posted 05-13-99 04:34 PM ET        

I'm going to back up a moment to state that I have been playing too late into the night and getting up too early in the morning the past few weeks and I have been getting more and more droopy around the eyelids at work recently, and this of course is where I do the majority of my forum browsing. Somehow in this sleep deprived state I missed this thread and assumed it had no worth while info(no offense Doc ) then today while I was sleepily scrolling through it, something caught my attention, and I had to read it several times, "Building anything other than the bare minimums to keep your people in line is mental masterbation. "

I am a builder, at least in resource based strategy games, working under the theory that more building means more resources, and more efficient use of those resources. But here comes Darkstar claiming that while I am SMACing, happily enjoying myself, building away, all I am doing is mentally masturbating. ...My wife says the same thing, but for differant reasons.
Now I don't think there is anything wrong with a little M.M., I was still taken aback by D's bold claim. As I read on though I was slowly convinced by his arguments. As a builder from way back, who loves SMAC, that hurts to say.

Again, "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." Of course there is the defensive pre-emptive strike, THAT should allow a builder to keep those pesky attackers off long enough while you build buildings that make you stronger and more efficient.... The smart attacker does not allow you to make the preemptive strike.... Then while you build the defenses that allow you to slow the attacker down to be able to make a pre-emptive strike, you are spending your resources to the point that you are not able to develop your infrastructure.

What are some strategies that defeat the Rover rush in a player on player situation? (ie., no calling in another player to gang up on the rusher)

Darkstar also said "You can TWEAK [SMAC] to not favor the Sword QUITE so much, but our complaint is that it's TOO MUCH Sword, and not enough Shield."

What are some of the Alpha.txt tweaks that work in helping make the offense and defense more even?

What are some thoughts, ala the Social Engineering thread, that would be a whole scale change of the Combat system to make it a better system? (Darkstar I know you have some.)

Finally, for those of you who disagree and think the system is fine the way it is, please convince me of your argument, that is what I want to believe.

Goob
P.S. IIRC there were similar discussions on the classic TICHQ threads, but I thought that it was worth raising again.

posted 05-13-99 05:02 PM ET            

I, too, was taken aback by Darkstar's claim.. . I had to read it several times to make sure he wasnt kidding. He's not. I'm a bit confused at some of his logic, tho. He says that he both "captures" those juicy enemy cities, and that city fighting is the worst, so he avoids it. I havent figured out how one could do both.

Before I believe it, tho, I wanna see it for myself. I'm going to start a new game and try the rover-rush he claims is an easy & fast win. If *that* works, I'll prob. try a Hotseat Game where I'm both players... and look for sensible counters to the rover-rush. I think the approach is "what would the Spartans be like if Corazon were SMART instead of AI."

My *guess* [at this stage, only a guess] is that it works against the AI, who is very poor at ANY facet of the game. And I doubt that it would work against a human. Because the human would do something different.

posted 05-13-99 05:07 PM ET         

But truthfully, the bias to the attack is a good thing IMHO, otherwise it encourages stagnation. Indeed, I would say the bias to the attack is not so much in the combat advantages and weak/expensive defenses, but in the low mobility of troops. It takes a long time to bring your reserves up to defend a city, lacking railroads, er, mag tubes.

The place where the builder wins is if he gets fusion reactors first, while still viable. All of a sudden combat effectiveness more than doubles, with predictable results.

posted 05-13-99 05:27 PM ET            

Stopping rovers would be to make sure there is no fungus or open squares around your base, have a perim, tachy (if you have the tech), sensors, ECM equipped garrisons, and Command Centers. Stopping a rover rush *seems* to require a mobile reserve that can swing down/out and bang on the attacker before they get to attack, and/or takes up positions for the lost defenders. But as there would be more rovers on the way or there already in the theatre to wipe out your mobile reserve so that the slow infantry can bang on the hard targets... I don't know. How early are you looking to try and stop it? And is this for Multiplayer Human Controlled Vandals? I have long been pondering this...

Druid - I apologize for the confusion. In SMAC, I don't avoid City Fighting. I was talking that in Reality, city fighting is the worst kind there is. And in games that MODEL that, I direct my forces wherever possible to avoid that situation, except for seizing the Capital, and whatever cities that would be a threat to my supply lines.

posted 05-14-99 09:53 AM ET            

Yeah and the Summers are hot in Phoenix.

posted 05-14-99 02:16 PM ET            

If I were fighting in the Civil War or World War I I would much rather have been on the defensive side. In the Civil war (especially in the east) the defnding army won most of the battles, (due somewhat to Northern incompetence, but also much due to the technology level. The fortifications and defensive weapons were outpacing the offensive weapons. Not until the advent of the tank did the offense start to gain an advantage again.
Old Warrior, your reference to Island warfare, I want to be sure I understand, the marines took 2,3,5 even 10 times fewer casualties than the Japanese defenders or did they take 2,3,5, even 10 times more casualties than the defenders? Or were you saying that they attacked with a force 2,3,5, & 10 times stronger than the Japanese and took reletively the same casualties, (my WWII weakness is Pacific theater).

I don't see the ratios as being the worst thing in the combat system, what bothers me the most is that unit with a pea shooter and silksteel armor will beat your laser unit with Plasma Steel armor... not only will it beat off your attack my armor will actually somehow kill your unit!

This is unrealistic in the extreme, (unless someone can reframe how it works for me) or unless I really misunderstand how the combat model works.

posted 05-14-99 03:20 PM ET            

When an Aggressor is trying to TAKE control of the land, the defender just needs to kill you to win. Admitted, its BETTER if they survive to fight another day, but other members of their family/tribe/nation who do survive will carry on. As an attacker, you need to kill the enemy and take his land, or drive him away from the land. In either case, you don't win until you have control of the real estate. Due to this fact, if the defender and attacker have the same weapons, you need a lot of attackers. THAT is what is so wrong about the 2:1 ratio of Attack efense. Its completely unrealistic to think that just because you have a Buck Rogers laser pistol, you can shoot two defenders for every attacker they shoot. It just doesn't work that way. Ask any Infantry man that has been on both sides of the Fox Hole or Trench.

The NEXT glaring problem is that mentioned many times before, it doesn't take into account that in serious armor, you can ignore much lighter weapon fire. But armor is deceptive term in SMAC. There is no ARMOR. SMAC Armor is a unit's Defensive Fire capability. And that is one of the things that drive us nuts, apparently...

Old Warrior, I am not versed in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, but from what little I recall, the island hopping campaigns were described as ALMOST as bad as city fighting. And the casualty rates depended on how well supplied with Ammo the defenders were. There WERE places were one American Marine died for every 15 or 20 Japanese Soldiers, but those were where the Japanese had little ammunition for their firearms, or were assaulting well supplied dug in American Marines. But if I recall correctly, one American soldier died for every 8 Japanese for the entire Pacific theatre. That was always attributed to the fact that we had such superior knowledge of their forces and Military due to breaking the Japanese war codes (Infiltrated their datalinks, as it were). This allowed us to focus our forces against the strategic elements we wanted. Additionally, that count also takes into account the Japanese civilians who died, which we killed by the hundreds of thousands. Other tactics included that we liked to kill their military commanders whenever possible (Yamamoto springs immediately to mind). That caused disruptions and cost the Japanese many a smart or brilliant Strategist.

As far as the Attack/Defense line and whatnot... It all depends on the tech, training and morale of both sides as well as the locale. I wouldn't want to be on a flat piece of land trying to hold a well or cross-roads if the other side is going to send a few Chopper Gunships and Ground Attack aircraft my way. I wouldn't mind defending a nice fortified and reinforced hill fort guarding the only pass wide enough and flat enough to permit gasoline powered vehicles through, especially if the unit had some good anti-tank and aircraft weaponry... It all depends on who brings what to play...

Recently, America has been playing bully and hitting nations that haven't the power to even think about putting up a struggle, so we think we have the most serious kick butt attack and military around. This isn't necessarily true. And while Tanks being able to travel at 40MPH and still hit the window of a transversing car 2 miles down range is impressive, it doesn't mean that the tank will be effective seizing Moscow as the visibility will be considerably less than 2 miles, and a satchell charge will still destroy its treads and road wheels, allowing other satchell charges to be placed until the tank is no more. That is the nastiness of city fighting... where any civilian may not be just a civilian, where you can't see as far as you can spit, where a lone defender can sniper off half a platoon before he can be eliminated, where the Big Iron loses all abilities except as a projecting bulldozer, and Air Cover means there are clouds in the sky. Dense jungle fighting is nasty, but you can always try calling for Artillery or Air... not that it is as helpful as the Power Projectionists like to preach in such circumstances, but... When things are hot, you need it then. When things aren't, you don't. Arty is effective when its not rushed and has time to adjust its settings and range... otherwise, its a toss of the dice whether its going to be useful or not...

posted 05-15-99 01:18 PM ET            

This sort of situation does not carry well into SMAC because you just don't have combined arms tactics in the game. Fighting is always man to man, er, one to one.

posted 05-15-99 01:26 PM ET            

I still can't see how you could rush an island fortress so early in the game. The game I am playing now I have the CDF and Silksteel armor by 2180, rendering any kind of Laser/Impact rush suicidal.

But I digress. If I am the defender of an island fortress, all I need to make are attack foils. An attacker, on the other hand, has to make transports and escorts. So right away I have 2:1 advantage in sea superiority there. While you very likely to have more cities they are in shambles and not able to support any sustained war efforts. I also have the advantage of operating closer to home, so damaged crafts can be repaired quicker.

posted 05-15-99 01:40 PM ET            

Just add logistics and the rush winds down instantly.

For example, simply double the support cost for military units operating in foreign territory to reflect the tremendous burden of conducting a war of aggression. In this case, clean reactor acts as a -1 modifier for support cost (per unit).

Also, since it is impossible to coordinate large amounts of unit in an attack without a command structure, the following can be added to reflect this:

Each command center under a player's control generates a command point (CP) a turn. CPs can be stored. For each additional unit, other than the first one, to participate in an attack, a CP is required. Notice this is PER attack. Therefore a chopper attacking 3 times will burn up 3 CP, unless it is the only unit in the attacks. Units may defend normally without using CP.

posted 05-15-99 04:50 PM ET         

Plant forest-- Rovers, no matter how many Movement PTS, will only have 1 move when in forest. It'll give you double the time to react. And, since they can't attack the same turn they move adjacent to your city--your unit can attack it. Planting fungus is not as good an idea b/c they can hide in it and eventully fungus will be treated as roads.

City-States: Frankly, there is no such thing as a Federal government in SMAC. Each city is independent of any other of your cities. Use this to your advantage. By building each city to be self-sufficient states you'll be able to wage war right down to the last city. Try playing 1 city against the AI. With the limited SUPPORT, ENERGY, POP, etc. a person'll have to be even more crafty against an AI who has 40+ cities. It's the best way to develop unconventional warfare.

posted 05-16-99 05:41 AM ET            

Unlike others, I never trade tech unless desperate for a particular tech. I don't MIND giving Syth Fuels to my allies (for example), but they make peace or truces and give away the tech I gave THEM to MY enemy. So I'd rather let them fry than have a Tech that does ANYTHING. And if my enemies have to spend time researching something I already know, all the better for me. Waste of their time. Also, I decided to track how many times the computer cheats by removing all pods from the game. It's much easier to spot the computer give Air Power to a faction quickly falling... And for a while, I have played without Unity Pods. As I have posted elsewhere, this slows me down. It allows me to try out new strategies and play styles without being tempted to use Artifacts to speed things up (Projects and protos). It acts like early stage tech stagnation as well, as you aren't getting Chaos tech from PodLotto when you have yet to get Impact, or Unity units to instantly upgrade to the latest kick butt units.

I generally change my Research priority to Conquest at start, to gain Laser, then go for Formers and Synth armor. If you change your Blind priorities, you can guide the research pretty well towards what you want, but its not guaranteed when you get there . Note I never TRY for Rovers, but if I suspect I am on a short land mass, I will go for Foils, ASAP. That of course, yeilds Rovers. Once I have the basic Techs (Formers, Laser/Impact, foils) I generally go for all the Eco Techs that yeild unlimited Food, unlimited Energy, and unlimited Minerals. The game has a good chance of being done before I get all three, depending on land mass, and whether or not any AI got Monsoon. Of course, not being the AI, I change and adjust strategies as needed.

Old Warrior... I do not think that looking at modern warfare between infantries is as accurate a source for SMAC as you think. All modern armies are ARMORLESS in SMAC terms. Why? We don't know of any way to put enough armor on a Grunt to be able to ignore an Enemy's weapon. We can pad him some, and give him a helmet, but nothing on the scale to ignore military rifles. That is literally what TANKS are for.

Second, when most cities changed hands due to fighting, they had been besieged, and in general had any field armies cut to pieces. The surviving elements of the armed forces that then retreated to the city. At which point the siege broke in and the defenders were routed and slain. This was a relatively RARE occasion, which is why they started slaughtering every man and half of the women and children in cities taken, so that the FEAR of what would happen if they lost was so powerful that the defenders would surrender.

SMAC does NOT model a city under seige and being cut off. It models a city not being able to use the TILE under the enemy. Unless the city is HUGE, this is a minimum inconvience to the city. It can still work all the OTHER land. And defenders can still be easily moved or flown in. So, it takes a minimum of 8 military units to surround a town. That's 16 TOTAL units to prevent briberies, unless running Fundie/High Probe/HSA to prevent basic briberies. It REALLY wouldn't take much to keep people in a SEALED city. Or at least, I wouldn't think so. So that element is out.

In modern combat, it was shown in the European Theatre which used a LOT of blitzkreig actions that a city with garrisons in them were extremely costly to assualt. In many cases, there wasn't the traditional rolling back of the defenders over a LONG enough period to let that absolute DECAY of morale sink in, giving the cities better motivated defenders.

I understand that no fortified defense will hold forever, especially not against motivated, well trained and (superiorly) armed attackers. However, the defenders can make the attack so costly that the attackers will leave them alone. But in only giving the cities a pitance of a bonus increases the War is King strategic value.

I do acknowledge that SMAC is built with enough OPTIONS to do something other than wage war. It just seems to me that the AI teaches you to go war. You might learn to wage war at Synth Fuels, or Chaos Weapons. But the number of people describing how they get that economic or transcendence victory seem to be rarer than those that take the better option versus time desired to complete the game and start another.

And I find that SMAC doesn't yeild the FUN that a challenging game of Civ gave me. Although I do place it about on level with Civ II (sometimes up, sometimes down, depending on bugs hit and how much micromanaging I had to do...). As I have ALSO said, there are other games that let me BUILD that I play to have fun and enjoy.

posted 05-16-99 07:49 AM ET            

I understand that your point is it doesn't always cost the attacker a lot more than the defender in the process of assulting a well fortified position, which I grant you. However, there are certain conditions for that to happen. Tech superiority is one of those factors.

On a similar tech level, SMAC grants more power to the attacker, e.g. Impact X vs plasma armor, while High Energy Chemisty should realistically gives the defender gas masks or even combat environ suits.

posted 05-17-99 02:41 PM ET            

Urban - You talking to Possibility? The best way is to attack early and often, preventing them from getting all those Recycle Tanks, Network Nodes, Biology labs, and Energy banks built.

I wouldn't worry about my Human opponents going for Perims. While its a smart and cautious thing to do, I would think in the long range plan of Building, it seems more efficent to shoot for CDF, and build that for the one time costs of gaining Perims. Hence, giving unknown or unsuspected early aggressors the edge. In MP games against people I have been talking the "No reason to delay Conqueoring..." debates, I'd shoot for Plasma and Poison Gas. It would make aggressor units more expensive, but you might as well burn down a defender that is probably digging in and preparing massive rovers and arty reserve to kick an aggressive army's butt. That would allow the few aggressors to get near a defended city to gas the heck out of it, and gain a significant boost to its attack power to raise the odds of destroying the defender WHILE cutting down the defender's production capability to support units, gain currency and research... no matter how small a percent. Those add up quick, after all. I suspect that Firaxis linked Gas usage to eco-damage for this very reason... they had discovered that they had over-charged the odds in the attackers favor and were trying to keep all the Ill-Wind attacks down some...

posted 05-17-99 04:03 PM ET            

The 2-1 ratio is fine (for reality and anti-stagnation reasons)... but the *real* problem is the infantry being able to be as strong as the mechanical vehicles. It makes no sense - forget about mobility issues.

posted 05-17-99 06:07 PM ET            

Counterpoint: SMAC is a war game. Liberated from the Human History of its predecessor game Civ and CIV II, it really shows it. Like MOM and all the previous war games before it up to and including MAINFRAME UNIX EMPIRE. But it is a war game that allows you to do more than wage war.

Your Point: SMAC is not reality. Correct.

Your Point: You can't build peacefully and fight a defensive war when a National/Factional power of some standing is gunning for you. Thanks. That is a point I have made many times.

Hugh - The modern infantry is a very mechanized war unit, in comparison to the infantry of WWI. SMAC Infantry more resemble WWI and older infantry rather than the modern US army, and comparisons between the two will never match easily or well.

ARMOR only changes the issue of assualting an enemy held position. And that Armor is TANKS. The modern FIREARM is what has changed the odds of assaulting the enemy for infantry. They use weapons whose only job are to kill UNARMED Humans. Nothing else. So your points about ARMOR are useless until you are talking hover tanks versus Cities... unless you think that SMAC infantry are like Robert Heinland's Starship Troopers in form fitting mecks. That would be armor on walker legs rather than hover skirts or treads.

Apparently, the SMAC rovers are as mobile as the Moon Buggies. A little more than you can walk.

I have yet to see an official Theatre Simulator that says the Attacker has a 2:1 advantage. That's simple not so. If it was, we wouldn't bother with air bombing campaigns and what not. We'd send in the marines and be done with it. But that isn't what happens. The Powell Doctrine of Modern US Warfare calls for overwhelming NUMBERS so as to so demoralize the opponent that they surrender rather than fight. But if that fails, then to not attack without a 20 to 1 odds... the OPTIMAL odds according to the Traditions of America Combat Strategy. And you never attack UNDER 12:1 odds according to the American Manual on General Warfare. We don't like to loose American lives, but in particularly over a fight that we lose.

Keep in mind that the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are CONSTANTLY testing the effects of new tactics, equipment and strategy. And have interforcial war games every 2 to 6 years (depending on which branches you are talking about in conjuction with others). They would LIKE to see the odds for safely assaulting drop in this age of shrinking standing forces... They haven't. They are finding that they need MORE to get the job done than in the 60's... and the favor of the DEFENDER continues to grow wherever you don't have the Big Uglies (Tanks) to stomp them flat with arty and anchor assault lines.

So let's try and keep the claims about reality IN REALITY and not the movies. Thanks.

posted 05-18-99 09:28 AM ET            

As a side note, the US 20-1 doctrine is an amusing example of American decadence. That will work fine in small wars against backwards nations, but if the US ever finds its existence truly threatened, the 20-1 doctrine will be chucked as a infeasible extravagance.

posted 05-18-99 01:12 PM ET            

The various doctrines mentioned may or may not be sound military practices. They have absolutely nothing to do with the unit strength design in SMAC. All the doctrine states is simply "Don't attack until you have the firepower to win." It has nothing to do with the relative strengths of differant individual units. Based on this doctrine you would need to have ten unit with twice the attacking firepower of a defending unit to attack it. This is obviously not what we are discussing here.

Darkstar's (as an individual conqueror) point as I read it is that the Attacker has enough of an unrealistic attack adavantage that a defending side cannot hope to resist the attacker unless they pour all their resources into defense, to the extent that they are not able to complete their attempted infrastructure builds. Thus SMAC is a wargame that will always settle into a battle between "conquering" forces where the attacking side has the advantage, and a defending side does not have the time or resources to devote to building a prepared defense.

We can all grant to Darkstar that for equal resource input the attack factor will rise faster than the defense factor (based on technology acquired).
The key then when preparing to defend your homeland do not depend on the armor value of your units.
Though actually based on some figures that I was working on here at work it seems that if my memory of the costs involved are correct then if equal resoources are put into buying purely defensive units then the defender does not fall behind the attacker. Individual units will be weaker but the defender will be able to buy more of them because they will be cheaper.

Hmmn..., early rush tactics will not work initially against a human unless the human is caught by surprise. If a rusher engages a hapless AI opponent and defeats that opponent thus growing through those means, while someone is still committed to a builder strategy, then the relative growth will depend on the distance that the conqueror must travel and how many turns are spent in transit instead of growth.

Thus a human who starts near an AI opponent, and then conquers that opponent will grow faster than one who does not take advantage of the closeness or who is not close to an AI. This is compounded if Spoils are on. A conqueror will have proportionally slower growth if their targets are further away.

Considering Darkstar's reported starting positions early rushes will work most of the time for him, if not all the time.

Even when I start on Standard size maps I have never had more than two opponents nearby on my same continent, usually less. Of those two only one has ever been a conqueror faction, and one AI faction is hopelessly easy to hold off. I have never needed nor wanted to employ early rushes.

I've started rambling again.

The SMAC combat system needs work mainly in realism somewhat in playability.

The supposed "attacker advantage" is in my opinion a non issue. In SP there is the Human advantage, whether the human is attacking or defending. In MP there is a combat advantage to whomever is pouring the most resources into their combat machine and making the most efficient use of those resources. A human who is having his/her homeland invaded should have a mix of units created/available, don't depend on armor value alone.

Darkstar & Old Warrior, just because you can play SMAC on warfooting does make SMAC a wargame. In 1 on 1 Mp play then yes it will resemble a Wargame. In 3-7 player Mp, where two or more "builders" could if they choose to, band together to use there combined production to out build and out fight a conquering based player, then SMAC is not a wargame, it is a strategy game that has a war element to it.

I have so totally lost the thread of what I came on to say that I am going to stop talking.

Goob

posted 05-18-99 05:30 PM ET            

When you start to ramble ... time to head to the "BLAH Threads!"

Even though you might consider it rambling, you have encapsulated the gist of the points I would make. If you choose to fight, you'll be a "Conqueror". If you choose to develop your infrastructure, you'll be a "Builder". If you're a Builder under assault by a Conqueror, then you're _forced_ to switch your strategy. I wouldn't consider that a weakness in the game. It's just a reflection of the course your opponent decide to chart. Am I missing something here?

If you are involved in a 2P MP game and get into an early war against your human opponent, you'll be at a decided disadvantage when the AI comes to beat up on the victor. But then perhaps the game ends when you wipe your human opponent out?

If you're involved in a 3+ player MP game and get into an early 1-on-1 war against a capable human opponent, you'll quickly find yourself losing even to the AI. Now if you can get an AI to sign on board (or better still, attack a human who is already at war with the AI), that's a different story.

Everytime I have been confronted with a "rover rusher" in MP it hasn't been that hard to fend them off and counterattack back to their bases. In fact once I eliminated a "rover rusher" who was hosting!

Many "rushers" overlook the value of a well planned and meticulously positioned defense. I don't recall if I saw this mentioned, but a strategy that I employ is to build a good supply of cheap $10 Scouts and set them to be the primary defenders, that way my quality units are relatively untouched by any assault wave. If you're in a base or a bunker, then you'll take no collateral damage. You're then set for a counterstrike.

Of course an attacker can employ this strategy as well. However, it will slow his assault forces by 50%, unless using $20 Scout Rovers. Kinda expensive though for cannon fodder.

Also, having two small reserves of rovers on each flank serve as a great counterattack force. If you're opponent is "rushing" along a narrow front, they're toast. As long as you can get the first blow in, you're set!

posted 05-18-99 06:49 PM ET            

1. Does that mean that the AI must transcend to win?

2. If yes, will the AI play style change? Would it play more of a builder style?

posted 05-19-99 10:37 AM ET            

The other quicker process is to develop a split personality and play hotseat games by yourself. If the AI is coming at you hot and heavy then your two players can band together to overcome the AI.

NO PC is an island....

posted 05-19-99 10:40 AM ET            

What you could do though is edit the factions to decrease their willingness to use force to achieve goals, or increase their interest in knowledge or something along those lines.

posted 05-19-99 03:31 PM ET            

Bingmann - I *do* consider Chess to be a wargame. One of the more ancient ones, but it was DESIGNED to be a war game. A game to allow royalty and war leaders to match wits and gain each others respect without necessarily having to waste the lives of trained warriors (among other things). While Chess isn't the best of war games, not having any random factors in it, it does allow one to match wits and Chess skill against others. I have seen people argue that even Checkers and Tic Tac Toe are war games, but even I have limits that I will stretch (semi)logical supposition to.

Goob - HURRAY! I agree with almost all that you have said. I really couldn't care LESS about REALISM, as I do about PLAY-BALANCE. And you are right, I think that SMAC leans a little too heavily towards Aggressor. Not having to worry about supply lines, other than new units moving up to the hot zone, frees the Aggressor from so very much. Making the odds 3:2 would in my opinion, make the game more BALANCED between Peaceful and Aggressive Expansion. Expansion is the key to the game.

If I only started with one or two immediate neighbors, even with ONE of them being the classic Aggressors factions, I'd go peaceful and swap to a war footing when they came after me. That would allow me to maximize Peaceful expansion with the initial increase in KNOWLEDGE that I prize so highly in games with Reseach. Unfortunately, this is simply not somthing I see very often, unless playing prebuilt scenarios/maps. If your miles vary from this, well, I'm jealous!

I disagree about defensive units keeping up with attacking units. Depending on the individual parts, its generally CHEAPER to build that Suicide Trooper (Top weapon-no or half armor), or the (Top Weapon-No to Half Armor) Rover over a (No Weapon-Top Armor) Garrison unit. Strap on anything that isn't free to that Garrison unit (police, trance, AAA) and you have a unit that can cost the equal to (near)Top Weapon-Top Armor-Infantry. *Armor* cost big time in comparison to Weapons. Another Subtle Game Balance in favor of the Attacker.

And once Fusion arrives, one can (generally) exchange the cost of Best Defender and Top Attacker... only the Attacker will have Top-Top-1*2 to the Defenders No-Top-1*2. I don't know how things stack in your game, but once fusion hits, THAT is the Rover Rush zone. 2 to 3 Rovers can be built for that one top defender... and at those odds, that's pretty nasty. Support and lack of Clean become *my* big issues at that point.

And of course, the AI. Since SE will always force you to be artificially at war with one or two of the factions (if still unsurrendered in the game), the game is once again hearding you toward War. As there is also the Beat up Number 1 and Number 2 and everything smaller than me and the everything that is my neighbor and the Kill the Human programming... we are talking a LOT of instances that the computer decides its time for WAR. Why should Lal go to war with a peaceful Fundamentalist state? Or even a Police State? No reason other than he is a Psycho-Raving Maniac bent on total world conquest, as are all the other AI Factions. Morgan is ONE of the few truly pacifistic set AI, and he will go Aggressor and wage war on you in a heartbeat, rather than peacefully expand expand expand...

Anyways... while I agree that one human can do as he generally pleases in SMAC, (if he has the patience, luck, and knowledge) and that multiple humans in a game could get interesting, between the game *teaching* you to wage war and strike now as its just going to strike 20 or 60 turns later, and the fact that its pathetic to be the defender in a city, I don't see many games of everyone building and doing the Transcendance Race. Merely those that wage war with Hand weapons, Impact weapons, Missile weapons, Chaos, Tachy, Shard, or Planet Busters. I would HOPE that a game won in an Economic Victory while my opponent is trying to Acsend would carry the great thrill that a long fun game completed should. I just think those will be very rare multiplayer games indeed.

And Goob, there are many PC's that are islands. That is called secured around here.

posted 05-19-99 03:59 PM ET            

I will sometimes "cop out" and do a diplomatic victory when I am bored with the current game, or I woder "Why am I as Brother Lal kicking the snot out of Dierdre and Zak? I've already killed all the aggressor races, well the Hive has that one base left but..." So I bribe Lal with all my techs or something and we go diplomatic.

I may try an economic victory at some point, I will never go for transcendence, I abhor the idea, (I have this strange clinginess to my humanity) Cooperative victory combined with conquest or diplomatic is fine.

I just enjoy building my techs up to shard or hovertanks - I've never gotten to Grav ships. I consider myself a builder, because I would prefer building and I have always been able to keep building in SP, even in my transcend war against Miriam while she is in the Jungle, my research and infrastructure growth has slowed but it is still happening and I will win.

Please don't tell anyone that I am not a pure honest builder.

Goob

posted 05-19-99 04:52 PM ET            

Anyway, this is a great thread... What can I say. Darkstar, I agree with your points, BUT. I *know* I can beat the crap out of the AI with an early rush, however IMHO there is not much fun in that. So, since I enjoy longer games, I like to play builder at the beginning, it makes it more difficult to mount an assault on an enemy faction.

It's all about having fun, if you ask me

posted 05-20-99 02:02 AM ET            

You're right, I am watching you. And, I'm very disappointed.

Okay everyone, here's my confession. I've never won a conquest victory. That's not to say that I couldn't have done it. Rather, it's because I get bored stiff, hunting down every last AI base on a huge map. Usually, by the time that I get to the point that I go on the offensive, it is for one of two reasons. The first is that I'm going for transcendence and there is a large and heavily armed warmonger faction that just won't leave me alone. Then I'll wage war by taking out their homeland so I don't have to put up with them attacking me all of the time. The other reason is that I am going for supreme leader and am already at the 50% mark in planetary votes. Then I'll wage war long enough to get to the 75% mark and call the election. This is where maintaining a Noble or Faithful reputation comes in handy, so as to avoid having to hunt down rebellious dissenters.

Now, in a nod to Darkstar, if I find that I have had the bad fortune to have been seeded close by an AI upon Planetfall, I'll research war techs and do "a rush" to force them to surrender to me (or kill them if necessary) in order to get that breathing room needed for developing my infrastructure. But, as soon as I am "safe" I kick into building mode and stay in that until the late game. I don't mind carrying on with low level warfare, in the enemy's part of the world, to keep him off balance and out of the core of my empire. But, I just find the task of complete conquest so boring as to be unthinkable as a way of winning the game. As an aside, in Civ II, only once did I ever win a conquest victory, for the same reasons. I only did it, by accident, because I thought that a barbarian city would count as an active AI city and I was trying out my buddy's "pet empire" strategy.

JAMiAM

posted 05-20-99 02:05 AM ET            

Old Warrior have you tried Warlords III, or Steel Panthers (I,II, or III)

If you can find any old games by Gary Grigsby you'll be in for a treat.

The game I am waiting/wanting to try is West Front (or East Front II).

I must also agree with Aredhran, both because I want to and because of contractual obligations.

I am now off to slumber land to dream little dreams of conquering the world in a scout rush...

Goob

posted 05-20-99 04:21 AM ET            

My favorite was definitely SPII. Boy, did I hate it when those damn Russians had T-80 against my M-60 (because I had no cash to upgrade them to M-1 Abrams)

I really liked having the option of Heavy artillery support, air support and chopper units (I always tried to have a squadron of AH-64 both for recon and for eliminating light-armored ground units, also great for chasing fleeing enemies)

posted 05-20-99 11:33 AM ET            

Actually I haven't played III though I can't imagine that it sucks (other than it is still DOS based and thus a pain to run in 95) It has been about 8 months since I played. I only played one campaign, I usually stuck to the scenarios, (in 'I' I played more campaigns.) I found that I was usually too aggresive and would get shot to hell but the game was/is a blast especially when I settled down. I liked very modern battles between Abrams and Leopards, ahh the good ol days.

posted 05-20-99 11:41 AM ET            

SMAC, SMAC, SMAC, rah, rah, rah, blah, blah, blah, build, build, build, kill, kill, kill, transcend, now I'm a demi-god.

posted 05-20-99 01:41 PM ET            

Goob - never won by just building scouts and colony pods. Closest I have come is I had to build some infrastructure and a few odds and end military to capture mind worms to beat up on all the aggressors who had eliminated all the less aggressive ai factions... total conquest victory, Gaians (Me) was the end result. I'll keep that in mind for a Believer challenge in the future though. Probably close to impossible with the way the Aggressive AI likes to wage war on the militarily weaker, and scouts don't count for much... Humm.... Can I build interceptors? And capture mind worms?

Jam, if you want to be a Demi-god, play Populous. I love that world engine they have in Pop III. Very cool.

posted 05-20-99 02:04 PM ET            

Is Populous really good? It looked interesting, but then again, they all do from the outside of the box. I admit, I sho do love doing that God thang.

You liked Starship Troopers too? I LOVED that game. Of course, I liked playing the bugs, though. I especially liked the final scenario. What a slug-fest. All them nuclear mines made short work of the MI when they dropped and I loved popping out of my holes and eating what little remained of them hapless troopers. I still have it, along with all my other classic AH games. The new version that they released when the movie came out is fun, but it isn't a "real" wargame.

Oh, and SMAC, SMAC, SMAC. Gotta keep on topic.

JAMiAM

posted 05-20-99 05:37 PM ET            

With respect to the 2:1 debate, attackers generally require a 3:1 force ratio to be successful. That 3:1 force ratio can be described in terms of technology, physical weaponry, tactics, morale or a combination of these factors. This ratio frequently rises to 6:1 or more in urban fighting. One need only recall Leningrad or modern Grozny to see examples of technologically and numerically inferior forces holding larger, better equiped attackers at bay.

City fighting, especially against properly defended cities, is an ugly brutal affair that makes jungle warfare look like a stroll in the park. The battle of Berlin during WW II cost the Russians huge losses despite the fact that the Russians had overwhelming force and that the city defense was poorly organized, equipped and supplied. Urban combat losses are not measured in the hundreds, but in the thousands.

All this being said, SMAC is a game, and it is necessary to keep the game moving. Giving a defender a +25% defense bonus is acceptable. After all, a city with many defensive units becomes a real pain in the rear to occupy, especially if the attacker's supply lines are overextended or vulnerable to counterattack.

Those of you who have tried the game on Transend/Ironman will appreciate my point when I say that attacking cities is a costly, though necessary strategy. Successful tactics mirror those in the real world: use aircraft to seal off the city and deny him reinforcements, bombard him with artillery to weaken defenders and conduct infantry and armor assaults to eliminate the defenders.

SMAC is a good simulation of an operational level wargame. If one views the various units as brigade-sized organizations and neglects the logistical aspects, it becomes a reasonable approximation of 'reality'.

posted 05-20-99 06:17 PM ET            

The Steel Panther series is turn-based tactical combat for I & II, brigade level for III. Feudal brings back memories, too. I've got the 3M Bookshelf game. How's that for old-timer bragging rights?

posted 05-20-99 07:06 PM ET            

OWarrior - I had Feudal, too. At the time, my dad used to call it "futile".

posted 05-20-99 07:13 PM ET            

Yeh, I had those 2, as well as about 3 dozen other AH games. D-Day came in the flat box though, not in the bookshelf box.

Leningrad held out for the simple reason that the Germans never made a concerted effort to take the city. They foolishly became content to merely besiege it. They didn't completely close the noose around it either as the Soviets were able to run some supplies through Lake Ladoga. They even laid railroad tracks down over the frozen lake surface during the winters to facilitate the supply efforts.

posted 05-20-99 07:16 PM ET            

I don't care if they play with Barbie dolls the rest of the time but by god they are going to be Strategy/War game masters.

posted 05-20-99 07:25 PM ET            

3M = Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing. You know, the makers of Scotch tape, Scotch-brite, etc. Back in the 60's they got into board games and came out with a line of games called the "Bookshelf" games. Avalon Hill bought the line in the early seventies and kept most of the titles active for a while and expanded the line to include many of their newer games.

Don't you just hate it when your gaming partners explain just enough of the rules to beat you. "Oh, didn't I tell you that on every third turn, all of my units have paradrop capability?" The first AH game I ever "learned" how to play was Panzerblitz. The guy who "taught" me told me that all a unit had to do to kill another unit was to move into its hex (like chess). This made the most powerful units in the game the German armored cars, since they moved the farthest. I tell you, I never played with him again after I read the rules myself.

Old Warrior,

Yeh, Feudal was a kick.

posted 05-20-99 07:32 PM ET            

What's so bad about playing with Barbies? After all, she's just the prototypical product from all of those bio-enhancement facilities that you build in SMAC. Why do you think that they cause ALL of your troops morale to gain two levels?

Just getting this thread back on topic.

posted 05-20-99 07:57 PM ET            

Anyway ... the main reason Leningrad did not fall is because the Soviet government was willing to let LOTS and LOTS of people die there defending it. Strategically it wasn't that important for the Germans to take. Symbolically it was vital for the Soviets to hold.

My Russian teacher in college said that there were _HUGE_ mass graves of the thousands upon thousands that died from fighting, starvation and disease. So many that they were simply marked 1941, 1942, 1943.

My first wargame was Risk, using bogus rules that my friend told me. After that Blitzkrieg and Afrika Korps and on and on. I couldn't remember or list the number of wargames I bought and played in my teen and college years. Easily well over $1,000 worth.

Now I find that the SPI "monster" games that I was addicted to: Highway to the Reich, Atlantic Wall, Wacht am Rhein, War in Europe, War in the Pacific, Campaign for North Africa, etc. (all $40+ bucks a wack) are selling for twice that on EBay these days.

I just gave my whole collection away to a friend a few years ago (see what computers will do to you). When he called to see if I wanted them back I said "no." And then I found about EBay. Aieeeeee!!

posted 05-21-99 12:33 AM ET            

The Russians didn't care if the whole bloody nation died. It was one of the few things they had. There were MANY reasons for German failure... Starting from the German army not being prepared for the legendary nasty winter weather to Hitler interfering too much and too often in things he didn't know anything about. Of course, when you are always being told you are a Demi-Urge (or greater) and that you are infallible, it tends to have an effect on you.

Ish, welcome aboard. If you are MI, I feel for you. My girlfriend is, strangely enough, former MI and if the Armed Services traditions are still being that rigidly followed, I am glad I am only a contractor for NASA.

And the problem with SMAC is that you are rarely overextended, except by virtual of having ran out of move. Seems a little odd, but...

The problem with History is it gets naturally revised. We have to hope not too much.

Bingmann - Let me guess. Your friend picked the sides you each played in Starship Trooper. The scenarios generally leaned toward one side or the other, although as I REMEMBER it, the spiders had the worse time of it overall. Been a long while since I played it though. But those slugfests were something else...

Goob - Yep. It lost a lot in solo play. Sniff. But sometimes thems the breaks. That's why Strategy Gamers become programmers. You can code the computer, and it will always play until broke. Too bad the computer players code sucks.

I wanted to try Feudal, but never got a chance. I saw it at a Con initially, and as I had kicked the owner extremely quickly in Titan (a very odd but fun combination of tactical combat, concentration, and mythological monsters) the day before, well, he wasn't favorable to trying to teach it. Only saw it one other time, but I didn't have the cash to buy it, being a middle school teen at the time...

posted 05-21-99 04:16 AM ET            

Well, maybe the game's supply lines were overextended, and it never got to Swiss Cheese Country

posted 05-21-99 04:27 AM ET            

Theatre Europe (C-64 "graphic character"), a typical cold-war, early 80s NATO vs WAPA war with tactical nukes and biochemical warfare. No scenarios, very simplistic. Never won with NATO...

Battle for Normandy. My first computer hex-based wargame. I think it was from SSI but I'm not really sure. IIRC, it was an adaptation of the original board game. Very complicated, slow and with one of the clunkiest interfaces I've seen.

There were a few others, but I don't quite remember them. I also remember the ancestor of Starcraft et al: The Ancient Art of War, which I played on my friend's old Mac 512...

posted 05-21-99 11:41 AM ET            

I used to manage a used book, music, game store here in AZ, and once I saw a copy of AH's 1914, I freaked, I opened it and saw that the top piece board was unpunched, I was trembling, then I saw that the second one had pieces punched out. I spent a 1/2 hour or so trying to match all the pieces to the O.B., there were about 12 pieces missing.

Mint it would have been worth a few hundred dollars easy, as it was I sold it to a friend for $20, the price that one of my pricers had put on it was $7 or $8, stupid pricers could only remember the rule of "Never price Avalon Hill games below $8.00"

At ono point I was able to buy the whole ASL series for about 40 bucks. I never really had the time to play though after that.

posted 05-21-99 02:02 PM ET            

I remember Galactic Empire, Midway, Shiloh, and Convoy Raiders. Also Silent Service, War over Pacific, Carrier Wars of the Pacific, Battle of Britain, The Third Reich... The first RTS was "Platoon Leader" (I think was its name) which had you in charge of fire-teams to a light brigade of Infantry with support Arty and small Tank squad of 4 to 8 tanks. It had scenarios with various objectives and resources. It was my first exposure to so MANY concepts (like indirect fire, projectile buildozering, air support, forward observing, and carpet bombing... hell of a game for the 4 bit world). There was Nuclear War, Fortress Britain, Invade England, Conquest of England, The Founding of Kings(Monarchy?), The Kings Musketeers, (Defeat) The Spanish Armada, Cannonballs and Canvas, Overlord, Operation Wolf Pack, Operation Overload, Conquest Europe, and lets not forget M.U.L.E... (Yes, it wasn't a war-game, but it has to be mentioned as the first end all be all 4 player game I can remember...) So many computer games to hold one's attention for a while until they were finally mastered...

It seems to me that as graphics got better, the war games got further and further between. Things seemed to have gone towards Battle Zone and Red Baron, first person action games where strategy was thrown in as more of seasoning (if at all) than a true element of the game. Prime example is Arctic Fox... a sequel to Sky Fox, in which you went around and assaulted enemy positions, tanks, and planes using a very "Bolo" type of tank. (That was in the Atari/Mac/Amiga competition days). So finding Galactic Conquest for the Amiga was a big event for me. That was also about the time I learned C and started programming to earn money... had to pay for (some of) those games... Before the Amiga, I just knew Basic and ASM. All I needed to know to input and modify those basic games, or crack (and study) those non-Basic games.

I don't think that there are as many Strategy War-Games these days in comparison to the other types of games as in the original PC Hobbyists days (Trash 80�s, Atari�s, and Apple�s). First Person shooters are still the Rule, and Second Person seems very close. Maybe I am getting too jaded or just too old...

posted 05-21-99 02:43 PM ET            

Okay, time for more AH old-timer bragging. My very first boardgame was 1914. I bought it new, still in shrink wrap from a dealer at a flea market for, get this...$3.00!!! This was about 25 years ago. A few years afterward, when it went out of print, I went back to the flea market to try to find the dealer (as he had STACKS of them) but to no avail. He had long since moved on. Then again, I gave away my boxed set of the original D&D and a bunch of gaming materials about 18 years ago, also. I've lost money on California real estate, also for what that's worth. If I ever start investing in the stock market...just shoot me, please.

posted 07-21-99 09:56 PM ET            

I was worried that the computer was building more wonders, until I eventually grabbed those cities where the wonders were built. I broke pacts, and didn't even need to employ atrocities, which I find myself resorting to in more "peaceful" games.

The rewards for warfare have convinced me of what others have said: By the time you get plasma shards, you should be on top and uncontested. Unless everybody is far away, it just makes sense to go to war as soon as you have a big tech and production advantage.

Especially since the AI is so bloodthirsty anyway. Every faction leader at one time or another has tried to extort things from me, saying "I hope violence doesn't become necessary."

I'm talking Zakh, Deirdre the Tree Advocate, even Morgan and Lal!! This happened only when I tried playing peacefully, going to war when the others went crazy. I'd be fighting on 1 or 2 fronts, then another leader would seize an opportunity to threaten me. It's nuts!!

Even if you decide to kill a faction later, it can only happen when your current war is out of the way. And even then, the AI breaks treaties.