation with my good friends in the UoP by burying the other factions under the technological weight of our dual empires is more fun than winning four games by 2222 in the same amount of playing time and using rush tactics.

The are more viable stategies to beat the AI is than I can shake a probe team at. One strategy is not qualitatively seperate from the enjoyment it brings to the person using it.
Just because the game can be won using a conquering style from the get go, as opposed to *having* to build an empire to win only says that at any given moment in the game the human is superior strategically to the AI. (Let me alert the media, there's a shocker.)
If you believe that SMAC is truly a game where building doesn't matter, then lets design a scenario where the AI factions have a simulated 100 years head start in building and then you start with your single city, scout and pod. Darkstar I would wager that you could win sometimes, especially at the lower levels, because the AI is that bad, but I think the usual result would be a human loss.
Or take a scenario on a small map where JAM has a builder faction with a 40 - 50 year head start, and then use a quick conquest style to beat him. That would start proving that a qucik conquest style is superior to a building first style.
A player using a quick conquest style can force an opponent to develop more militarily than they would like. Because a quick conquest style is the quick application of force. I can't sit back thinking that the construction of my Rec. Tanks, formers, and Energy Bank are going to defend me when your "suicide troops" come marching over the horizon. If I have a worthy opponent who is conquest mode then by gosh I need to go into conquest mode as well. Can I sit back and just let him bring the fight to me. No. Strategically, I would not do that in real life either. A proactive aggresive defense is far superior to a passive "I will sit in my cities defense." What that may lack in any realism is made up by playability with dynamic gameplay. Ultimately to win a player also has to have an offensive strategy as well, and be able to take opportunities to go on the offensive.

Strategically the game is balanced just fine for me.

Tactically, then I am in agreement that something seems to be out of whack. It is counter intuitive that a unit with a strong offensive punch and a decent defense would be killed when attacking a unit that has an outstanding defense, and a feeble offense.

That is where the game needs work. The fact that my 4-1-1 infantry unit is the same cost as your 1-4-1 infantry unit and has an even chance to win a combat with it is unrealistic as well.

It was mentioned that in CIV there were devlopments that would bring the offense more in line with the defense, and eventually surpassing it for at least a period, and that is when the rushes would be. Remember CIV is at least somewhat modeled on history, and this is the way warfare progressed.
In SMAC new weapons systems are being modeled, there is no right or wrong way to do it. The way it was done forces a more dynamic combat system where to be successful both sides in a conflict must attack. Personally I would have enjoyed a system where the reletive strengths of offense and defense swung back and forth. And yes I know you can tweak the techs to make this somewhat possible.

Other changes like only allowing bombers to damage ground units instead of out right destroying them may seem more in line with airpower as we know it. I can't say whether it will be equally unrealistic in 200 years.

I'd love Infantry units that had more of the capability to retreat instead of fighting to the death all the time.

I feel my anti-Sid Meier's CIV/SMAC combat system rant building, I need to go sit in a heat sink for a bit until the rage dies

Goob

posted 05-14-99 02:15 PM ET            

The safest place to be is to be the next door neighbor to the first Sod that falls...
This gives you a CHANCE to go to a War footing as it generally takes about 10 turns to truly get the new bases in step with the Core of War and the marching, marching, Ants Of War...

I am not worried about having to hide in Multiplayer. But it seems that OTHERS are. And you won't be able to hide for very long. Any AI in the game hands out all sorts of info if you want it, and if your aren't playing on Transcend, you can just threaten the info out of the AI. So, you either play on Transcend, screwing UoP and a few others factions into the ground (but raising the Gaians power balance, I think), or with 7 players. Out of 7 players, there will be a couple of players who will go to War at Impact(4) or Missile(6), and drag everyone else down to their level. Which is what I have been preaching... Go to War NOW and save everyone the time so that they can go do other things, like kiss the wife, play ball with the son, take the daughter out horse riding, play SP SMAC and plot the demise of those that kicked you... yada yada yada.

SMAC is too limited in movement to apply tried and true tactics and strategies of reality. In its limited model, it strongly favors the attacker, leading to a simple, endless series of attacks. While a Lord of the Dark is making you divert from your peaceful strategy, you are playing into his or hers. And, unlike the AI, you get penalized everytime you swap production...

In that classic Mother to ALL TBS's, Empire, this looks like Army Ants on the march. The Army Ant tactic gains more Ant Makers (Cities) for the Aggressor, leading to more Ants (Military) to press forward and sieze more Ant Makers. Its not that its brilliant... its simply inevitable, like wind, rain, or streams eroding a mountain. The only way to STOP it is to eliminate your opponents Ant Makers. While the options of Bribing and Nuking have been added, its hard to bribe what you cannot reach, and its impossible to nuke for a VERY long time once the Ants are marching...

If the military oriented AI followed this strategy, there would be no need for anything but two levels... Tutorial and General Play. But that game programmers have forgotten this in the fun and joy of building Behavior and Civil Engineering algorithms. Or, they got into true Turn Based Strategy gaming TOO LATE to learn the basics, and therefore have problems formulating corresponding computer followable strategies. Or, they wanted the game to be more fun than those endless marchings...

SMAC, like the other "Evolutionary" or "Revolutionary" decendants of Empire makes you mark time due to City-State approach to the nation. But CtP, with its overall cost approach, allows one to do this to a tee. They call it Military ICSing, but at its heart, its just the Army Ants Marching Off To War...

The TBS games are coming full circle, and without a lot of tinkering from their current path, they are going to lose their Multiplayer appeal. Its a lot more fun to play an approach other than Army Ant, but I believe that is the only tactic that will win Planet so long as a War Monger stands...

The Ants go marching One by One,
Hurrah, hurrah...
The Ants go marching One by One,
Hurrah, hurrah...
Oh look, one city! Now TWO!
Lets breed more brothers,
untried but true...

The Ants go marching Two by Two,
Hurrah, hurrah..
The Ants go marching Two by Two,
Hurrah, hurrah..
Sting the Probes and seize the Cities,
Its not bold, nors it pretty.
But its the only Tactics to SMAC War...

The Ants go marching Three by Three,
Hurrah, hurrah..

posted 05-15-99 02:51 AM ET            

It is really boring and sad to contemplate that all the fun features and developments of the game will be overwhelmed by a player who sends waves at you early in the game.

One idea for fixing the problem shouldn't be too hard for the firaxis people. (If it is indeed a problem. This is still being debated, obviously...) Why not simply raise the defense values for defenders in cities and make taking them the pain in the butt it should be? If you look at modern warfare, fighting to take well defended (or not so well defended cities) is avoided if at all possible.

posted 05-15-99 10:29 AM ET            

The better player will win, and a human is ultimately better than the AI so most tactics will work there.

posted 05-15-99 06:25 PM ET            

That simply leaves the question of timing. Early in the game the resource build up is exponential. I wait another 20 turns I will have double the resources. But if I start cranking out military now, I will only have half the production for 20 years longer. At some point it becomes more efficient to quit building. [yeah, it's a lot more messy an equation in practise...]

That point where building becomes pointless will be reached a lot quicker if:

Smaller planet.
Weaker AI
No water to cross.

Also if you have the re-birth option on, as standard, it's almost pointless trying to kill the AI because they just come back.

Darkstar doesn't play Transcend and he doesn't play on the largest map; he plays with re-birth off.

I agree under some circumstances you might as well get going from turn 1. Not the circumstances I play with though. [but I agree you'd never see grav-stuff -- btw Darkstar have you thought of using air to defend an infantry column? If the air is defender and the opponent has no air the entire stack is impossible to attack.]

-------

posted 05-16-99 03:52 AM ET            

I don't like to play with restart as it really just rewards my near three neighbors. My machine really loves to drop as many factions as it can fit right next to me at startup. Playing on Huge Maps when all 7 factions are dropped in a VERY small continent that has about 60 tiles TOPS is plain silly. Especially when relocate gives the AI 6 to 10 Colony Pods, Colony Pod count x2 to x4 in TOP TECH ROVERS and x2 to x4 in TOP TECH INFANTRY. I don't mean the FACTIONS top tech. I mean known THROUGHOUT the world. I find it VERY irritating to have to crush Santiago 3 to 6 times in a game. Especially when the game keeps setting her back down in the SAME SQUARE she was just ELIMINATED out of. While I may only have a total attack force of 4 to 6 units total, collateral damage eliminates a stack of 20+ Military units and whatnot. Then it puts her back... repeat attack cycle only using 4... It puts her back YET AGAIN, and I have to throw all my (10 to 30% hits) force against her. Ever seen a 10% Elite Scout eliminate 35 Infantry and 40 Rovers with Synthmetal or Plasma? I have. Talk about ruining the fun of the game. I don't understand how other people stand it, but I am guessing YOU haven't seen it or you wouldn't be guessing why I don't play with Restart off.

It also removes the temptation to perform the Reincarnate Maneuver... declaring war on that nasty neighbor (Hive, TB, and Spartans) whose capital red grid is sharing borders with my cap. The computer runs a unit into my only cap, and I get relocated, just like the computer. Only with top weapons and top tech, just like the computer. And Lots of colony pods with equal number of Rovers and Infantry. If you just find those things floating around, lets keep blasting the escape pod back into space until I have an army of 200 ELITE INDEPENDANT UNITS! Let's go Morgan! Instant super army!

Third, the computer will always come for you. I have a difficult time forgetting this. Its like in Civ, you KNOW the Russians and Zulus can NEVER be trusted. Ever. So when we truced or peaced, I kept on as if we hadn't, knowing they are going to break their word as soon as their reinforcements reached the new front. But SMAC is a WAR game, under its pretty Build An Empire decor, so this is understandable.

I don't play Transcend because I think its pitiful. Its only artificial difficulty added in, not increased fun. As I have said before, if it ain't fun, don't do it. If it tickles your fancy, do it and have fun. While the computer cheats as horribly as it can to make it look as if it can challenge you, it can't, as it can't learn. It really does suck, so you are just volunteering to slow your game. I think the early to mid game is interesting. That time period when a volcano pops up in the Heartland of your empire will wipe you out.

I haven't heard ONE PERSON say late game is fun or balanced. Not one. SMAC came out in Mid-February and all I have heard is: "Its fun to by Transcendence in one turn, but all the rest of late game sucks!" or "Its fun to PB all the other factions city in one turn! Awhu! But all that work up to it sucks!" or "Its fun to mass attack the computer via air and missiles and infinite bounce a drop 1-1-1 infantry throughout the world and capture all enemy cities! Awhu! But all that work up to it sucks..."

Give me a break.

Darkstar has played on the largest maps and find them boring. Darkstar has played with rebirth and found it ridiculous. Darkstar has won Transcend games, on Huge maps, with rebirth, within 150 turns. I had intended to try a Transcendence Victory, but like most games, my allies turned against me and had to be crippled production wise to gain peace. When the Dogs of War are but a few turns from total victory, you might as well FINISH it. 20 turns later, total conquest. Blah. No fun for me, after hearing how Builder oriented HUGE maps are, and how you have to work your butt off just to survive against the top level and its crazy AI. I didn't find that so, so I don't PLAY that. As that was TYPICAL, I stopped trying those. Maybe when I am in a more SimSF Nation mood, I'll try it again.

I don't feel a need to prove a FACT. And I don't feel that it would be very fun to grind a fellow human being into the ground in the war theatre of SMAC just because they don't believe their war game isn't a war game. Get Analyst to sign on for it as well, and I will play. That puts the Hound Master Of War in the game, promising at least one cagey enemy that knows it's worthless to go for those Singularity Clean Gravships. While I know I am not the end-all or be-all player of SMAC, and probably will never be so, the general sit back, peacefully expand, and concentrate on infrastructure until your cities are defended by AAA and Trance garrisons sitting in Tachy and Perims with 4 sensors scattered around your base, and you can build clean Singularities certainly won't survive contact with the enemy...

And note, it's incredibly easy to get the AI to do what you want on anything but Transcend. It's pretty easy to get the AI to do as you want on Transcend. *Shrug* So leaving the AI in such challenges wouldn't be anything towards proving who is the better multiplayer player of SMAC.

If the builder can't BUILD according to his or her tried and true SP Build strategies, and has to play WAR, well... I've talked ENOUGH about that. A two-way match means death for the Builder or so all those posting are said. Is that why people are wanting to turn a 2 way into a 4 way Match? 3 Builders to take on one Mad War-Monger?

Look, if you have FUN playing Huge Transcend Eco only Victories, have fun. If people like to play Tiny Citizen with custom Uber Factions, go for it. As long as its Fun. The reason I have posted to this thread is the game favors the Attacker much too much in my opinion. If you disagree, go ahead. But I would like to see Firaxis redress this.

And Goob, two last things. One, I haven't heard JAM agree to stick to being a BUILDER. We want to test Raving War-Monger versus Builder philosophy as most of us have our own strategies to that, however efficiently or inefficiently... Two, all the MP discussions and recounting have either been all builders playing in the same world for a couple of hours, or someone letting loose those Dogs and everyone quitting. Maybe I need to widen my data set. Suggestions where to find some people playing live and talking about it?

I realize that I am coming across as someone that needs to be whacked, or is that SMACked , down a couple of miles, and I do apologize to those peaceful pursuits players who feel so greatly insulted, especially to Jam. I do play around with different strategies occasionally, but find it too difficult to put down the Sword and call back the Hounds of War once I have had to begin the Crusade to pacify my enemy.

David - I will use Air units as cover for attacking columns when merited. I had thought that the computer couldn't SHELL those units with arty, since it can't attack them, but they can and sometimes DO. The plane hasn't ever proven vulnerable to shelling, so everything works the way you expect in THAT instance.

posted 05-16-99 02:31 PM ET            

No need to apologize to me. We simply disagree and do so in a civil manner. Not a thing wrong with that (except for the matter of me always being right )

You're correct in asserting that the point of the game is to "have fun". Goob says much the same thing in one of his posts on this thing's "sister thread". After all, any gaming is simply "mental masturbation" as you put it. Let's all accept that analogy and "extend" it.

Now, I understand that, for you, there seems to be a particular amount of time that you want to spend "doing it" before you reach your climax. That way if you reach "wargasm" soon enough, you might have time to do it again before you're called away. After all, you're a busy man and you have other things to do besides mentally diddling yourself all day and all night.

Now, some of us, the builders, like to build up to our particular type of climax (econ, supreme leader & transcend victories) with a little tugging here, a little rubbing there, a little more teasing, anticipation and effort put into the job at hand. We like to make it last and would rather enjoy one good climax rather than two hurried ones.

Now, this isn't saying that as builders, we don't take Miriam over our knees and righteously paddle her bare bottom on occasion. We do. But the difference between a builder and a conqueror is that the builder will generally wait until she comes begging for some abuse before we give it to her. That way we've had the time to finish the paddle and can do a right proper job of it, lessening the sting on our own delicate palms.

And finally, Darkstar, what I've taken you to task for in this thread more than anything else, is that you claim to want to be a builder, but everything you post flies in the face of that. Just accept the fact that you're happier being a "two-stroke Charlie" rather than a "sixty minute man". This is not meant to be insulting, after all, different strokes for different folks.

posted 05-16-99 07:42 PM ET            

If this was the plan, perhaps the elimination of this feature is the reason why the game so favors the attacher??????

posted 05-16-99 11:12 PM ET            

1/1 - 0 tech/0 tech
2/2 - 1 tech/1 tech
4/3 - 3 techs/3 techs
5/4 - 8 techs/9 techs
6/x - 8 techs

So in the early game attack/defense is actually from 1-1 to 3-2. But since the common experience is that attack has a huge advantage over defense in SMAC, there has to be another reason than attack/defense ratio. Advantages of attacker over defender:

1. Attacker has the initiative. Attacker fights at its discretion. Defender must fight when the attacker chooses. Usually the defender is not giving as much attention to the situation as the attacker is. (The attacker is going all-out, while the defender is trying to get by with as little effort as possible.)
2. Attacker has nothing to lose and everything to gain (new bases). Defender has nothing to gain and everything to lose (bases - the means to support its armies). Other than police duties, military units are of no use if they aren't fighting or expanding the empire.

Realistic disadvantages to attackers that are not present in SMAC:

posted 05-17-99 11:53 AM ET         

Civ2:
Mech Inf., Veteran, Jungle,
6 + 3 + 3 = 12
The 50% bonuses modified the BASELINE defense factor of 6, i.e. they are ADDITIVE.

SMAC:
Probability Sheath, Elite, Fungus
6 * 1.5 * 1.5 = 13.5
The modifiers are MULTIPLICATIVE.

I guess my point is, it seemed hard to find GOOD defense bonuses to balance the 2-1 ratio, but because of this multiplicative way of calculating things, it isn't quite as unfair as I had originally thought. I once thought to myself, man what can stand a chance against an elite Air unit with the Singularity laser (attack=36), and then I realized even a disciplined Antimatter plate unit, on fungus, AAA with a sensor nearby is already 37.5. An elite stasis AAA on forest is 54! That would stand up with a 50-50 chance even if the air unit used the nerve gas!

posted 05-17-99 01:02 PM ET            

And the Attackers main limitation is generally its supply lines. That is where it is most vulnerable, and that is where a good part of its morale, as well as replacements for units under strength, come from. Since this limitation is only represented by a mineral support cost in SMAC, this permits one to do all sorts of interesting things. Your points about Attacker knowing where they are truly going and what they are truly hitting and the survivors improving are basic attacker bonuses by nature of being the Aggressor.

The Doc - What is the Strongest modifiers a defender can have in BASE? You can't gain fungus bonus, nor square terrain bonus (I think) and if you could, the best would be Forest (can't build in rocky). That is why bases get Perimeters and Tachy. But I don't recall Bases with both getting their modifiers MULTIPLIED. I believe they were additive. Many of SMAC's formuli are additive despite what is said. If I ever play a game HIGH enough in the techs, I'll try to check (probably be easier to build a scenario).

Naval battle and strategy is not what you would expect as in other strategy games, including Civ. There are little to no modifiers for defenders, and it shows in the sheer losses one suffers in ones naval force. If there is one place no sane being in the Factions wants to serve in, its the Navy.

My main complaint with SMAC is that a non-customized game is going to favor the attacker, when the attacker is not concentrating on improving his weapons technology. The Defender, on the other hand, has to work hard just to try and keep the gaps between 1-4+ to 1-2 odds down to a relatively short span so that no Aggressor rolls over them. While you are doing that, the Attacker can and will be growing STRONGER while you are trying to not be in the hole too deeply. As a praticed Raving Mad Dog World Aggressor, I would rather fight using PHYSICAL power over PSI, as the PHYSICAL system much more strongly favors the Aggressor. PSI is based at 3:2 odds, and the Physical combat would be slowed to make Psi aggression if it was in a similar scale, rather than the overall game play of 2:1.

Of course, in Single Player, this sorts of things can be contained if someone truly wants to be the Golden 7 Cities of the Morganites, and win by Economic Victory (now), or go for Lal's 50 cities of 16 Pop and Diplomatic Victory. But its the natural guiding effects which shapes and influences all the SMAC players to be more militarily aggressive, which will lessen your chances to do so in Multiplayer. My hat's off to anyone that wins the peaceful victories in Multiplayer without having to roll out the War Machine and all its Blue, Red, and Green X Meanies and trounce all the other Human Aggressors in game to do it...

posted 05-17-99 03:00 PM ET            

Darkstar, as a gaming computer your computer sounds as if it is hosed. I have never had the starting seedings and placements that you have.

Darkstar et al.,

I, Goobmeister MeisterGoob, am a builder. When I play a sp game I will 2 out of 3 times play the builder role, the third time being an experiment or attempt for change of pace. This is how I enjoy resource base strategy games. As JAM said earlier I am cautious a builder strategy plays into this.

If I were in a 2P MP game with a warmonger, then I would not have the luxury to be a builder, unless I could significantly defeat the warmongers advances, I would have to be a warmonger. If I were in a 2P game with an unknown opponent I would need to look to my defenses first, this is natural. Furthermore it is something that you have to do in any game where there is a chance that the opponent will have the motive and the means to enact your destruction. Which means any game that allows a conquering victory. A strategy game that favors defense in the begining, is a race to develop to the point that you can go kick th eother player in the shorts, all it does is alter the timeing of the attack.

Face it, we all play Computer Games to vicariously kick the living cr*p out of opponents, because for the most part we realize that it is not a good thing to do in real life. In a game that has both a cooperative victory mode and a conquering victory mode most people most of the time that they play will opt for wiping their opponents off the face of the earth (or Planet).
Darkstar, you and I could have a one on one game, (or Analyst and I could) with the other AI opponents, and the game would be a military struggle of two conquest mode players. Depending on skill of execution and luck of the landing site a winner would emerge. JAM and I could have the exact same game, maybe we would choose to mutually build, who knows.

Saying that the game is predisposed to conquer mode because, if you start off in conquer mode then all your opponents will be forced to follow you, is incorrect.
Granted when there is one competent conqueror in the game, the other players will need to deal with him/her through the use of force, but this is not predisposition, it is the nature of games. If I want to use force then there is no way you can stop me without the use of force.
If several "builders" decide to pool their armies to eliminate the warmonger threat, it is not the admission that conquer mode is stronger, rather it is the opposite. Cooperative building will out pace lone conquering.

What I don't understand is the thought that if you bring force to bear on me that I need to answer by the use of force is such a big revelation about SMAC. If your warlike ways allow you to gather greater production capacity in a shorter period of time than my building ways then I have to find the means to slow your militant growth. Period

I will continue after lunch....

posted 05-17-99 11:41 PM ET         

Darkstar: You're right about the Perimeter Defense/Tachyon Field. It is the ONE thing that is ADDITIVE so that a Stasis inside with both of these gives you D=36. I'm not exactly sure how morale and sensor get calculated into this, but for SURE when you are outside, all these factors are multiplied. Play librarian and check the option to confirm odds before battle, then look at the little window at the bottom center and you'll see it for yourself. In the meantime, I'll try to test how those city defenses are calculated in.

posted 05-18-99 12:50 PM ET         

Antimatter Elite, Sensor nearby, Perimeter defense:
10 * 1.5 * 1.25 * 2 = 37.5

posted 05-18-99 01:24 PM ET            

How about eliminating the infantry +25% bonus for attacking a base (Firaxis should have given Rovers base attack penalties instead) and make Comm Jammers available earlier.

Personally I still feel that the correct defensive strategy & tactics will stop any human attack (when the two sides have similar resources available.)

posted 05-19-99 05:07 PM ET            

licha - Cities can't be built in rough terrain. So they won't get your in unit in rough against fast units bonus. They probably eliminated that when they went from additive defense bonuses to multiplying them. Jammer is already free for most GARRISON types. Its cost is based on attack - defense rating. So units with attack lower than armor get it for free.

I have heard that a base with Perim loses its natural +25% bonus to units in it. Is this true, or is the modifier falling of the bottom of the display box for us? I can't check this as I am at work.

And finally, I had an Epiphany. I now understand why I find SMAC so overly offensive as it drips with its War Lusts... In Civ, I was a defensive builder until I decided it was time to paddle the AI for being so critically bad and threatening. When I say I was a defensive builder, I mean that I built one or two defenders and added a single attacker to the defense stack, as taught by the game. If pressed very hard, I would go to war and drive back an opponent in territory distance. But I grumbled. I wanted to build the Space Ship as early as possible. While I never beat my 1200AD launch figure, that was my ultimate goal. It was more fun to ME to go for the Space Ship rather than go into micromanaged conquer the world. But try that in SMAC, and SMAC seems to enjoy paddling your bottom instead. It makes it seemingly improbable a happening to be able to peacefully sit by and "go for the sky" (as it were)... You have to deploy quite a few "defensive" forces into the wilds or your lands to try and intercept the attackers. And seeing as once they start, they don't like to stop, the only REAL way to make an aggressor faction stop is to carry the war to them, taking their cities and forcing a truce or capitulation. While its a nice touch in SMAC to see this kind of complex war behaviors, its not nice that the game so revolves around it, nor that all 7 of the AI factions are so psychotically bent on world domination. It would be nice if Morgan wouldn't throw away our 200 turn+ mutually profitable alliance that has taken our two factions from the 6th and 7th slot in everything from tech to energy to production to military to pop to territory, and lasted until we were both 1st and 2nd. Where is the sense in it when Morgan can afford an economic victory in a mere 50 turns and you are 100 from transcendence? But once the war starts... the pups of discontent mature into the Dogs of War and the AI won't let you put them back in their kennel.

That sort of behavior is silly, and just makes the *imbalance* between attacking and being able to defend your cities and territories stand out so strongly as that seems to be what you spend so much of the game on.

posted 05-20-99 07:31 PM ET            

Miriam will always beat the Spartans and the Hive if located near them in the early game. In fact, she will defeat any faction she is near in the early game, unless there is a water barrier. Since we all know the AI doesn't do naval warfare worth a damn, we should be able to accept Darkstar's position.

Minimum infrastructure and maximum military will win, especially if combined with Human cunning. Builder strategies CAN win, if the other factions leave you alone. In SP, that means becoming powerful enough to intimidate your neighbors into signing pacts, forcing submissions/surrenders or eliminating them altogether.

The tendency to go to war 'as soon as I get shard tech' is just unjustified faint-heartedness on the part of the player. Sure, you lose a lot of scouts, but they ARE cheap and plentiful to boot. Your long lines of communication become less of a problem as your success rate increases. In the end, you force the enemy to waste too many resources switching production or too much energy hurrying production to maintain builder strategy in the face of the Army Ant or Human Wave strategy.

The game can be set up to defeat this strategy. The game can be won in other ways, even if the situation would support Ant Warfare. However, Darkstar's position is valid: Rush the enemy and you shall win (in the AI's case).

In the MP case, the humans will likely band together to eliminate the 'Rush' faction so they can pretend they aren't playing a rush game. Then once they reach the tech level they feel comfortable with, they will try their version of the 'Rush' strategy.

All this being said, the comments about the game being flexible are correct. Just because something is POSSIBLE does not mean it is MANDATORY. Builder strategy may be mental masturbation, but then what is a computer game but mental masturbation?

posted 05-23-99 09:28 PM ET            

The thing I would like to hear about is how to structure a viable defense in Multiplayer IP or PBEM. From someone who has done it. Against humans. Not theory. Fact.

posted 05-24-99 01:59 AM ET            

K, we are still reading this thread, although it may be time to move this elsewhere (new thread).

posted 05-24-99 02:25 PM ET            

Build a best defender to take advantage of the defenses intrinsic to your base, plus anything you later build. Then get everyone else out of there and out to your frontiers with opposing factions.

Stop thinking defensively, even if you can stop an opposing Rush, the attacker has already succeeded by forcing you to react to "his" strategy and tactics. Why prepare your homeland for this apocalyptic defense when you need to be expanding, and if you acnnot expand by building then you need to be expanding through conquest, stopping the opposing rush before it starts.

Remember the strategy that Darkstar and others advocate is that if you can attack someone with Shard weapons, then you could attack them with Chaos weapons. If you could attack them with Chaos weapons then you could attack with Impact weapons. If Impact would work then Laser infantry would work.
My response (modified after reading these arguments and experimenting) is if you could defend your base at the base then you could defend at your border. If you could successfullly defend your border then you could defend at his border, if you could defend at his border then you could be attacking his land and cities.

Do not be reactive, be proactive. If you get the knife to the Rusher's throat before he gets his to yours, then you win.

The games mechanics do favor attack, (an imbalance the other way would be boring, and even a balance would heavily favor builders IMHO) take advantage of what you can.

Goob

posted 07-21-99 06:20 PM ET            

hey darkstar - you must be bored...

Why dont you try Morgan_2281 ???
You will find it cool - and I just got beat Ares 7

Enter the Scenario Contests at:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/3802/

posted 07-21-99 06:45 PM ET            

Besides, many contain nuggets worthy of newer SMAC players attention...