posted 06-30-99 02:05 AM ET        

-----------
Scores
-----------
lal_2286 Version 1:
Current Best Results:
1) tfs99 - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1730
2) Ares 7 - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1564
3) MichaeltheGreat - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1540
4) krushala - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1322
5) jimmytrick - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1300
6) HelloKitty - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1274
7) Nell_Smith - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1209
8) aceplayer - year 2300, Alpha Centauri score 1173

Current Best Results Version 2:
1) laurens - year 2296, Alpha Centauri score 765

zakharov 2171:
1) laurens - year 2176, Alpha Centauri score 60
2) krushala - year 2184, Alpha Centauri score 80
3) aceplayer - year 2185, Alpha Centauri score 95

Deirdre_2300:
Current Best Results:
1) krushala - year 2312, Alpha Centauri score 286
2) aceplayer - year 2320, Alpha Centauri score 303

posted 06-30-99 02:12 AM ET            

I got Sparta Command and Parade Ground in 2301
Score 347.

How about that?

posted 06-30-99 08:10 AM ET            

I have a suggestion - to move the lal_2286 scenario up (from Very easy) to Easy level.

And shift Deirdre_2300 down to Very easy level.

Scenarios that require you to capture just the objective bases shouldn't be too difficult, as compared to achieving diplomatic/conquest victories over in the lal_2286 scenario.

posted 06-30-99 08:50 AM ET            

obviously my difficulty rankings are not very good - I moved morgan_2281 to very easy - I should probably just drop that scenario since krushala did it in 2 years - but I'll leave it up for now

Since others are gonna be adding scenarios - I will drop all the difficulty ratings by one.

However - difficulty should not just reflect scenario length - since that is posted too - it has to reflect something else - right now I am trying to make it your power relative to other factions.

any other ideas on this ??

posted 06-30-99 08:53 AM ET            

I made a couple of these way too easy...

you did it in one year ???

posted 06-30-99 10:25 AM ET         

Deirde_2300 in one move: thats easy easy.
But with score 347 ! My dear. Laurens, you did a great job. First, I didn't have any idea how you could manage this. I had to do this game a second time to top you with 355, really maxing out every single point. Great scenario. Big surprise!

posted 06-30-99 11:38 AM ET            

I'll try it myself first, but later I'd like to compare .sav files. With the SP's, increasing the score shouldn't be too hard, although you guys did crank up the score a lot, but simply reaching the bases with a ground force to actually take the cities is another story, and the Spartans would easily retake in a turn or two.

posted 06-30-99 03:28 PM ET            

a little inspirational music for ya:

"Well you're pretty good ol' son,
but sit down there in that chair,
and let me show ya how it's done."
Charlie Daniels - The Devil Went Down to Georgia

It took two years?

The scenario goals if I recall, were to take Gaia's Landing, Last Rose of Summer, and Forest Primeval, if I recall.

I hope you don't mind that I wasted Forest Primeval (it's gone), and also took Vale of Winds, Greenhouse Gate and Song of Planet.

Oh...

I almost forgot...

1 turn (yep)
457 points (yep again).

posted 06-30-99 06:08 PM ET            

Except to manipulate the rules of the scenario, what I did was not sound play - since I've got thin skinned drop rovers holding these cities, a lot less cash, and what few choppers I have left are badly damaged, and might get lost if Deirdre counterattacks when she gets the turn.

In the other one, they evidently base traded with the AI, which is considered an absoulutely forbidden cheat in the CMN rules for multiplayer games. I don't think their scores should be tossed out, but maybe the scenario should be done in two forms: Anything goes except hacking the save file or using the SE, and a full conquest or conquest and treaty or pact with the target faction.

posted 07-01-99 04:10 AM ET         

according Deirdre_2300:
It looks like what is so simple to us, other great players just didn�t find out yet (do do it in 1 turn). I like to keep this mistery for a while. It�s fun, isnt it?

.

Hi Michael,
congrats for your one-turn-surprise with morgan (I didn�t have a look to that sc. yet).

About your comments about Deirdre in one turn: What exactly you want to communicate with your expression �funny�? (Sorry, I�m not native english speaker). When I see your multiple boasting about your 1-turn-Morgan-coup, and your emphasis on not cheating at all (according to MP-rules), you give me the impression that you want to blame laurence and me for cheating (playing not honestly or something like that).

Thats not fair-play in my opinion. When you cannot think of a solution in one turn, it is not automatically cheat.

OK, I bought a base with 1 SP from Lal to increase my score a little bit (I didn�t know about any MP-rules). If you like it better in your way, count down 27 points from my 355 (and most probably from Laurences 347) and still you get:

Score 328 within 1 turn.

Spartan bases are conquered by gajan army!

Unless everybody agrees to additional rules for these scenarios, we should accept results as they are.

ARES 7

posted 07-01-99 04:37 AM ET            

I know you can do it! Coz my style of play only favors aggressiveness and multi-unit-designing and never so good in micromanagement or diplomacy - yet to improve on that. That's good work

It's lucky that I've got your earlier message, coz I was just about to reply to their 'enquiries' ... ermm possible bugs in the game that we did it in 1 yr? Ha... yes, definitely better and more fun for them to figure it out - I believe it's just a matter of time.

Meanwhile, will be taking a temporary break from the scenarios coz I'm finishing on mine - hope to keep it alongside with yours over in SCENARIO CONTEST.

posted 07-01-99 12:27 PM ET            

"Regarding the termination of pact (right-click feature), I only went about winning the game when I confirmed - this:. I renounced the pact, and I also tried to break the treaty which is impossible due to the comm. disrupt. However, when I wanted to further agitate things by demanding withdrawal, the message comes up to say, "The Gaians appear to have complied." Normally what you see will be the faction leader saying that she has no units in your border, but this time round during sunspot the message has indicated otherwise - a rough estimate of the military situation. Does this mean that this bug-supposed-to-be carries an entirely new message?

The units are automatically withdrawn when you renounce the pact, and it's almost like you are breaking a treaty by launching a surprise attack prior to that spreading the news among your camp that your forces are no longer with the Gaians in this case (right clicking to denounce the pact). I debated within myself many times last night before choosing this fast conquest option (yah boy, put my score at an all-time low of 765), that this might not necessarily be a bug."

posted 07-01-99 01:33 PM ET            

I meant that the game has loopholes in the design that allow results that are inconsistent with the design - for instance, if you upgrade a unit normally, it uses its movement, but if you upgrade via the design workshop, the unit doesn't use its movement and can then attack on the same turn. Those loopholes are referred to as cheats, since they are sloppy design and programming, not features that are intended as part of the game.

Also, the AI will trade a good base to you for one of yours (like Assassin's Redoubt) that is useless to them and about to be overrun anyway.)

You can also use the right click to do multiple drops or insertions with drop units, and to break pacts during sunspot activity - but the sunspot activity prevents you from even talking to factions when you have units adjacent - so it's a matter of bad game design and inconsistency.

In Lal_2286, the extreme conclusion of the right click tricks would be to build a bunch of drop scout infantry, then break the pact (when you can't communicate in any way) use right click to do multiple drops to Deirdre's cities, use the design workshop to upgrade the scouts to some combat configuration, and then attack, ALL ON THE SAME TURN. Deirdre's easy enough to crack without all that trouble - 2 choppers will do it in one turn, but do you see my point about the right click trick?.

SE changes are also an issue - depending on your faction, you can change to knowledge to talk to Zak, change to Free Market to talk to Morgan, etc. and then change back immediately with no penalty once you've gotten what you want from them, and again do this all on one turn. Common sense tells you it would have a cost to change social engineering, and that Miriam wouldn't be impressed by your becoming a fundamentalist for five minutes, then going back to Godless democracy and knowledge. Common sense tells you that, but the Firaxis programmers don't have any - just ask DarkStar or trippin
Civ II had a period of anarchy unless you had the right wonder, but SMAC allows you to change back and forth as many times per turn as you find it convenient. This can also be exploited to overload supply crawlers building SPs.

In Deirdre_2300, you can, for example, trade Assassin's Redoubt with Morgan for a bigger city close to the Spartans, upgrade the garrisons there to drop capability, and rush another Locust (or a Chopper if you've traded with Lal). I understand you most likely used missiles and Kamikaze attacks with needlejets with Deirdre 2300, but to then get the highest scores you have to become governor and do SE changes - to get the Governor's vote, you have to do gifting and base trading to buy the AI - technically possible, yes, but sound from a game play standpoint?

If you read my other posts about the subject, I also stated that I thought both scenarios, Morgan and Deirdre, should be redone as full conquest, or conquest and submissive pacts. That would invalidate my score as well.

I consider the scenarios to be a multiplay environment, since we are in effect competing with each other. Also, I think aceplayer's intent was that these would be short scenarios, just not that short - he didn't know some of the tricks we know.

I know for a fact that I couldn't hold all the Gaian cities I took in Morgan if Deirdre counterattacked immediately, and I assume that you couldn't hold the Spartan cities if Santiago counterattacked.

So we technically met the scenario conditions as written by Aceplayer, who didn't know all of what could be done with the game. We didn't meet his most likely intent, by spending most of our energy, sacrificing a lot of units, etc. to get enemy cities that would be retaken in a turn or two - leaving us in a strategically weaker situation.

Tfs99 did a base swap (give all his technology to Miriam to get a base with an SE) to increase his score, but I think that's a little different, since the game ended with diplomatic victory. In Deirdre and Morgan, the game doesn't end - just the technical directions of the scenarios. Choices that really leave you weaker shouldn't be rewarded - that's why I think making them both full conquest scenarios is more playable and more enjoyable for more players.

Ares - "funny" in the sense I used it means "strange" or "unusual."

A private suggestion I made to Aceplayer was to have the scores in two categories - one is anything goes, and the other is by standard multiplay rules (taking the players word for it). I also think if he makes the objective full conquest, that would be a better scenario.

As the Deirdre and Morgan scenarios are now, I honestly think all of our results are bogus, mine included of course. I was posting all over the place to tease you guys in a way, but also to make people think "what is it with this one turn scenario?"

Lal_2286 was a better scenario, because it could not be concluded in one or two turns - but had to be played to some form of real victory. Totally breaking the power of the Gaians or Spartans in these two scenarios makes more sense as an objective, and allows more planning and play style - with different choices for how to do it.

I also think the best way to do it is to have the scenarios run for a set number of turns with high score the determining factor (get some builders involved, not just the rapid conquerors.) UNLESS the player achieves a game victory earlier - use aceplayer's number of turns as the standard. This would keep something like laurens conquest victory in Lal_2286 - since it was a game victory, but would require players to maximize their strength while conquering an enemy.

What are some of your thoughts?

posted 07-01-99 02:59 PM ET            

Yeah, I got your point on the choppers example (well, I gave this REAL cheat the instant upgrade trick name). But the point I'm referring to is, why is it not okay to break the pact during sunspot activities (right click at the comm window to renounce pact)? Sorta like you are telling everyone in your camp that the alliance is no more and you want whoever is still there to leave - and news will spread. Just not the proper way to declare war, you mean?

Furthermore, (during sunspot) the screen that comes up - let's say you break a treaty afterwards - is different in that it doesn't show the faction leaders 'talking', but indicate a general indication of the enemy forces' movement this time round. How do you explain this part then ... seeking enlightenment

As for the scenarios, I agree that there must be an objective victory, you know, games that you win and get the score actually recorded on your High Score list - coz we are actually trying out innovative scenarios and improving on each other scores all the time, that's the fun. Such as the lal_2286 scenario, when a complete victory would be needed at the end. That was why I thought it deserved more recognition that some of the others over at "Easy level" when a few moves can just win the game in a year.

To take over certain bases and proclaim yourself as the winner, these should be placed under ''short" games - when one concentrate mainly on speed and aggressiveness.

What do you think, and also many of the other players out there (ARES7, aceplayer, krushala,...) if say, we group the scenarios under:

LONG
MEDIUM
SHORT
SHORT - OBJECTIVE (this would be the one favourite of fast conquest such as taking over one or two bases would be sufficient to win the game)

posted 07-01-99 04:21 PM ET         

just found your long postings here. I agree on most topics, but will comment it later, for family is calling now.

In Lal_2286 I gifted bases to please AI and make pacts with them. I never felt wrong with it.
Sometimes, I gift bases without getting anything for it (loosing little pop, but trade is increasing a lot). Is this aready against MP-rules?

Ok, see you later.

.

- Btw: I finished Morgan_2281

- also in one turn with score 534
(conquered a bunch of additional SP�s from Deirdre)

This is without gifting any bases (giving 4 small bases to Miriam for nothing increases trade in the end and puts the score to 559)
What do you suggest, Michael, which save-file should I send to ace now,??

Some confusion came up.
Would be glad if it could be cleard.

posted 07-01-99 04:35 PM ET            

as to long, short, medium - that is fixed - because I took that out and now put in the number of years to win...

As for the difficulty - very hard etc. obviously - what I thought is hard is easy for you guys. They are all getting dropped - the original intent was to have it reflect your power vs the other factions. Lemme know what you think as to what hard should reflect - it shouldnt reflect length though - since I am posting that now....

as for swapping , gifting etc - I dont want multiple winners for every scenario...

Lets just say that whatever the rules of each scenario state - that is the rules. As new scenarios are submitted - we can have scenarios with MP rules...

maybe instead of grouping by hard etc - I can group by rules, LOL

I will also think of changing the rules for the scenarios that none have played.

thanks guys - also gonna start a new thread - cause I got a big announcement that I want everyone to see in the topic. check it out

posted 07-02-99 06:17 AM ET         

in your last posting (the long one above), you pointed out some inconsistences of the programming in the game. Thank you for your clear view on that.

.
Upgrading a unit one by one or in design-workshop: both have pro�s and con�s (in design-workshop you have to spend a lot of money at once, sometimes also on units you dont want to upgrade). But you are right. Design-workshop can be misused. So it shouldn�t be like it is.

.
When AI trades worthless bases against good ones, I do not consider this as a bug. It�s just that the AI is not as smart as humans. But the reasons for not having a smarter AI are well-discussed and accepted somehow (question of cost and time).

In Deirdre_2300 I bought a pop2-base with an SP from Lal (=third party) for better score. I admit, the 550 credits I had to pay for an SP were close to nothing. May be, the AI did wrong calculation (does anybody know, if an SP in a base contributes to the price of that base?). But thats the way, AI works. It�s the same condition for everyone taking part in the contest, isn�t it?.

Btw: In Deirdre_2300 I didnt trade Assassins Redoubt for a better base. Nobody was willing to give me bases. Lal even refused to trade techs! But I didnt need this anyway. The only things I needed (and got) were 2 pacts (for 2 basis)

.
Yes, if there are things possible like you describe with right click, it shouldnt be like this.

.
With SE-changes, you are absolutely right. Between every change, there should be something like anarchy in CIV. Some changes have instant effect, others only, after you finished the turn. There should be a simulation-button to view the results of potential changes. But after pushing OK, it should be fixed for this turn (or even for 2-3 turns of �anarchy").

I found out another loophole. In Morgan_2281 in the end, with free market (and may be democr.) you can put all specialists to workers, not caring about drones (I did care!). This gives you high energy and therefore high trade, but you dont have to pay for it (becaus there will be no next turn). Same with nerve-stapling and using gas ...(never did this!)
Same with conquering the goal-bases and have weak or even no defenders there against counter-attacks.

One solution would be (for next scenarios) that people send files after reaching the goal, and aceplayer (or whoever is managing it) will finish the turn and take the result only after that. Recaptured goal-bases mean, no win at all.

.
What is the overload supply crawlers building SP�s?
.

Michael, what seems to be your most emphasised point, still is not very clear to me.

Allow me to quote you:

- ... have the scores in two categories - one is anything goes, and the other is by standard MP-rules.
Ok, this is clear (assuming that giving away bases for free counts as trading !?)

- ... both scenarios, Morgan and Deirdre, should be redone as full conquest, or conquest and submissive pacts.
- ... a full conquest or conquest and treaty or pact with the target faction.

- In the other one, they evidently base traded with the AI, which is considered ...

Evidently ?? Where is the evident for your imputation?
You cannot think of a way to win Deirdre in one turn without base-trading with the target faction? Try it yourself first. Get into it enough, and you will see, that it is possible without. It�s even very easy without !!

And please dont make imputations like this before you get into it enough. Talk about possibilities or guessing, but please dont use �evidently� where there are no evidences, but only limited imagination on your side (Sorry I have to say that. For I know, your imagination and creativity is great, normally)

To come to a conclusion: In none of aceplayers scenarios I used base-trade with a target faction. Nor did I take advantage of an submissive pact to get finished in one turn. (I guess, laurens went a similar way, so it�s the same for him.)

.

With the solution proposed by ace I like to agree: �no multiple winners for every scenario�.

For new scenarios, what krushala mentioned seems to be very useful: With the SE one can restrict communication to prevent base trading etc. Excellent !

To give the word for not breaking MP-rules in new scenarios is Ok for me.

posted 07-02-99 08:05 AM ET            

"So we technically met the scenario conditions as written by Aceplayer, who didn't know all of what could be done with the game. We didn't meet his most likely intent, by spending most of our energy, sacrificing a lot of units, etc. to get enemy cities that would be retaken in a turn or two - leaving us in a strategically weaker situation."

cool - I love a debate about my intent - I cant be wrong

I just meant for you to achieve the stated goal - its a standalone scenario - not a chapter in a game. If the goal is not clear - thats a mistake by the scenario author. Note that in morgan_2281, I say "Take Gaia's Landing, and to prove you can hold it, take Forest Primeval and Last Rose of Summer too."

You are right - I have certainly learned a lot of new stuff here....

posted 07-02-99 08:17 AM ET            

"I found out another loophole. In Morgan_2281 in the end, with free market (and may be democr.) you can put all specialists to workers, not caring about drones (I did care!)"

wow wow wow - yes changing a worker to a drone adds to your AC population score !!

I dont really want ppl changing all the workers to drone at the end that just detracts from the fun.

I dunno what to do about this - however - I reserve the right to edit final results and lower the score. Not fun for me either.

I guess tweaking at the end after the goal has been achieved (other than other conquests) is frowned on but not preventable...

posted 07-02-99 09:45 AM ET         

I�m still confused about rules.
What is the exact meaning of:

No base trading with the AI at any time (according to MP or CMN rules B3a> ) ?

Ace, your statement in the posting above sounds different to me:

No _swapping _t o _g e t _a _base.

Does this mean, to give a base away for any reason (like to make neighbours friendly) is ok then?? (Communications-window: �Are you willing to accept a gift from me� � and � �I want to leave you one of my bases�, or something like that.)

As far as I understood you, Michael, you have a different opinion about this topic.

Can anyone please explain this topic in l o n g version, so that also non-english-native-speakers cannot misunderstand? Thanks.

It should be cleared, before people start the weekend.

Is it just me who has difficulties with exact meaning of words and rules?? (If yes, then I apologize to have bothered you. If not, ok then ...).