Any Chance for a Patch adding Hexagons & Stacked Multi-Unit Combat?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Any Chance for a Patch adding Hexagons & Stacked Multi-Unit Combat?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Any Chance for a Patch adding Hexagons & Stacked Multi-Unit Combat?

Oxybeles posted 02-18-99 10:34 PM ET
I think hexagons would provide a much better environment the squares for movement and base location....
Stacked combat would enable coordinated assaults with combined arms... I think it would add to the combat function of the game and could be an option.
Oxybeles
Brother Greg posted 02-18-99 11:36 PM ET
Hmm, hexes would be harder to move, as you'd have to implement a control other than the numeric keypad, and IMHO would add nothing to the game.
Stacked combat is in. But I assume you mean all of the stack attacking and defending at once? Well, to each their own. I prefer this style personally...
Combined arms is in too. If you have a Stack with defensive units, anti-aircraft units, offensive units, and air cover, chances are it's gonna be much harder to defeat than one with all the units the same...
I don't care if they add them as options, but I don't think the effort involved from Firaxis (major rewrites of the code for both) would justify the returns.
Oxybeles posted 02-19-99 02:45 AM ET
I understand your comments regarding combined arms, but I would prefer the multiple unit attack situation.
And I firmly believe hexagons would be better than squares for movement purposes.
kjchen posted 02-19-99 09:36 AM ET
I don't see that switching to hexagons adds anything to the game. The use of hexes as a grid mechanism is helpful model in wargaming, since it provides a simple rotation model for unit facing and flanking. In a game like SMAC where units AFAIK have no facing aside from their onscreen icons, this doesn't do much. What sort of modification to gameplay would you hope to gain from changing the geometry of the game?
As for the possibility of a patch, I'd say you'd be better off for lobbying for a hex-based approach in a sequel. A hex-based game requires an entirely different engine, with correspondingly different game balancing issues. This means that you're not talking about a patch, you're talking about a new game.
Calanor posted 02-19-99 08:39 PM ET
I agree that a hexagon based map probably wouldn't add much to AC. As for movement, I'd assume that you'd not be able to move in a hmm "diagonal" direction when using hexes (that is, through one of the corners of the hex). In that case, you'd have six directions to choose from, while the current squares have eight.
As kjchen pointed out, it would also require a major rewriting of the code, and I would frankly be surprised if the terrain graphics wouldn't have to be tweaked a bit as well.
As for combined arms, I do not fully understand the point of implementing it. During a single turn, each unit will have the option to attack anyway. Furthermore, this would probably cause some problems/confusion when retreating units are concerned. E.g. you attack a rover with 2 infantries and a rover of your own. The enemy rover takes 50% damage - what happens now? Should the enemy be able to retreat, even though you've attacked him with a rover yourself, or should only the rover within your stack be able to continue attacking? Perhaps the whole _stack_ should be able to keep on firing upon the hapless target? I feel that all this would probably only result in confusion and possibly problems with unit balance.
Regards,
Calanor
Spoe posted 02-19-99 09:42 PM ET
I wouldn't mind seeing a little interaction between units within a stack. For example, an artillery unit in a stack could give a 10 or 20% bonus to the defense of other units. Maybe a bonus to offense as well.
As far as going to a hex grid, while it might be nice it would not(IMHO) be worth the trouble to Firaxis to spend the time making a major revision to the game(not only would the display need to be redone, but so would the automatic move routines, distance routines, probably a fair amount of the AI, city resource allocation, etc. Also, the game balance would also be changed. This would amount to writing SMAC II.). I'd much prefer they spend their time working on their next game and polishing this one.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Any Chance for a Patch adding Hexagons & Stacked Multi-Unit Combat?
Oxybeles	posted 02-18-99 10:34 PM ET I think hexagons would provide a much better environment the squares for movement and base location.... Stacked combat would enable coordinated assaults with combined arms... I think it would add to the combat function of the game and could be an option. Oxybeles
Brother Greg	posted 02-18-99 11:36 PM ET Hmm, hexes would be harder to move, as you'd have to implement a control other than the numeric keypad, and IMHO would add nothing to the game. Stacked combat is in. But I assume you mean all of the stack attacking and defending at once? Well, to each their own. I prefer this style personally... Combined arms is in too. If you have a Stack with defensive units, anti-aircraft units, offensive units, and air cover, chances are it's gonna be much harder to defeat than one with all the units the same... I don't care if they add them as options, but I don't think the effort involved from Firaxis (major rewrites of the code for both) would justify the returns.
Oxybeles	posted 02-19-99 02:45 AM ET I understand your comments regarding combined arms, but I would prefer the multiple unit attack situation. And I firmly believe hexagons would be better than squares for movement purposes.
kjchen	posted 02-19-99 09:36 AM ET I don't see that switching to hexagons adds anything to the game. The use of hexes as a grid mechanism is helpful model in wargaming, since it provides a simple rotation model for unit facing and flanking. In a game like SMAC where units AFAIK have no facing aside from their onscreen icons, this doesn't do much. What sort of modification to gameplay would you hope to gain from changing the geometry of the game? As for the possibility of a patch, I'd say you'd be better off for lobbying for a hex-based approach in a sequel. A hex-based game requires an entirely different engine, with correspondingly different game balancing issues. This means that you're not talking about a patch, you're talking about a new game.
Calanor	posted 02-19-99 08:39 PM ET I agree that a hexagon based map probably wouldn't add much to AC. As for movement, I'd assume that you'd not be able to move in a hmm "diagonal" direction when using hexes (that is, through one of the corners of the hex). In that case, you'd have six directions to choose from, while the current squares have eight. As kjchen pointed out, it would also require a major rewriting of the code, and I would frankly be surprised if the terrain graphics wouldn't have to be tweaked a bit as well. As for combined arms, I do not fully understand the point of implementing it. During a single turn, each unit will have the option to attack anyway. Furthermore, this would probably cause some problems/confusion when retreating units are concerned. E.g. you attack a rover with 2 infantries and a rover of your own. The enemy rover takes 50% damage - what happens now? Should the enemy be able to retreat, even though you've attacked him with a rover yourself, or should only the rover within your stack be able to continue attacking? Perhaps the whole _stack_ should be able to keep on firing upon the hapless target? I feel that all this would probably only result in confusion and possibly problems with unit balance. Regards, Calanor
Spoe	posted 02-19-99 09:42 PM ET I wouldn't mind seeing a little interaction between units within a stack. For example, an artillery unit in a stack could give a 10 or 20% bonus to the defense of other units. Maybe a bonus to offense as well. As far as going to a hex grid, while it might be nice it would not(IMHO) be worth the trouble to Firaxis to spend the time making a major revision to the game(not only would the display need to be redone, but so would the automatic move routines, distance routines, probably a fair amount of the AI, city resource allocation, etc. Also, the game balance would also be changed. This would amount to writing SMAC II.). I'd much prefer they spend their time working on their next game and polishing this one.