posted 06-02-99 06:41 PM ET            

Try again, perhaps - it seems you still have a builder strategy in mind.

Santiago isn't the best conqueror either - the Hive or the Believers are the better options.

And it's a good idea to take out your nearest neighbour as soon as you can - making treaties isn't the best move.

The critical techs are plantary networks (allows probe teams - THESE are absolutely critical) and nonlinear mathematics (allows particle impactor - a huge jump in effectiveness). Once you have these, you can unleash on your rivals, particularly effectively as the believers, with their +3 Probe, they are particularly hard to stop - a fact that seems to be missed by a lot of players, who find the believer A.I a pushover but forget the advantages a real player gains from this faction. Tech is very easy to steal in SMAC - if you have an advanced neighbour, it makes little sense to do the hard work yourself.

Try building 4-1-1 units as well - the fact they're so cheap, and that they can be upgraded if you have a bit of cash, makes them one of my favourites. Use them in packs, of course, and keep the CivII tactic of not placing too many in one square. If you take a city, you can then upgrade the unit to 4-3-1 next turn (costs around 30 credits, IIRC) for use as a short term defender.

The Hive is also a great conqueror side, simply because it has the best production available - competitive with the A.I cheat on the higher levels (that effective +4 efficiency bonus helps a lot, too).

Trust me, conqueror victories can be VERY easy to achieve - I'd say Darkstar's number is about right.

posted 06-02-99 08:26 PM ET            

I have taken down factions that had particle weapons, probes, plasma armor, and artillery using just laser rovers. The great SMACmaster Darkstar can just do this with hand weapons I understand. Huge maps can not be quick conquered by mere mortals however, only by mythical SMACheros.

When I war early I put everything into unit production, and just keep pressing till they crack. Often the rear is barren of defenders so don't stop to consolidate. Keep going.

If you stop to build or consolidate you will evolve into a transcend or other type of victory very quickly.

I have not quick conquered a huge map, but can attest to the viability of this strategy on smaller maps.

I would not think this would work in PBEM, but, we shall see what we shall see.

posted 06-02-99 08:48 PM ET            

1. Don't ever bother to build units with a combination of offensive weapons and armor unless you are absolutely certain that it costs the same. 4-1-2, 5-1-2, 6-1-2 ...... Overwhelming numbers and first strike is the ticket.

2. Naval probes are very useful. You should never think about "building" to increase tech. Take it by force or on the sly.

3. Do not waste time building defensive units. Just a bare bones garrison and a few mobile defenders. Keep 90% of your forces on the offensive at all times.

4. Rovers rule. Mobility is the key. Use them in packs. Never, never allow the enemy to attack a friendly stack. Use leap frog advance tactics. When you find a massive build-up in an enemy base, prepare an ambush and watch the AI move a stack into the open, crush it, then take the enemy base. This works often.

posted 06-02-99 09:50 PM ET            

1) Early attack is essential. (**SPOILER!**) One of the main issues with the SMAC A.I is that it tends to go into its shell when under assault - offensive units retreat to bases, large scale assaults are not undertaken, and the A.I goes into a fit of production shifting (each shift costing 50% of the current mineral production). Left alone, the A.I will happily go about it's business, build up a truly massive army, and invade. (**/SPOILER!**)

2) Unit position is critical. If you always get the chance to attack first, YOU WILL WIN (even with inferior force and without a sexy latin accent ). Base defenses shouldn't be neglected completely, but your chances are much better if you are constantly pounding their cities than the other way around.

3) Fungus is an irritation, but can be solved with some offensive use of terraformers (build sensors), which are the backbone of your war effort anyway. Having a bunch of roads to the target makes invasion that much easier, especially with wolfpack tactics (impact infantry swarms). This is why the thinker and transcend A.I's are good for conquering tactics - they build roads everywhere in their territory.

4) Like point 2, making the best use of your bonuses will lead to victory. Miriam can do this better than anyone else in the beginning - Fundamentalist with the +25% attack makes for some very powerful probe and particle based attacks (or even hand weapons attacks, for that matter. The important thing is to attack.) Yang, of course, does it best though - +2 Industry, +2 police, +3 growth and +2 Support for a mere -2 Economy. Not to mention free perimeter defenses on all cities (and since he's not earning anything anyway, those trade sanctions from passing out nerve gas don't exactly harm, either).

5) Remember ICS. The infinite city sprawl has been a long favoured tactic in the civ series, and AC is no different. ICS takes advantage of the difference in production between a single size five city and a pack of five size one cities (a difference of 6 squares production compared to 10 - because the city square is always worked, regardless of population). And while colony pods aren't that cheap, neither are creches, rec commons, or police units (which tie up support points). The more cities you have, the better. Using a close rank formation takes advantage of this best - have no more that 2 squares between each city (a radius of 1 square will do fine for mineral production). This is the single biggest reason the builder strategy fails against the conqueror strategy - you simply cannot build an infinite number of cities and a large amount of infrastructure while maintaining a reasonable defense. Something has to give.

posted 06-03-99 07:42 AM ET            

If we wish to test our expertise, we should choose settings that are inimical to our favorite strategy, not options that are favorable.

shining1: The ICS is yet another example (YAE) of a failure by strategy game designers to count zero as a number. This always causes anomalies.

Remember that in MOO2 if you used bioweapons to reduce a planet to population zero, you couldn't attack or invade!

What should happen in Civ and SMAC is that the first unit of population should be the one to work the central square. (Two people work up to two squares, one person one square, no people no squares: that's fair.) That would eliminate the ICS.

Surely the issue of whether zero was a natural number should have been decided once and for all with the adoption of Hindu-Arabic numerals, lo so many centuries ago.

posted 06-03-99 09:24 AM ET            

What kind of settings are you playing to allow you to take out the "first two Factions by 2120?" On the settings I usually play, (Huge, random, weak erosion, avg life, dense clouds, 50-70% water) I usually do not even see the other factions until 2140, or later. Believe me, I explore and play pod lotto to maximum effect.

Darkstar and I have went back and forth on this issue many times and, like Zoetrope points out, the settings chosen at start will determine whether the game favors a builder strategy or rover rush. I, also, generally play without steal tech when conquering bases. You'd be surprised how much that makes a difference. Try it someday and see how fast your strategy falls apart, particularly against human players. And the "Infinite City Sprawl?" Try that on transcend level. You'll find your bases start out with drones as their first citizens. Kind of hard to pump out military units when your bases are in drone riots.

The "Myth of Quick Conquest Victory" is just that, a myth. SMAC is not inherently biased in favor of rush tactics. Rather, it is that some players are too lazy (or unaware) to try different settings which, while seemingly subtle, have vast implications on effective play styles.

K, please don't take this rant as a personal attack. I'm sure that with the settings you use, your tactics are viable, against the AI, at least. My point, perhaps too oblique, is that you should experiment with the game if you find you play style becoming stereoyped and boring or just plainly unfun. That is precisely why Sid/BR give so much control over to the players to alter settings and text files, so that they will continue to have fun, for a long time to come.

JAMiAM

posted 06-03-99 10:14 AM ET         

If a faction is weak in the early game, bash their head in pronto. You will harvest the benefits for the whole game: one less enemy and, hopefully, one more submissive supporter, except for Ms. M, who should be killed on sight.

If a faction is threatening in the early game, they are only going to get worse as the game progresses. They will hit you when you are weakest, because the AI knows when that is. So you want to take them out right away.

Basically, clear your own continent. If you are on an island all alone, you can build more sooner, but be prepared for landing enemies.

(beginning of rant)
Never, never, never allow an encroaching colony pod to go unpunished in the early game. Kill it, and then kill the encroaching faction. Kill the pods before they give birth to productive cities that are harder to kill. Especially with Miriam and Hive, kill the ****ing colony pods! Don't let them beat you at colony pod checkers, damn the torpedos and blast the pods. I cannot emphasize this enough. Don't be afraid, it's early in the game. Start a war if you must, but don't let anyone drive pods up your arse.
(end of rant)

(off topic)
Oh and that bit about zero being a natural number is bull pucky. It is not natural to say 'I have zero bananas'. One says, naturally, 'I have no bananas'. The confusion of zero and no/none/nothing is rampant and must be corrected. Two is the first natural number, one is an afterthought, and the rest follow by further differentiation. Zero is not in the same class, conceptually.
(end off topic)

posted 06-03-99 10:25 AM ET            

DilithiumDad, even though I am a builder by nature, and I agree with JAM, I also agree with Shining1. Reading your war story, my first reaction was that you were building too much.

I make the same mistake unless I force myself into ruthlessness (usually by doing the opposite of what I want ot do in a situation). Don't build Network nodes, even in the Flats, your empire is not the research empire it is the killing one. If you build colony pods instead of Creches your pop will grow just as fast, (if not faster.

As Zoetrope said until the designers recognize the value of Zero, the rabitting of bases is the best Builder startegy when you need to go to war.

You can modify the settings to make the quick kill scenario much more difficult, yours were on the difficult side, especially for your first attempt at the COnquering rush.

posted 06-03-99 02:41 PM ET            

DD, a Huge map is a LARGE challenge for a self-proclaimed builder to go Breaker (as whirlwind13 says). Try Standard. And don't bother with the Planet maps. They have been tweaked. Try random maps, average across the board settings... I do still occasionally try huge maps but that is more 1 in 8 to 1 in 10 these days. When I want a SHOT at using Chaos weapons at least once. (And I occasionally mix other planetary settings to see thier effects...but on average, again...)

My SP settings are still: generally Average sized maps (unless I want a faster, or slower game), All other planet settings Average, Blind Research On, No Pods, No Spoils of War, Do or Die. I dislike having to defeat Miriam 6 times. And Without Do or Die on, I am willing to use the Reincarnate effect until I have THE army and pods from heck to conquer the world in the time it takes the army to march to the furthest opponent city.

Without Pods, the AI doesn't cheat as OFTEN (tech wise), and doesn't suddenly go from Lasers to Choppers very often. I am quite serious about this. With Pods On and my typical Aggressive Defensivism (beat on the AI now before it can build up enough kill me [sometimes called "You are in my hemisphere/comfort zone, therefore you must die."), I find that between turns 30 to 60, Miriam and Yang are often attacking my cities with AIR CRAFT. That seems a bit much when their research rate started a 50 years and went DOWN. (Hey, I've turned on the Omni view to watch how they do it... pure cheats).

I play Blind Research On and Spoils Off because I just enjoy SMAC more that way. But the benie's of that is that the Computer players don't trade techs between itself so often, so I don't find that the computer has Chaos weapons on Choppers by turn 80. Another benie for me, as that tends to spoil my fun of having all Computer players turn against me because I am the human, even after defending them and giving them nice things (like captured cities, defenders, techs, etc etc etc).

I find that Old Warrior and I have similar experiences... no matter HOW nice you are, the computer is going to come for you. If an ALLY that I have helped often and saved from destruction repeatily for 200 turns suddenly declares war because I am #1 and they #2... that is silly. So is the "you are weaker than me, so therefore I must take you over." You have to SERIOUSLY pander to the Diplomatic "logic" (HA HA!) to KEEP the Computer players from allying against you... but if you just play AVERAGE (As in, you make a nice buffer between us and the Hive, Deidre, so yes, I will help strengthen you and send you units to keep your border cities... No Miriam I don't see WHY I should give you 8000 Credits [All but 56 of my treasury] when I am #2 and you are #6. Are you retarded or just can't read your advisors reports? Go suck your big toe and leave me alone... oh war? Ok then... I am SURE this sounds familir to more than just Old Warrior.

In a builder oriented game, baseline play on baseline worlds should lead to military stalemate, a race to colonize new lands, and (in SMAC) a race to victory by Transcendance/Supreme Commander by popular vote. Economic Victory should be out as that is enough credits to bribe all cities, and your opponents (playing baseline for the faction) should have enough credits to keep you from buying them, as it were. Military conquest shouldn't be possible due to lack of emphasis on military armies. After all, you just need a few exploratory units, a small amount of border patrol, base garrison units to fight the barbarians... excuse me... mind worms... and a small mobile reserves to send out as a punishment force when an AGGRESIVE opponent tests you and your people's patience.

But this ISN'T the case, is it? First off, I can send 4 units out and take over the Spartans HOMELAND of 20 cities. No reinforcements, no air cover. And we have been near military techs when this happens. 4 units = the ENTIRE production capability AND Standing Army of THE military faction. Yeah, right. Explain THAT to me. And no, I am NOT using the Picard Maneuver (reloading after a bad attack result). This is very TYPICAL.

Second, the computer is programmed to wage war on YOU specifically, as well as everyone. Its rules are: War on #1 (if #2), War on #2 (if #1), War on all weaker factions, War on Human player. The "Diplomatic" (HA!) engine also has "War on anyone that uses my hated SE settings of [whatever]". Its "Let's ally" and "Let's leave each other in peace" guidelines are far underneath those wage war rules, and that is why the computer turns on you so often. Miriam, being one of Opponent Engine's better expansionist that she is, has the standing rule to be EXTERMINATED by a LOT of SMAC posters. Why? Even when she surrenders to you, she expands like crazy, and when she gets near you in perceived strength again, rebels and goes to war. Hive doesn't expand quite as fast, but since they are so KNOWN for their Planet Busting of ya, you wipe them out. Once again, Aggressive AI teaching you the SMAC style of play.

I actually LIKE the Hive as a submissive pact-mate... balance out bad unit oriented submissives like UOP... Hive gives me units, I give them to those needing them. But you know what? If two factions SURRENDER to me, I tend to lay off the Crusade and head toward builder... and then all those factions I peacefully coexisted with declare war. Seriously, if I am Lal's buddy, and we conquered the Blue Beast together, why should he, Mr. Democracy who couldn't MAINTAIN a Demo during the war (yet, you could), declare war on me? Its that "#2 fights #1" rule, and that "Wage war on Human" kicking in. Who cares if Lal is MAGNANIMOUS from the Unit support, allied attacks on cities, repeated economic aid, and trading tech to keep him ALIVE? Sure, it makes for an interesting game, but seeing as I have never bothered to win the game other than (generally) Total Conquest or (rarely) Supreme Commander, does that say something? Yep, I don't see why I should bother buying a truce to win economically or by Trancendence when Total Victory is only a few turns away. I didn't build the Opponent Engine to be such a Suicidal Idiot. Firaxis did. And why should I give Air Power to secure a truce that will last only as long as it takes Deidre (a fellow Demo/Green faction and formerly staunch ally until she became #2 after Lal (from above example) was reduced to 2 cities) to build some air units to attack my poor defenseless formers? Such cowardly attacks cannot go unpunished, you know, or those neutral Opponent Factions go into blood frenzy mode because you slip under that mysterious strength total that goes into "Declare War on Weaker Factions..." formula.

SMAC is a war game with pretty mind candy and nothing more. Its coded so that you have to go SERIOUSLY off the baseline of playing and reacting to be anything else. While I believe it's a great accomplishment by the Firaxis team to ALLOW for more peaceful play than simple conquest, you WILL be taught by its play style to Wage War. Whether you do it in a stutter-step fashion, or you do it after your favorite weapon and chassis combination, You will play War Monger, and use such means to greatly increase your strength of population. Unlike CivII, there are a LOT less people going for the peaceful or civilized win in SMAC, many of them, like myself (a die hard max spaceship "3-2-1-Blastoff! We are on are way, baby!!!"), taught by SMAC that its the only path that it will allow without serious tweaking or kissing up. Either you CAN win by Military conquest, and decide to hold back those War Beasts so as to allow you to Transcend, or by Buying the World, or FINALLY voting yourself in as Supreme Commander after burning their factions to one base and one pop.

Hey, if you have fun doing that, go for it. More power to you. But I find early game to be the most fun, before critical mass is reached and the win is guaranteed, so I take the fastest win when the mid to late game silliness starts to SPOIL my fun. Then its time to start again, with a new set of challenges, new lands to master, and a new set of circumstances to evaluate. Humm... How long can I trust you Lal? I KNOW Miriam is out there somewhere in the Jungles from her jumping power spike, and you are a simple naval transport jaunt away... humm... peace now? or... hey, colony pod? Kill that thing before it reaches the Ridge! I want that Ridge.

posted 06-03-99 03:50 PM ET            

Nodes: OK, I guess building 'em takes away from your build-up. But it allowed me to get Superstring and 8 attack which turned the tide.

4-1-1 vs. 4-3-1: I did build some unarmored units, but hey were chewed up fast by Miriam's ambushes, which happened the second I left sensor range. I liked making Elite 4-3-1's --Miriam had to lose two units for each one of mine she took out (she had Garland Crater and +support on her side). I mostly made 4-1-2 rovers (then 6-1-2 then 8-1-2), as others have suggested.

Probes: Probe foils are useless on a huge world. My north shoreline was the New Sargasso and my west coast was the fungal mats streaming out of The Ruins. Those 0-1-4 foils would need 10 years to reach anyone. And who would I probe? I was getting great tech as Zach and Yang's Pact buddies. At least twice I was #1 in tech, despite having very little in the way of research infrastructure, just because of trading Zach's tech to Yang. Probe crusiers are great, and I used them to steal two critical green techs from Dierdre and to incite drone riots in her cities. But that was after the 100-years-war.

posted 06-03-99 05:08 PM ET            

I have NEVER played either Planet map. And I have only glanced at the published maps of Planet until I realized it was of them. Silly, I know. Haven't been interested. I like the fun of the discovering a new world. But if they are that isolationists maps, it sounds like an interesting play.

Some rumor killer... I don't generally use ROVERS to kill my Computer opponents in the early crush. I use Suicide Troopers primarily. They are cheaper than rovers to build most of the time (unless you have better than Fission reactors). Toss in a defender grade defense unit (garrison Free-Top-Infantry or Top-Top-Infantry) and it�s an effective "stack". Add in a few Rovers in the traditional role of cavalry (scouts, outriders, and flankers) to help harass the enemy outside the bases, and you have a combination that can't get better without Air Cover. (Feel free to add arty units to spice to taste.) My favorite factions to do this with are UoP and Hive. Hive and Believers are the absolute BEST factions (IMHO) to go for early conquest victory. Spartans are the WORST militaristic faction to use on large to huge maps. Their industry MINUS hurts, and hurts badly. It means they can't make units as fast as others, and can't make pods as fast as others. Until mid to late game for me, Colony Pods are EXPENSIVE. And they hurt to make, as loosing just one working pop can seriously hurt production capability out of that source city. But they make up for it by giving you another city in 3 to 8 turns, and release the mineral of support they ate. (8 turns often equals one unit for small bases, even if its a scout, which can be a VERY useful tool to hunt for money, destroy CHEAT enhancements (bunkers, roads on lava, etc) or items helping keeping strong points intact, pod hunters... you name it. And scouts can be upgrade to single talent infantry (top/1 or 1/top) for Tech * 10... not a bad deal when they just popped a bunch of mind worms for you. And they can be used as the closest target to the odd enemy arty so that they get slammed, and not weaken rovers that are speeding over to kill it.

I consider the REAL rover rush to be Air Strikes with Rovers running through the emptied bases, although drop troops are often used by people as an equally EFFECTIVE combination. But like Chaos weapons, I rarely see Choppers and Drop pods in most of my games.

Touching on Factions for the last time... I have found Spartans to be worse than most factions for the early rush, UNLESS you are playing on smaller maps. Using the Spartans, I have noticed that it takes me an extra 50 to 100 turns to achieve total victory, IF I don't use a lot of dirty tricks (bully bully bully through Diplomacy). I consider the bully tactic a cheat though, as the Opponent Engine does not bully very well on Transcend. You can bully it, but nothing on the lines of the lower levels. Those extra turns do mean I do see Chaos weapons, but ... This tells me that I'm not a Spartan, but I bet the die hard Spartan PLAYER can achieve victory as quick as I do with the Hive or UoP. But to me, they are a weak faction (I rank them at #6, just above Morgan). In any *developed* game, their bonus morale becomes meaningless, due to Command Centers/Command Nexus SP, and Bioenhancement Centers/Cyborg Factory, combined with the Trained Scout template (upgrade to serious unit), use of Ruins/monoliths yadda yadda yadda. That means they are left only with that -1 Industry, which acts as a loadstone to the faction. In terms of balance, I think they need SOMETHING to counter that loss. Being able to achieve a Total Conquest on a Tiny or Small Map quicker than anyone else does not balance out their lack of overall survival in long term play. But as I said, real Spartans will flame me and explain what I am doing so ineffectually with the Spartans...

Gaians make a decent Early Conquest faction, especially if they can get a few mind worms to stiffen their military. Add in that they start with Former technology, enabling them to add energy to all squares worked, improve any bonus squares to maximize them, and have the line on gaining the unlimited food, unlimited Minerals first, its a powerful growth curve. And of course, being able to start on the WP whenever they choose... (Dilithium Dad, the Weather Project is a bonus to ALL factions. Even the Rush Conquerors.) They are a serious contender in my book as a Conqueror. Only their poor morale and lousy support keep them from being top choice. Which I am sure was on purpose... Peace Keepers are a bit bland, and with that inefficiency penalty, slow about researching. They won't be able to stand up to an early assault (like Spartans CAN), and they wont get any advantages to making units or attacking. But they can be a good mid to late game power, so I suspect their appeal is to stutter-step and passive-aggressive conquerors. And they get those nice large cities that so impress some people... and you can always vote yourself in as governor (which is the justification for there simple minus, as that bonus trade is something else...) and spy on which cities have the PB building designation.

Morgan has a lot of nice abilities/bonuses, but he simply isn't suited to an Early Conquest.

So in Darkstar's Simplistic World of SMAC, for early conquest its Hive/Spartans(Tiny to small world), Gaians, UOP/Spartans(Average world), PK, and Morgan/Spartans(Huge world). True Believers aren't in the ratings, as they are the end-all, be-all war mongers (with their high probe, high support, and attack bonus), and therefore retired. I am sure everyone has THEIR opinions about the better faction, but for Early Conquest, I think MOST will agree with me. Dilithium Dad, its not a Myth. But like Transcending on Transcend within 200 turns, its something that you have to know how to do.

One last thing... unlike we humans, the Opponent Engine ALWAYS knows where your units are, so fungus heavy maps (which I understand both of the Planet maps are) favor the AI over you. Yes, that means cloaking units are a waste (it knows where they are) as well as deep submersible hulls. Turn on the Omni view and watch. The OE will direct units to load a transport and head straight for you, if it wants to demand something from you, but doesn't have your frequency. Just as in Civ. (I know you didn't play that, DD, but its the same tactic.)

Dilithium Dad, its always best to understand one's enemy. So, if you want to learn what the Computer does, turn your units over to Automate, and watch. I've watched it literally load units and send them to another faction map and take over an enemy city that I didn't even KNOW about. Most interesting having it work for you. It will hunt down units in the fungus, shell and kill transports you don't know about heading for you... all the tricks the Computer Players do. Well, all but the Tech boosts...

And I'll have to try that Huge map of Planet, since it seems to have the Dilithium Dad vote of confidence.

posted 06-03-99 06:19 PM ET            

Not how fast you can whoop the AI, but rather "I find that between turns 30 to 60, Miriam and Yang are often attacking my cities with AIR CRAFT. ", as well as other comments about how quickly you are meeting your enemy.

I have had a few games (standard or large maps) where I have run into a faction within 20 turns but those are rare. I have never seen the AI produce aircraft within 100 years let alone 60 or less.

To say I think your full of it is going to far, but I would love to see a save file or two because your gaming experience with what the AI does is so differant from mine. I just want to see first hand what your twisted little computer is coming up with.

Also, what you call war mongering " you WILL be taught by its play style to Wage War. Whether you do it in a stutter-step fashion, or you do it after your favorite weapon and chassis combination, You will play War Monger, and use such means to greatly increase your strength of population." I still call building. The only style I will recognize as conqueror is ignoring peaceful growth to pursue an early conquer.

Any game that I have ever won by other means, I always could have won by conquering means, sooner.

I suppose sometime I may try a game that I am purely defensive, without truly counter- attacking.

Since I am trying serious MP play for the first time with SMAC we'll see which I focus on more there.

Goob

posted 06-03-99 07:15 PM ET            

Ignoring Peaceful for War? Now, what could that be? Do you mind teaching me what PEACEFUL is again? Is that using a colony pod to build a city? I do that...

posted 06-03-99 10:10 PM ET            

One other point, an important one, is the use of infiltrators. The ability to view the contents of an enemy base is absolutely critical. That way you can bypass strongholds until after all the weaker locations have fallen. (By which time your enemy has no production left and can often be convinced to surrender, or else bought out.

Infiltrators are incredibly powerful in SMAC, when compared with CivII and most other TBS games. They allow you to use your full measure of human cunning against the comparibly hapless A.I. Don't make the mistake of believing a quick conquest is achieved RTS style by rapidly clicking through your turn. A bit of time spent planning and assessing the enemy helps no end.

posted 06-03-99 11:38 PM ET            

The fear is overwhelming...

posted 06-04-99 01:20 AM ET            

Personally, I hate the conqueror style. However, Brian Reynolds obviously doesn't. SMAC is built almost from the ground up to suit this style of play. Like Rushing in Starcraft, it isn't nice, it's just a tactic you must learn and master if you want to have a chance of victory.

I've already tried making extensive changes to the original rules in SMAC to favour the builder strategy. No dice. Amoung other things, I ran into a bug that changes the weapon graphic according to the attack value of the weapon - sloppy programming, anyone?

The last thing I did was to reduce base production to 2 0 2 and 4 0 3 (with 'tanks). The lack of base minerals does help solve ICS problems, while providing good growth (what a builder wants, right?). It also wipes out sea bases unless you also change the upgraded mining tech (and I'm not 100% sure you can do this through Alpha.txt).

If SMAC4 solves my stability problems, and the weapons bug, I'll definitely finish off a more builder friendly version of the game. If I can't win that in under 150 turns, it probably means I'm on the right track .

posted 06-04-99 09:18 AM ET            

The strategy you describe is exactly what I use when conquering, except I use artillery more (usually two in the stack for more bite).

posted 06-04-99 09:40 AM ET            

Er. There's no such thing as "play properly". I wish all you folks arguing about the "best" style and bragging about your high scores would realize this. Is this a testosterone thing?

What's important, folks, is that you are having FUN playing the game. Is it fun for you to play a builder strategy on a low level and go for transcendence? Great. Is it fun for you to play on Transcend and go for the quickest conquer you can? Wonderful.

I have used these forums for some tips and tricks I didn't know about, and I've posted a few things myself. But all this arguing about who has the "best" strategy and the "best" options and how this level and this map size and this accomplishment by that year makes one so much studlier is starting to turn my stomach.

I use Spoils of War on for the same reason I leave Blind Research on; it adds something to the 'story' of the game as I envision it, to the 'realism' of it. I play a primarily builder style (I can't seem to help it, even when I mean to try another way). I've completed 3 games so far, two transcendence victories (one on each of the lowest two diff levels) and one diplomatic (with the Believers, no less), each with a different faction. I've had fun doing it. I'm currently working on a Spartans game where I'm /trying/ to curb my builder tendencies enough to go towards a conquer game. The next game I start I'm going to take notes on so I can turn it into a story. This is what I do. I have fun doing it. Someone else might find it boring as bat ****. No doubt some of the people /here/ would be inclined to tell me I'm "doing it wrong". Tough titties, as we used to say for no good reason whatsoever.

All this dickwaving doesn't make me impressed with your manhood. If you whip it out, prepare to have me laugh at it.

posted 06-04-99 01:02 PM ET            

ROFLMAO!!! Just thought I'd unzip and wiggle my wobbly bit in your general direction. You might need to get out the binoculars, but it should bring a chuckle or two. Hail Eris!

posted 06-04-99 02:03 PM ET            

I'd do anything to get rid of those damn sea bases.

TIA

posted 06-04-99 06:42 PM ET            

I never said that there was a RIGHT way or WRONG way to play. There are ways that are more EFFICENT for a particular Goal (ICS, Trancsending, Supreme Commander, Tactical moves and strategies [i.e. attacking enemy AI every so often to all the timer] , etc). That is all. When Shining1 said the proper way, I am sure that the Self-Illuminating One meant in "the most efficent way to achieve an early and total conquest victory" from the Text. I agree with him that in the logical that Spoils On or Off SHOULDN'T matter when going for an Early Conquest Victory.

I have said that if you don't win a Huge Map by 2250 when trying for a Military Conquest, you are probably taking too long and that another Early Conquerer *would kick your can in MP*. That seems to be the spur under Dilithium Dad's saddle.

I am a very firm believer in playing in whatever way amuses you best. Not being YOU, I can't say what that is. Being me, I can say what that is for me. I expect the same is true for everyone, yes?

Dilithium Dad- To borry an item from a friend...
:P~~~~

I can win with Morgan 3 times in a row, on Huge, by 2250. (The key is that I could not do so on my preferred levels of play difficulty. It wouldn't be Citizen or Specialist (bottom two), but it might have to be Talent or Lib. (mid two). I doubt you used the tactics I would have, or Shining1 would have, or any other confirmed Conqueor, as you are not one (or so you say).
I like playing baseline and only varying an element or two. It adds to my enjoyment of playing SMAC in that it allows me to further evolve my mental image of the software. I have always enjoyed figuring out the rules and how things fit together, which is why I happily went into programming as a career.
While I have lightly lambasted the Opponent Engine for not being as good as I would like, my CONCERN is that a serious Conquestador such as Analyst, Shining1, and so many others around here would have an unfair advantage in multiplayer against a confirmed Builder. I know I'd hate to be tooling along at my normal expansionist rate and get slammed by Absolute Conquerer if I had been going for something FANCY like a total Planet Buster blitz launched from Subs or something. (Subs would only be effective against humans. Be nice to see.) The other reason is that in most resource games, I am a big time Builder/Resource management fan. But in playing AC, I was forced into Crusade mode very early, and never backed off, and discovered something... there is no REASON whatsoever to wait on ANY technology advance, or set of advances and facilities that Civ had, for instance, as a guiding strategy. A very chilling thought. In Civ, you either built the Spaceship (and expanded as you saw fit), or got Woman's Sufferage/Bomber/Tank and taught the world the joy of joining your civilization through invasion and Conquest. There were spurts of conquering when certain advances were discovered (chariot/elephant/catapult/cannon/ironclads) but each was countered just an advance or three down the line by a defense enhancer as a rule. This is NOT the cycle in SMAC, and that is what I love to rag on.

If you are up to being a conquer, DD, try the Scouts and Pods only challenge. That you should be able to do on a Standard Map easily. That will drive home one of my over-riding themes, which is there is no defense except OFFENSE in SMAC. (A far cry and radical concept from our happy little Civving...).

My previously overlong post to you is was to express that I thought you had chosen to go to the Moon while the year was still 1960. Winning with the Spartans on any Huge map, via Early Conquest, by 2250, is much more of a challenge than with any other Faction than perhaps Morgan. I expect a Morgan War Freak would disagree with me.

I play with the options I play because I have more Fun that way. If you are stressing out this much about Conquest, than just "STOP!" DD. Go back to your preferred play style and have Fun.

posted 06-04-99 07:22 PM ET            

JAM , I was going to wave mine at Eris, but seeing as how yours are already out I thought it might be too much for the sensitive Forum for both of us to be waiving at the same time. We don't want to scare the lurking homophobes.

Eris, you are correct the point is to have fun. Even though Darkstar does not mean to be so challenging, he can come across as quite the "conquering snot" (and I love you for it D. ).

Those of us who are occasionally weak willed need to ride him for it, because he seems to be having so much fun being a "conquering snot".

So keep laughin' at us, just because it will encourage us all the more.

Goob

posted 06-04-99 07:28 PM ET            

No offense Eris if it's not true.

posted 06-04-99 09:59 PM ET            

Secondly, I think I've already over exposed myself in this thread, especially with the list of tactics posted so far (Dogbert: "I've kept all the best stuff to myself, in case I need to crush you utterly, or if it just looks like fun.")

This is the only reason for 'playing properly'; as I mentioned in a later post, I enjoy building much more than conqueroring, and have redone some of the game to better allow this. Never the less, as far as multiplayer, original SMAC is concerned, the builder ethos is pretty much dead in the water.

DD: I definitely agree with your huge map of planet comment. However, it still needs to be edited to include the borehole cluster.

DeVore: I'll try to dig it up sometime this week. It still needs tweaking, but all the main changes are there. Some of the factions are altered considerably as well, for balance reasons - do you also want these?

posted 06-05-99 02:04 AM ET            

Shining1 - You are correct again, Luminious One... Single Player is what I meant. However, an inexperienced Hive Player could easily lose to a Good Morgan Player. And then their are horrid start for Hive, and great for Morgan... The ways the Hive can loose to Morgan are many, but when Hive is in a Conquestador's hand, it would take a lot of luck (IMAO) ...

posted 06-07-99 09:20 AM ET            

But think of something else: if I'm playing a multi-player game and I don't wish to go for the, ahem, *proper* way to play... I can always make friends with someone who will...

posted 06-07-99 12:11 PM ET            

I also disagree that there really are multiple paths to victory. Unlike Civ, in which one might barely be able to hold onto one's homeland while building and launching the Spaceship (the peaceful, techno win), SMAC doesn't allow you to hold the land unless you can TAKE it. That means all victories are through the Military Superiority branch. You have to have the military power to be able to protect yourself while trying for the other victories. The question then, is merely which do you prefer? And which do you have more fun doing? That is what you should do then. We play these games to have fun, after all.

DDad - So, your challenge has gone from conquer any Huge map by 2250 to conquesr the Huge map of Planet by 2250?

By the way, the AI doesn't tend to build up large amounts of defense. Large build ups are the AI preparing to launch an attack. Marine are the worst though, as you get a port city or eight with between 6 and 30 units waiting on a transport to come pick them up. Problem is that there are no transports in the faction, or they are out chasing black tiles. The AI does that too much and is one of the primary bad marine habits it has.

posted 06-07-99 02:41 PM ET            

Better watch out with those blurbs about what a good cook you are. When Nell posted that she hated her surname, was single and didn't like to iron or clean house, she received a half-dozen virtual marriage proposals.

Join me at the California Sunshine Grill for a virtual cook-off! Let's compare recipes.

A stray (dog) thought:
If we could somehow combine Nell, Eris and HeatherWst into one package we'd be approaching that proverbial "perfect wife."

posted 06-08-99 02:12 AM ET            

The University and Peacekeepers both get some interesting new abilities, that ramp them up to the level they should be, while morgan is upgraded, Miriam slightly tweaked, and the Hive receives some new penalties.

I can virtually gurantee from the current game that victory in 150 years on the huge map of planet IS impossible, I don't know about 200 though.

Eris: If I said that about football, and went out to play using only my knees and the back of my neck (and my feet only when in dire need), I think I'd be humiliated pretty quickly.

Ironically, you're attacking probably the only person who has a potential solution to the problem - don't get me wrong, the idea of playing SMAC like a zergling rush is abhorrent to me as well. But you have to play the way the game dictates, when you go against other people, not the way you want to - unless you want to lose.

JAM: HeatherWst? Who she?

posted 06-08-99 03:05 AM ET            

Depends on the Mom, I suppose.

posted 06-08-99 03:34 AM ET            

So sorry, I forgot you're from NZ and probably didn't get to see all of those cheesy musicals produced by the big American movie companies that starred Doris Day. She was your quintessential girl next door, blond hair, squeaky clean, shiny eyes, sparkling smile, a vestal virgin. She probably even did windows. In short, the kind of girl that only exists in cheesy musicals made by... well, you get the picture.

posted 06-08-99 09:19 AM ET            

Anyhow. Shining1 (and is your name a biblical reference or is it just me?)...

"Eris: If I said that about football, and went out to play using only my knees and the back of my neck (and my feet only when in dire need), I think I'd be humiliated pretty quickly."

Yes, and if I tried to hit a soccer/futbal ball with a baseball bat, I'd have a problem there, too... but futbal isn't baseball, SMAC, or even rugby. SMAC isn't even Civ, although it's a lot closer to that than anything else I can think of. SMAC is SMAC, and that's how I've been treating it, so please let's not get distracted with comparisons like this?

"Ironically, you're attacking probably the only person who has a potential solution to the problem"

Er. I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with you. Stubbornly, but don't take that personally; it's just me.

"But you have to play the way the game dictates, when you go against other people,"

As I said earlier, I don't /play/ multi-player, and if this is just an argument about /multiplayer/ conditions, I will bow out, because I can't comment on something I don't know about.

For single-player, I stand by my earlier statements, particularly as I've won a game by sticking to an almost purely defensive builder/expansionist policy.

Eris (who doesn't care if her mention of cooking gets attention, but probably is too old for a lot of you and in any event no one's even asked if I'm single...)

posted 06-08-99 02:38 PM ET            

You really owe it to yourself to try MP. Like sex, SMAC is much more satisfying when somebody else is involved. Besides, us "builder" types appreciate not having to fight off weinie waves of enemy troops from people who can't figure out how to lay a foundation for a children's creche.

I doubt that you're too old for me, but as I'm married, I'm off the market anyway. Nobody asked if your single because, as you are probably aware, EVERY cyberchick is single, loose, and has the body of a Barbie doll. At least that's what is hard-wired into all of us men's pee-brains. No, that's not a misspelling.

posted 06-08-99 03:02 PM ET            

Most of the posting by people leads me to believe that Transcendance is the third most common victory. The First being Total Conquest, and the second being Supreme Leader. Economic victory seems to be about dirt bottom on the list, but considering the favored way to Transcend seems to be to buy it in one turn, I favor classifying that as economic. But whatever floats your boat is ok.

Dilithium Dad - I doubt very few people go THAT extreme. After all, unless everyone is as lucky as I to share a red grid border with one to three opponents, you have to find them to attack them. And as I have more than described, expansion by founding cities is a timing cycle in my play. But as I like to maintain a certain level in my pod producers, that leaves me with time to kill... which turns out to be usable in expansion by force. In between, I build whatever I build. Infrastructure isn't my focus, expansion is. A key tenant in most games of this family.

I am not trying to misrepresent you. You are the one that said it was impossible to achieve Total Victory on Huge maps by 2250. Now, it seems you believe that it is possible on many of Huge maps, just not on all/particular ones. Yes? Then that means this thread's starting topic is closed. There is no Myth of Quick Conquest... there is only how to make sure you won't suffer it in a Multiplayer game. Taylored maps, picking your playmates, and being even more flexible than normal should all help prevent that. And anyone that forgets they are playing humans and not SMAC's Opponent Engine will get a serious shock.

Jam - I wouldn't be interested in a Barbie. She is missing too much equipment... Particularly warmth and intelligence.

posted 06-08-99 03:50 PM ET            

Uh.

No, never mind. I'm not going to say it.

I really don't have time. I've recently decided to give up MUSHing for a few months while I try to catch up on the other 73 things that take up my time. The only reason y'all get so many posts from me is I can post during working hours. Yes, granted, I should be /working/ during working hours, but we just switched to this new system, see, and um... well, let's just say that I am put to mind of an Electrolux...

Darkstar:

Everything's copacetic, yes.

posted 06-08-99 04:13 PM ET            

Now that I have that silliness out... You got to remember, Jam is a guy. Very few guys believe that "Nobody does me like I do me.". Their ladies may disagree about what's better... with or without them. :O

I have based my informal poll on what people have posted here for their single player games. The PBEM games haven't had a chance to settle so we haven't heard from them. But from what little I have heard from MP, yeah... they stack up about the same way as single play. After all, its more fun to "beat a human" than the computer, so you are going to attract more of those kind of players to MP. And you will also get more of the peaceful SimEmpire players, as they can team up or just play the game with another empire builder and compete to see who has the biggest and best empire. But there seems to be less of those. But I am trying to keep an open mind and take everything with a grain of salt at this early date...

Besides, game balance may be changing soon. We are awaiting patch 4 which should be in final test right now...

posted 06-08-99 05:09 PM ET            

I say it is not possible to win by conquest by 2250 on ANY huge map (diplomatic victory, yes, I have done it as Peacekeepers on Huge Map of Planet --Empath Guild + Ascetic Virtues + Planetary Transit System nearly gaurantees it). Basically, by the time you find everyone and organize an invasion fleet, they are too well developed to clobber. It is especially and specifically not possible with Huge Map of Planet, because it has many spheres of influence divided by natural barriers and the computer does a better job of dispersing factions.

posted 06-08-99 11:42 PM ET            

As for sex, I notice no one's asked me if I'm str8 or not, either...

And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic. Too many young readers.

posted 06-09-99 05:01 AM ET            

Are you married ?
Are you straight ?
Do you fancy a slight French accent ?
Will you marry me ?

posted 06-09-99 12:23 PM ET            

Eris, please don't lead our poor swift Swiss on. He really is much too fragile ever since Deirdre turned him down, and Santiago... well like you say too many young lurkers.

posted 06-09-99 12:47 PM ET            

Glad to see we got this thread back on topic!

My only question now, is...

What kind of quick conquest is the "swift Swiss" aiming for here?

Eris, I trust you slept well and your dreams were not disturbed by any human encroachment.

Goob, you tramp, I thought you were my boy!

posted 06-09-99 02:47 PM ET            

"Eris, please don't lead our poor swift Swiss on."

*grin* No intention to. As far as I know, he has enough of a brain to realize anything that goes on on this forum is merely fun and games. He /seems/ to have a brain, at least. Sometimes it's hard to tell with guys, though.

But, the way I answered the questions was kinda unfair. I was just in one of those moods. (When in doubt, see my forum name.)

So, okay, for the whole 2-3 of you who are even remotely interested:

Yes, I am straight. No, I'm not married. I live alone, unless you count my cat. And actually, at the moment I'm not even seriously involved with someone. But I smoke, which oughta cut down the propositions by at least 50% right there. Knew there was an advantage other than curbing the homicidal tendencies. I'm almost certainly older than the average poster here given references with age clues I've seen, although I'm pretty sure I'm younger than a few of y'all, too.

A /mild/ French accent probably would be dealable with, yes. But you must understand that I routinely make fun of the pronunciation of French (no, I don't speak it, although yes, I can correctly pronounce some words). Some of that comes from having an ex-Canadian as one of one's closest friends.

posted 06-09-99 03:24 PM ET            

This is boasting... taking up you challenge, I started a new game on Huge Planet last night. I plan on playing more of the DD Huge Planet Map Challenge. In current game I am on course for a Total Conquest of or near 2250. So I do think that even the Huge Map of Planet can be total conquered near or by 2250. Certainly not ALL the time, but it is possible, depending on a little luck and seeding.

In my first game, Believers and UoP were started within 8 tiles of my capital. Morgan is at 25. Gaians are at 30. PK and Spartans are within 30 as everything else was scouted. (When you buy a map, you get wherever they have been). I started as Hive, for those of you doing the deducing, but next time around, if this doesn't get TOO boring, I'm planning on Morgan.

I do owe you a thank you though, DD, as its its been a more interesting game than most. I don't normally go so gung-ho. However, with the way the Opponent Engine likes to run to make contact, and the rate maps are exchanged, it's relatively easy to find everyone and launch invasion forces. And as the attack is generally better than the defence... I don't NORMALLY permit the computer factions to live, but as the challenge is a total conquest by 2250, its saves a little time accepting their surrender.

posted 06-10-99 01:47 AM ET            

Darkstar: But don't you just love those little tombstones at the foot of your pyramid?

As for the rules remix, it doesn't look hopeful. Morgan (my nearest neighbour) still went down in 5 turns, to an otherwise pathetic squad of 4 recon rovers and a bit of fundamentalism (plus a couple of monoliths in the centre of his territory - you just gotta love those things).

Eris: I'm not sure you got my football metaphor; I'm just saying that if you needlessly handicap yourself by playing to the way YOU feel is correct, instead of what the game allows, then you'll end up - well, as a little tombstone at the base of Darkstar's pyramid.

Ideally, SMAC should have a large building component to it. But ultimately, those guns are there for a reason.

posted 06-11-99 09:45 AM ET            

Er, no. I don't think /you/ got /my/ point. Futball is a /really/ simple game. SMAC is not. There is a lot more to a strategy game than there is to a sport. Sports are /very/ straightforward.

In any event, even if I was going to allow the sports analogy: The analogy closer to what I'm doing vs. the rules would be if I were playing futball and chose to never steal the ball. I would still be playing within the rules, I would just not be doing something the rules allow. And I could still win that way...

I do have a question, though. Why do people assume that a builder style means an easy conquest? I mean, do you /really/ think that means that they build zero military units? Don't you think a builder style would be /more/ inclined to build really good defenders, on top of that?

posted 06-11-99 02:57 PM ET            

Eris - The assumption isn't that a Builder doesn't have defenders. The assumption is that the Builder will have a limited number of Response Quality (High Attack value and highly mobile) Military Units. Since Attack is so strongly favored over Defense, the only way viewed as truly working to stop an Attacker is to bap them before they get close enough to hit/gas you. That is the issue. SMAC is a game that emphasises the cardinal rule of "A good defense is a good offense."

So if a Builder builds the cheapest effective brick to take those worm hits and occasional mad raids by the A-Non-I, then the Conquestador's attack force is expected to roll over the Defender. That seems to be the premise, and the arguement. Of course, there are different degrees to all things, and total extremists are in the pot the second things slip out of norm...

posted 06-11-99 03:01 PM ET            

Eris: What I define as a builder is someone who builds base facilities and does some research (usually up to crusiers and synthetic fossil fuels (6 attack) or even not until needlejets) before cranking out military units. Pure conquer stylists don't build any base facilities --not even creches (I built them in one conquest game, and several warriers told me that was a mistake).
They only build military units, formers and colony pods.

posted 06-11-99 04:20 PM ET            

I missed achieving Victory by 2250 with the Hive... To tell the truth, I got distracted with other things and slowed to my NATURAL aggressive pace without thinking about it. But it was still pretty close. ( MY 2280 ) Had I concentrated more on Conquer and less on building new bases, I believe I would have achieved Total Conquest sooner.

So I decided to try out Morgan anyways on the second go... After having 40 turns with no contact (and not even a frequency from PodLotto) I saved the game, and turned on Omni view. Wow. Ever faction was on its own continent, and noone was YET near me. I have NEVER had a game seeded like that. Truly amazing. Stupendous! But... as far as the DD Challenge goes, its off to try again another time. (Hey, there are people half way around the world... who would have thunk it? Wow!)

Dilithium Dad, my games typical seeding seems to be with 2 to 4 factions within easy striking range, and the others not far out past that (although usually on a different minor continent). As I have said many times before, that was why I stopped playing Huge maps. All that space went to waste, except by my Faction and the Ugly Orange. And the Believers would do poor at it.

posted 06-12-99 02:25 AM ET            

1. the first thing is which faction you play. for a quick conquest victory in my opinion the Spartans are best for two two reasons. one is they start off with a rover which gives them the mobility they need to actually FIND the other factions, and the second is what i like to refer to as Spartan diplomacy. you threaten a faction to give you all their tech/money whatever and keep on demanding them to withdraw and they either comply or go on a vendetta against you. either way it's win win. and the best thing is (and this has happened to me twice once morgan surrendered and once zakhorov did) factions sometimes surrender without me having to even fire a shot. and making them surrender also seems to be the easiest with the spartans. running neck and neck with the spartans are the hive with their police state right out of the box without a penalty, their quick growth and production. and even more importantly, if you are the hive then you don't have to conquer the hive (they can be a pain if they already have industrial base and synthmetal garrisons and they are really annoying if they get high energy chemistry before you find them)

2. this truly is the most important thing to a quick conquest victory, where exactly the other factions are...i played a game today on a huge map and i didn't even find any other factions until about 2220 but i wasn't really looking for them that hard. if you have to travel by land and sea half way across the map before you find anyone then i'd say a quick conquest is out.

3. luck and random happenings. yes to have an ungodly quick conquest victory is going to require som luck. if a mindworm attacks kill off and badly damage your starting units that's going to delay a quick victory. or if it takes fiv turns to even enter into a fungus sqaure that will slow you down.

4. and the last thing is settings. game preferences can really slow you down. being on transendence level alone will slow you down just becuase you have to take care of your drones.

and i would like to add to the challenge.

posted 06-12-99 02:47 AM ET            

Given that this discussion takes place in the midst of the 'Myth of Quick Conquest Victory' thread, I think I'm within my rights to promote a heavily conquer based approach. What changed my view on the game is something that happened long ago in a game of CivII - as the vikings, I was competing peacefully with the Mongols for territory. I lost ground 5 times in a row from the same save and reload.

I came back the next day, in a much better mood, and plowed some production into elephants and legions. Hey presto - the predictable breakdown in mongol-viking relations arrived, and my new armies annihilated the legions that in the previous games had cost me the new cities. I found myself able to invade most of their territory as well, in fact. A few extra units made all the difference.

And SMAC has much nicer rules for conqueror tactics than CivII did.

I still don't think you get my football metaphor, but I realise that's because you don't get the conqueror bit either.

posted 06-12-99 03:21 AM ET            

ok here are the game preferances
Huge map (or huge map of planet either one)

tech stagnation-on
spoils of war-off
blind research-on
intense rivalry-on
no unity survey-on
no unity scattering:pods only at landing sites-on

with those setting it slows down a quick conquest. especially important is the no pod scattering, because podlotto gives you the techs you need to equip your war machine and the alien artifacts can be used to hurry special projects, even the mindworms you find aren't all bad because if you do it right you can kill them for cash.

two other settings that determine how fast you get the conquest victory are the playing level and the do or die:restart eliminated opponents
for my challenge

do or die n
and the level is thinker or preferably transcend where the drones alone will slow you down (i remember reading on the forums that some of you don't like to play on transcend)

posted 06-12-99 04:15 AM ET            

yeah you are right about the roads. i think i have figured out why the A.I. builds so many roads like that.

either they carried over the code from civII where you got the trade bonus for roads and railroads or...

it is a little know fact that brian's first programing job was for the U.S. department of transportation...they asked him to write a program that would calculate the most expensive way to build interstate highways...maybe he carried over that code?

posted 06-14-99 10:43 AM ET            

the reason i said intense rivalry i'm pretty sure that computer players don't surrender when that is on (at least they haven't ever surrended to me when i have played with it on) so in that case you would have to research all yur technologies and the computer also is less likely to talk (and therefor trade tech with you)

if you really want a challenge from the computer edit the files so all the cmputer players have SHARETECH,1 in their files and you don't, play with spoils of war off blind research on and thn just to add the cream and sugar to this cake use the scenario editor so that every computer faction is allied and they all hate you, and set it at permanent...then edit the files where you can't use probe teams to steal tech...and you got yourself a challenge there!

posted 06-14-99 05:10 PM ET            

I have to try the DD huge Planet conquest challenge! I'll take the initial plunge on Hive as well.

BTW, do any of the old SMAC-god 'Transcend Ironmen only no wimps allowed' people know what happened to Analyst? I haven't seen a post from him for a while. (not that I'm not guilty of the same sin. <sheepish look> )

Luck all.

posted 06-14-99 06:38 PM ET            

I guess my attitude towards pure-conquer is that if I wanted to play an arcade game, I'd play an arcade game... and that's what it feels like to me. Personally. YMMV.

I think I may have a different definition of 'defenders' than some people, though. I generally have one that's 1/good armor/1 + trance/ECM, set on hold, one that's a mid-to-high attack/middling armor/2 + empath/trance on alert, 1 AAA aircraft on alert, and if on a coast an Isle of the Deep (or a best sea chassis with a middlin' weapon/armor, sometimes) on alert. Some cities have two high-armor defenders on hold or multiple things on alert if they're by a hostile border or have an SP that I don't want to risk. Perimeter defense and Tachyon Field are priority builds for me. I also set border guards, /particularly/ if I'm near a faction that I know may be hostile, and those go on alert as well; they're usually ECM or AAA though sometimes trance (particularly if I'm near the GAians). I also /do/ build high-end military units on the theory taht if an enemy is on my land I'm already losign ground, so I'd better be ready to take a city away from them to make them leave me alone.

posted 06-15-99 02:01 PM ET            

It is NOT a myth.
Conquest victory achieved
Spoils off, blind on, random on
huge planet
low erosion, dense cloud, abundant life
TI

Now granted, I missed the 2250 date, but 2252 is close enough. I did also use builder strats. Most all base facilities built. I could have won earlier, but spent production on facilities when I could have been producing other units.

AC score 3472
325%
top book.
save available

BTW, it is not a victory with surrendered factions. It was a total conquest victory. all 6 AIs eradicated.

posted 06-15-99 03:06 PM ET            

Map of planet don't mean sh*t. Wouldn't it be safe to say the game is more difficult when you don't know what the coastline looks like?

Luck? hehehe. not luck, I do it all the time. Early conquest that is.

posted 06-15-99 04:18 PM ET            

CousLee --what was water coverage? High water makes it harder to mount invasions, but it also cripples the AI because thy never get off their tiny island. Low water makes it easy to sweep all comers before the might of your 2-1-2 rovers without having to build a navy. That's another advantage of Map of Planet with its balanced landing sites.

posted 06-15-99 04:41 PM ET            

The last turn (which in retrospect, could have been done a few turns before) I have saved at the begining of the turn, and at the end. I saved at the begining cause the last turn is quite spectacular. Just the thing you need when you are fed up with the AI sniping your formers. You get to show the AI how he humans snipe formers . And the end of the turn, as it was a hall of fame submit at apolyton.

posted 09-07-99 12:00 PM ET            

CousLee's victory as posted on the Apoloyton site was a standard map, not Huge, and certainly not Huge Map of Planet.

I recently completed the Ultimate Builder Map, based on Huge Map of Planet, and sent it to several websites. Unfortunately, it was infected with the W97 macro virus. I just got Norton Utilities 2000 and cleaned up my act (I am based at a University, and our security measures are poor!) and will be resending.

posted 09-07-99 04:42 PM ET            

I've come close to the 150 turn mark on winning on Huge Map of Planet with the Gaians. I find such games utterly boring, and as its merely a matter of seeding, someone will do it, if they try often enough. The odds are not impossible, but they are improbable.

It's been a while since I played SMAC, but I have won several games of SMAC on random Huge maps within 150 to 200 turns. It's all a matter of seeding.

Dilithium Dad has worked hard at modifying the Huge Map of Planet so that SMAC will more likely NOT seed factions to close to each other, providing for a better latter conflict map.

posted 09-08-99 01:48 AM ET            

Huge Map, Thinker, Factions Restart.

No Neighbors on my large initial continental landmass.

Several submission pacts and overwhelming force by 2200.

posted 09-08-99 02:11 PM ET            

hahahah

posted 09-08-99 04:46 PM ET            

Why dont you try the builder scenario?

It is called transcend_zakharov_2241 and takes 50 years or so. It was written by Laurens.

High score (low year) belongs to player2.