posted 02-26-99 10:39 AM ET        

in response to Scrubby's observation that I have a very negative/cynical view of the underlying models to SCAC,

To some extent, you are probably right, and the opposite holds true for the those that really enjoy the game, They see the flaws through rose colored shades.

In the end, these are some of the things that I was really hoping would be here.

1)faster navel movement, it is really a reach to believe that a modern navy would take three or more years to sail around the world.

2)more covert operations, from low intensity warefare to altering the gene-line of neighboring factions.

3)a better developed economic model with more control for the faction and better sense of interconnectedness. For example, boosting industrial expenditures has spill over effects increasing the rate of technological developement in most free market societies.

4)better diplomatic model. What about the tools of modern diplomacy, scantions, embargos, joint development agreeements. The primitive Real-Politik of War, Truce/neutral or Ally is a little lame.

5)Make the growing understanding of the planet critical to the success of a faction.

6)Better Combat model. This one is better than any Civ game to date, aleast stupid bronze age Phalanxes cant kill a fusion aged tank unit, but it still could be improved.

7)More interation with your society, not just assigning jobs and quashing Drone riots. see them evolve and change over time (physically and mentally)

8)A better sense that you are managing a nation, not a collection of semi-independant city states.

posted 02-26-99 11:08 AM ET            

2) Sounds interesting; not sure how it would work. Maybe Probe teams could inflict a temporary penalty to a faction�s morale, support, police, etc.

3) This is sort of modeled by the Society Engineering functions�.

4) Sounds like fun.

5) That would be .

6) I would still like to see combat ala Master of Magic or Lords of Magic - drop into a tactical screen to control combat.

7) They do evolve over time - you have doctors, trancendi, etc. each with their own benefits. What else do you want?

8) The boarders help, but you�re right, there could be more interconnectivity between cities.

posted 02-26-99 02:19 PM ET            

1. To be fair then, air movement should be incredibly large then. This naval/air/land movement problem is one of scale and wargamers have grappled with it for years. To encompass the scope of the game, you need to account for the early one scout exploring around all the way to supersonic gravships crossing continents. This is a brutal problem to handle. I'll take the SMAC stand point here and mention that the Maritime Control Centre becomes crucial. I almost always build it.

2. I would have loved this too. A slight expansion of probe team abilities would probably suffice. To be honest I don't think I build enough of them -- other things always seem more important.

3. I believe the economic model is complicated enough. Perhaps this too is a question of scale...

4. Like Dredd said this would be fun. Here Firaxis' fixation on Frank Herbert's Dune would have served them better. The abstraction of "Vendetta" leaves something to be desired. (This point is probably linked to probe team/espionage)

5. I think this is addressed in the interludes and such. They are meant to convey hints as to what you've done "right" and "wrong". However, to make Planet understanding key you would invalidate the factions whose agendas did not mesh. This would unbalance them. The option would be a Planet simulator where the best "Gaian" faction won... a totally different beast in my opinion.

6. I think you have to be clearer on what you mean by "better" combat model. I currently like it. For Dredd, the LOM option of tactical zoom ups gets pretty old pretty fast. (And I loved Lords of Magic:SE)

7. You mean you want to see and feel and hear your populace? This would be very very cool. Interesting. Muck around with the transcendi and such? This might be improved with more interactive interludes...

8. You're managing a faction not a nation. A minor difference but key here. I think the game does a good job in conveying the scope of your "nation" actually.

As for the final comment about Firaxis coasting I doubt it. This is still one of the best games I've ever played. If they were coasting we'd all know it...

posted 02-26-99 03:09 PM ET            

Some of this might be true but it is not all that way. Things that are flaws to you might not be flaws to other people. People look for different things in a given game.

I won't comment on everything

> 2)more covert operations, from low > intensity warefare to altering the > gene-line of neighboring factions.

Low intensity warfare, that is an interesting idea. In real life it works quite well against wimpy countries like America (I'm american so don't start an argument about this please) but fails horribly against tough countries like Vietnam and Iraq. The funny thing is that wimpy countries tend to be the ones using it against tough countries.

I could see making it so that certain peaceful factions focus more on this type of fighting. Good idea overall.

Altering the genes of an enemy.... that is hard. There are two ways that I can think of doing this: Sending your inferior people (like drones) to rape their women or using some sort of bioenginered virus to change people's DNA. The first choice doesn't belong in a video game at all but the second seems a little more reasonable. I'm not sure that I would want it in the game though... how would you like it if you suddenly found out that your people were getting dumber? There wouldn't really be anything that you could do unless you have backed up DNA files for everyone. Then you could just kill everyone and start over. That doesn't really belong in a video game either.

> 3)a better developed economic model with > more control for the faction and better
> sense of interconnectedness.For example, > boosting industrial expenditures has spill > over effects increasing the rate of
> technological developement in most free > market societies.

Hmm.. I've only played the demo but I hear that free market isn't as good as it should be. Maybe it could be fixed.

> 4)better diplomatic model. What about the > tools of modern diplomacy, scantions,
> embargos, joint development agreeements. > he primitive Real-Politik of War, > Truce/neutral or Ally is a little lame.

Well actually I've always though that modern diplomacy was a joke, if I was the king of america things would be different, very different....

I guess if you want to have these things then you are going to have to play a multiplayer game. We had all of these things in our civnet games. Everything would settle into an uneasy peace and then eventually a border dispute would turn into all out world war. The funny thing is since so many cities would get destroyed in the ways we always had plenty of land after the fights. We had lots of technology deals and such. Sometimes half of the people would start on one continent and half on the other. It was like two separate games and you had to be careful otherwise the "other" groups would try to colonise your island and would upset the balance that everyone had fought to acheive, when I say fought I mean all out fights until the other guy submitted and was forced to serve you. Oh and we had a rule: You had to always try to win, no matter what the odds.

> 5)Make the growing understanding of the > planet critical to the success of a > faction.

Nah, not all factions are the same. If I want to plunder burn and kill why shouldn't I? That's what games are about, killing. The other stuff makes it more interesting but isn't a priority. Imagine a 1v1 multiplayer game. Would you want to lose because the other guy was an environmentalist? Seems kind of boring to me. If TBS games are to survive and flourish they better not drift to far from what make a game a game: hurting others! All games are this way. Monopoly? Your goal isn't to get rich, it is to make the other guys be unable to afford rent so that they die coughing in the gutter.

> 6)Better Combat model. This one is better > than any Civ game to date, aleast stupid > bronze age Phalanxes cant
> kill a fusion aged tank unit, but it still > could be improved.

Isn't this combat model just a simplified version of the civ2 model? I mean does terran even matter? Can you fortify? I like the Civ2 model the best. Zooming in defeats the whole purpose of having a world map. I think you are looking for a game like Romance of the Three Kingdoms II (a great game).

> 7)More interation with your society, not > just assigning jobs and quashing Drone > riots. see them evolve and change over time > (physically and mentally)

No too much detail destroys a game. After playing the settlers3 demo a few times I am glad that real games stick with a simpler resource model

> 8)A better sense that you are managing a > nation, not a collection of > semi-independant city states.

But you aren't managing a nation. You are managing a group of people that follow you. Traditionally nations haven't even existed. Very few nations existed in the past, most countries were just the lands associated with a king and his subordinates.

> These are just a few ideas, and if I can > come up with this many in the two days that > I've had the game, The development team > should have thought of them sometime over > the months that they were working on this.

Maybe they did and didn't like them.

> I really get the feelling that they were > coasting. Spendinging thier time developing > some of the cut scenes and not developing > the GAME.

posted 02-26-99 03:33 PM ET            

Whether this can all be done under current technology and computer capacity is another question. It appears SimCity 3000 (which I haven't played yet) is adding greater interaction with neighboring cities, but that game is more concentrated on such matters.

posted 02-26-99 05:25 PM ET            

However, I will say that my disappointment with the game centers around what could have been. Perhaps my expectations are too high or maybe totally unrealistic. What I do know is that there are fundamental flaws with the thinking behind a number of ideas.

1) Trade is almost non-existent. The make friends-make a buck philosophy allows for no depth to this facet of the game. I would expect that a good model would allow the Morganites to really exert an advantage in this area and they don't have it. All I do is tell Morgan that he should give me a base or I'll squash him and he gives over a base and then doesn't talk to me for a few turns. Guess what? I then demand another base.

2)As I have said in other forums, nutrients, minerals and energy has the all too familiar smell of food, shields and trade arrows. Booorringgg. How about factions having to negotiate for all too scarce resources? Do you think Hitler paid any attention to resource availability during WWII? If not, ask yourself why he invaded Norway. Answer: Swedish iron ore.

3)One unit at a time combat. Duh! This is only marginally better than one unit kills all in Civ II. Why not implementing a 25 year old idea from board games where a "stack" fights together with modifiers for combined arms and the like?

4)There's something else missing. Aha! I don't get that same feeling about nurturing and caring for my darling people. Instead, it is just a mechanistic approach to create a talent or hurry a recreation commons and the drone riot problem is solved. In short, the game is still greatly deficient when it comes to managing happiness. Heck, Lords of the Realm II is far better than SMAC in this area. Doesn't anybody at Firaxis play any other TBS games?

5)Why can't resources be stored to produce more than one unit at a time? This linear approach is probably the most bothersome to me. It violates every principle of economics and military preparedness.

posted 02-26-99 06:07 PM ET            

Oh and at least I didn't say anthing specific about AC except the combat model. I have checked in the rules.txt and all of those other files and it says that high ground doesn't give you bonuses unless you change the variable. Yeah I'm going to get it, I'm already convincing all of my friends too.