posted 03-22-99 11:13 AM ET            

my 2 cents

posted 03-22-99 01:59 PM ET            

1. Starting Positions. Previously, I noted that the program had been very consistent about "clustering" the HQ bases at start. Others chimed in some agreement. In this game, most of the map has been revealed and I see that there has been a very even distribution of starting positons. Most are located rather far from each other. I chose Santiago for my first v3.0 game and not having anyone nearby to beat up on has involuntarily channelled me into an early build posture when I'm playing a faction that I'd rather have been early at war with. Is this a fluke or have other people's v3.0 games also started without the usual degree of HQ base crowding?

2. AI v AI Warfare. When two AI factions become very large, I've never seen a convincing display of warfare between the two. Typically, if a faction loses a base or two, peace breaks out and both sides return to picking fights with the human player. In this game, however, the UofP and the Gaians both advanced to 10+ very fine bases, declared war on each other, and the UofP, quite shockingly to me, completely cleaned the fungus huggers out of all of their land bases in a matter of about 15 turns. The result has been an uncommonly (and uncomfortably) powerful UofP. The power bar is pretty goofy looking, with a very tall white bar dominating all others. Since UofP beat me to the HSA Project (another first), this one ain't gona be easy.

3. Diplomacy. Maybe this was just because I was the Spartans and had the largest pop/strongest military (at least until UofP went on their rampage) but all of the AI factions were unusually compliant--even in the face of "bad" social engineering. Dierdre put up with my Free Market economy without becoming worse than "non-comittal" and even voted for me for Planetary Governor during that time. The UofP's attitude toward me never slid after I changed from "Knowledge" to "Power" values, remaining at "solicitous". Anyone else noticing whether the diplomatic power of the social engineering settings seems to have been reduced?

posted 03-22-99 02:23 PM ET            

First of all, I noticed a few people mentioning something about version 3.0. I haven't had a chance to dnload it yet, so all my references here are from 2.0.

Before I left for break, I was a hardcore "Builder", as far as strategy goes. I had the luxury of playing SMAC on a laptop while we cruised to our spring break destination, so I decided to try some new strategies. As a result of a heated debate about the merits/disadvantages of being a peaceful player as opposed to a militaristic one, I started a new game to try the role of the warmonger. To give myself some added incentive to blow away my AI opponents, I turned on the "aggressive AI" option.

After sharing Planet with the other 6 sociopaths, I quickly shed my peaceful tendincies and grew fangs. Since I was sandwitched between two factions on one large continent, military conquest was my only option in the early stages of the game. By the time I had played the first 150 turns, I had an empire roughly equal in power to a peaceful empire in my older games at roughly the same stage. What had happened was, instead of having a few well developed cities, I had many small, undeveloped bases which were equal in power. So, developmentally speaking, the two strategies appear to be equal in terms of power creation. Builders are at an advantage in that there is no risk in their power creation technique (if they have an adequate, defense) Conquers enjoy the luxury of having a large military at their disposal, and a larger number of cities to command, spreading out their power more evenly. Their disadvantage lies in the fact that their survival depends on their military success; failure means falling hopelessly behind, or even total annihilation. The larger number of cities also means its more difficult to effectively defend their own holdings from equally agressive players (especially in MP)

So with this new data, I want to present a summary of the two main SMAC playstyles; the "Builder" and "Conquer" strategies:

BUILDER

Geographic Pref: Isolation(control over entire continent(s)
Drone Pacifificaion: Larger city populations and energy output make Psych enhancing facilities more preferable over police state govs.
Military: Effective defense comprised of city garrisons, reactive offense units, surveylance (AWACS or scout ships), network of well connected cities.
Attack Conditions: Fight for control over a disputed continent, or to remove a nearby agressive player. Does not attack other peaceful factions
Overall: prefers to spend resources on city improvments over military units

CONQUEROR

Geographic Pref: Close proximity to one or two factions(preferably peaceful) for easy invasion.
Drone Pacification: Prefers police state govs. to simutaneously defend and pacify newly conquerored, low population cities.
Military: Large numbers of mobile, highly offensive units(Assault Rovers, and Bombers when applicable). Marines w/transports for amphibious invasions.
Attack conditions: Attacks either most vulnerable, or closest faction. Avoids war with more than one or two factions at a time, if possible. Prefers attacking poorly defended peaceful factions, but will attack other agressors if the opportunity presents itself.
Overall: Prefers strengthening army over developing cities.

I think this summerizes the two main SMAC strategies. One thing that was not stated was that a Builder can adopt a militaristic stance to remove a nearby agressor, and the Conquer may elect to spend more resources on developing his cities if there are no nearby factions to attack. It is the preferences listed above that dictate what the player will do when presented with a situation.

posted 03-22-99 03:01 PM ET         

Comments on my first 3.0 game:

Every other time I've played, when another faction gets to be approximately equal with me in power, they start going nuts and attack me. That's usually a bad thing for them, as the computer player isn't that hard to beat unless they have overwhelming force. This time, UofP has been different. While Zak has varied from Quarrelsome to Belligerent, he has avoided any outright attack. They have actually grown fairly powerful, while I've been sandwiched between the Hive and Miriam, both of whom hate my guts.

The other thing that I've noticed is that Lal has actually survived into the mid-game, although he is slowly being absorbed by Santiago now. The warfare between the two of them has been fairly constant. Morgan still got wasted fairly early.

As Analyst said, I've noticed that each faction HQ seems pretty well removed from each other. Each one actually has its own decent-sized continent (although Morgan got short-changed, which may be why he fell early). In previous games, even with huge maps I've sometimes started right next to somebody else. It will take a few more games before I can tell if this is a new pattern.

posted 03-22-99 05:49 PM ET            

I'll go along with your general description of the Conqueror style (and I prefer that designation to "warmonger" anyway ). I think that it will be an uphill battle for the Builders to prove that this game won't be just another "rush fest" (as you say) in MP mode.

Shining1, what do you mean "we" Kimosabe? Seriously, Player1 did start the original thread with an observation on the psychopathic AI and a lot of "me too" posts followed. I will immodestly give myself credit for turning the group opinion on that point, with my observations on the persuasive powers of bribes and better diplomacy through social engineering. [OK, other people get credit too, but I'm too busy tooting my own horn. Let them come and claim their own prizes. Hehehehe!]. I think that the people who probably had the biggest problem discovering the better diplomacy through bribery strategy were old Civ II players. We all knew that in Brian and Sid's last game, bribing the AI got you nowhere--in fact it was counter-productive. In SMAC, just the opposite is true and I think that realization of that fact was a long time coming for the "grizzled vets" of the CIV series. Heck, I still have a hard time swallowing my pride and forking over the protection money in the early game. There's something galling about that kind of kowtowing . . . .

posted 03-22-99 05:56 PM ET            

But I find I take issue with one of your points - I'm not forking out a lot of protection money. I trade tech when I want, make good alliances, accept offers to purchase maps/tech, and things still go very well for me. I'm NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT! (Well, obviously I am. But I haven't changed my entire approach, or anything...)

posted 03-22-99 07:51 PM ET            

Builder: Sensor arrays are so critical to defense I would include them in the definition. The first terraforming improvement I do will be a farm/solar farm, the second will always be a forest/sensor array.

Conqueror: There should be some mention of research facilities or probe teams in there. Even the most aggresive players can't win with just lasers and synmetal armour.

posted 03-22-99 10:09 PM ET            

Anyway, I suggested using it to buy cities rather than steal tech, though obviously you can do both. Once you have a few good, heavily defended cities, you can set the captured units on their old comrades and take advantage of the +1 Morale you get from Fun.

posted 03-22-99 10:34 PM ET            

Analyst: Hey, the laptop was just for the car ride! I couldn't use it on the beach anyway; those LCD screens are just too inviting a target for the seagulls

posted 03-23-99 05:45 AM ET         

And the best thing: It's possible to build rover probes in AC again. woo hoo

posted 03-23-99 08:37 AM ET            

More uniqueness: Miriam got eliminated early in this game and Morgan is starting to dominate the continent I'm not on. He's steadily grinding down the Hive and is up to about a dozen bases, about half of which he captured from the Hive. First time I've ever seen Morgan successfully prosecute a war, and against the Hive, no less.

I think some of the other "minor" tweaks are also having a major impact. I think that eliminating the AI fetish for artillery was huge. By default, just about anything the AI is building other than it's 10th artillery piece aimed at the same base is a lot more useful. I'm seeing a lot more bases fall in AI v AI warfare than I'm accustomed to seeing.

In the end, though, it's not enough. It was only tough sledding against the UofP until I aquired Air Power. Once I built an air force, the UofP bases started to fall into my hands. The UofP is building a balanced defense of AAA and ECM units in response to my bomber/rover tactics, but the offense/defense ratio is now Shard(13) against Silksteel(4) so the bonuses aren't enough to let defense prevail, though it is slowing my pace of conquest. The tweaks got the AI off to a faster start (or so it seems) but even an AI frontloaded with all the warmongering SPs and all the "right" defensive specials is folding against straightforward conquest tactics.

posted 03-23-99 10:30 AM ET            

I agree that the off/def ratio is the major unbalancing factor in the game in favor of a conquest strategy. Even in the 'late' game, there is a 2/1 offense to defense advantage, and the advent of conventional missles and helo's in mid-game pretty much insure victory for a well planned attack, which is why if a human player survives to this point, he/she wins.

By the way, the one Borehole Cluster I've seen so far had 3 boreholes...curious if its always the same...

posted 03-23-99 10:33 AM ET            

General comments: Current game is Spartans alone on the GC/UF continent, standard map of planet. I was consistently behind in tech till I met other CPs. A trade/pact-fest ensued since I was in place 6-7 everyone except Miriam (bitch), and Lal (pacifist pig) pacted or treaty'd with me. Yang (monster) was the treaty.
I noticed the AI is now very willing to trade any tech that does not have an un-built SP associated with it. This seems to keep most everyone at about the same tech levels. (airpower is a notable exception)
Imagine my shock and surprise when the PKs, based in the Jungle, proceeded to totally devour both Morgan and Zakharov, thus securing their continent.
I ate Miriam, who was annoying my pretty little Dierdre. Currently I am eating Yang, after extorting the energy to upgrade my out-of-date impact-based army to new chaos weaponry.
I'm not sure if I can take Lal after this tho. He has almost all the SPs in the game. I did get the HSK and then took the CN from Miriam who built it first (bitch again). All in all I'm pretty pleased with the 3.0 upgrade. Lal is really rocking. We'll see how he stands up to me once I'm done w. Yang.

Player2/DerekM: I'll second Player2's assertion that being a 'builder' is eminantly viable in TI play. I'm generally a builder myself, I have simply succumbed to Analyst's calling me to the dark side of the force. An intelligent builder should be able to out-think the AI build advantages at TI level play. Esp. with tactics like 'energy-field' development.

All: I;ve noticed the AI is doing MUCH better at base spacing than previously seen. That has to be one of the 'AI tweaks' that we got. OTOH, I haven't noticed signifigant improvement in the AI terraforming efforts. I still see a lot of mines, fewer solar-farms, and Dierdre continues to be obsessed with forests.
I agree with TICHQ consesus on sensors. Very important. Though I don't agree on why. I do not often find myself defending against an attack. I find sensors are much more useful for guarding against the forces of the 8th faction. I just hate mindworms in fungus where I can't see them, and sensors are my remedy.

Analyst: I'm beginning to agree with you about altering the attack/defence ratios available in the mid-tech levels. As it is right now, attack is pre-eminent. However, consider this. Altering that ratio will lead to a more 'builder-oriented' game. Is that what you want?

posted 03-23-99 10:53 AM ET            

In regards to offense/defense ratings, I think they are pretty well balanced. Of course, a silksteel garrison unit in the open field is gonna be cannon foder to a shard rover. But the two units are almost evenly matched if the garrison is in a defended city. A unit with defense value = 5 in a city with a perimeter defense, Children's creche, and a nearby sensor gets a +137.5% to its defense, if I'm not mistaken. This would give it a newly adjusted defense of about 12. Pitted against a shard rover, the two would be nearly evenly matched. But if you increase this defense value by only 2, (to 7) you get a new defense of 17! (Add a tacheon field, and this value is almost doubled, making an assault by even a SINGULARITY unit a fatal endeavor) So a small adjustment in unit defense translates to a very big difference when it is defending a guarded city.
There are other defensive issues, such as naval combat, which should be adjusted. Perhapse multiplying offense by defense, and then using this value of the two ships to decide the victor would work. But something needs to be done here, I think.

posted 03-23-99 11:45 AM ET            

Absimiliard, actually, that *is* what I want, beleive it or not. I differentiate between what I believe is the best strategy for this game and what I believe would make for the most interesting game. I would find the game more interesting and challenging if I had to build up my bases more to win, but I don't. And the interest or challenge in building up bases just isn't there for me if there is no necessity to do so. I fully recognize that others can be interested in base development for it's own sake, but absent the flow of the game *forcing* me to do it to implement a winning strategy, I just can't develop that interest from within. I certainly would find it more interesting if I had to juggle more balls or if I felt that I ever had to build a Fusion or Quantum anything base improvement to win.

Player2, the "bust" to your defensive strength calculations is that there is always a way around the defensive bonuses. Artillery to bomb your sensors. Probes to disable your perimeter defenses. Air units and native life units ignore your perimeter defenses. If the game goes into advanced levels, "blink" and "cloak" special abilities will become devastating to your defensive efforts. I never attack with conventional ground units until the defenses have been properly "softened". And if you won't come out and play I'll just rip your carefully improved production tiles down to the topsoil. I don't have to take your bases to render them useless to you. And how will you find time to build both productive base improvements and make every frontier base into a fortress of solitude, complete with a wide array of recon, offensive and defensive units? I'd like to see you support that kind of large and diverse military with good old Free Market Morgan.

Your solution to "fight offense with offense" is much more on target. A mobile, offensively powerful, rearguard is worth ten times it's weight in static defenses. You just better hope that the first attack you rush to defend against isn't a feint

posted 03-23-99 12:17 PM ET            

On defending your bases, I will not dispute your math...all of the various pluses that a garrison unit gets from being in-base increases it's strength quite a bit. For just this reason, I often have trouble taking bases from the AI in the early game.

However, in my experience, defending garrisons other than police units become virtually useless in midgame. All those fancy AAA, Trance, ECM units the computer likes to build may delay the loss of a base, but they will not prevent it falling to a well-balanced attack.

If, for example, I cannot take out a unit easily with my helo attack due to AAA ability, I will hit the 'W' (one of the most-used keys on my board during a game of SMAC), and move up a rover or infantry unit and take it out. If I lose an infantry unit I can replace it via building and upgrading a 1-1-1 unit the next turn from the newly captured city. If I HAVE to, I will send in a missle, and this will (in my experience) kill the AAA unit, allowing me to kill the other 5 defenders (if they exist) in a single turn with the 'W'aiting helo. If the base has SO many defenders it will cost more to take than to buy, move up a probe team and buy it. If ABSOLUTELY neccessary, take out some of the goodies that are multiplying defense first (which slows you down by one turn).

With a mid-game attack force of helo's, drop inf. or rovers, a few probes, and the occasional LofC, you can't fail to take out an opponents base, ESPECIALLY if you have a conventional missle or two waiting in the wings for an emergency. This is compounded by the fact that the AI seems to always rush units into a base to reinforce the garrison rather than attacking your offensive units in the field. IMHO, only higher armor values will counter this.

Note: I am ONLY talking about fighting the AI here. I am not at all qualified to discuss/argue multi-player strategies, since I have never played anything but Stars! mutlti-player. I am also talking midgame conquest here, the early wars give me lots of problems and I often lose the game at that stage.

StargazerBC: In my latest game, I have had PK and Believer probe teams exploring my island and making first contact with my faction. This seems to be a new AI tactic (at least I haven't noticed it before the patch) that worries me greatly. I HATE AI probe teams if I don't have HSA...

posted 03-23-99 02:04 PM ET            

So I guess that putting the warfare off till a mass world-war takes place in the end-game using tanks and gravships might be a good thing, but is not necessarily so. I think I'm currently feeling that the fact that multiple paths to victory exist indicates that the offence/defence ratio IS correctly set.

Another issue entirely is how to challenge us TI players. Remember MOST players are not at our level. <said with a wry grin>

posted 03-23-99 02:51 PM ET         

But as my present Believers Fanatic Attack game shows once again, with the present (up to v3.0) settings defense doesn't stand much of a chance against a determined, consisitant offense. This has been Analysts' simple point all along, and he raised it, I believe, because he didn't WANT it that way. And he's been rewarded with the "reputation" of being a bloodthirsty "warmonger"! )

There are two basic problem areas: 1) Fast attack units (land and air), and 2) probes. The principle should be: A fast attack unit armed with an attack tech at the _same_ (+-1) level as the defending tech, with a morale differential of 2 of less, with all possible modifiers applied to both sides, should ALMOST ALWAYS LOSE if said defender is in a base. This principle should NOT apply to infantry. This will force the "conqueror" to produce and deploy more shock infantry AND artillery to take advantage of the 25% attack increase for these units. It will also allow the defender to deploy defensive artillery in the base, knowing that a massed infantry assault is the only sure way to take it. All of this applies to air units as well, who furthermore should be limited just like artillery in the max damage thay can inflict on units in a base ONLY. This will not make conquest impossible, it will just require more tactical finesse. It is more in accord with reality - ask the Germans at Stalingrad or at the Warsaw Ghetto, or ask the Americans why they didn't "roll on" to Baghdad. Even Berlin in 1945 held out for quite a long time against an overwhelming, encircling Soviet force that still had to take it, block by block. "Blitzing a city" just doesn't exist in reality.

Anyway, as Analyst mentioned, "there are ways" to make you do something besides hole up in a base, like raze your improvements unless you come out and fight my Elite Shard Rovers in the open like a man. And then there are the probes...

Probes: The problems here aren't with their overall combat effectiveness - even my +4 Elite Believer probes take quite a few casulties. They are 1) 'bribing' bases with LARGE garrisons and 2) the (I presume infamous) power of Datalinks.

Solution to 1): Have the number of combat units (including probes) in or around a base be a factor in determining the bribe cost of a base. Have police units have a 2X effect against bribes when in base. My sense is that none of this is in effect - bribe cost is simply a function of relative faction wealth and base happiness.

Datalinks: All datalinks should TIME OUT!

They should be split into 1) Faction info datalinks (the F2 to Fwhatever screens) and 2) base info.

Faction info probes should only get one info screen per attempt (as a treat, make SE choices available as a seperate probe result).

Base info should be PER BASE, not faction-wide.

posted 03-23-99 04:13 PM ET         

Here is the comparison:

Attack #Tech Defense #Tech
2 1 2 1
3 3
4 3 4 10
5 8 5 17
6 8 6 26
8 11 8 40
10 23 10 50
12 65
13 26
16 51
20 54
24 67

BTW: You get missiles after 22 techs.

This kind of explained to me why (non-psi) offense is so overpowering. Another thing to note is that you get a period of time when shard weapons are the standard, most of which time weapons will have a 2x advantage at least.

Based upon these time frames based on #techs instead of the arbitrary level assignments of a tech, I'm going to try changing the following armor values:

5 -> 6
6 -> 10
8 -> 11
10 -> 12
12 -> 18

The biggest adjustment is the 6 jumping to 10, which compensates a little for the introduction of chaos guns, fusion lasers and plasma shards during that period.

I have not decided what to do about cost. Leaving it the same doesn't seem quite right. I might set it to 3/4 of the armor value.

The other option, as I have seen posted previously, is to decrease the weapon values. There are more weapons though, so the results are not quite as satisfying. Here is what I worked out for that:

8 -> 7
10 -> 8
13 -> 9
16 -> 15
20 -> 17
24 -> 20

This scale gives you more of a bonus for the longer wait after plasma shards. It also is better from the standpoint of not amplifying all of the defensive bonuses, although as pointed out, there are fairly simple ways around most of those.

posted 03-23-99 04:18 PM ET            

Probe suggestions: the first time you infiltrate datalinks you get the screen with the technologies, who's at war with him, etc. In other words, a governership infiltrations before the patch. You can then send a team in to infiltrate the datalinks further, and this would give you everything you get now (full info on cities), but:

A. You would "lose" the probe team- it's busy intercepting transmissions as spies deep in enemy territory, living among them as one.

B. You would also get the Social Engineering stats of the faction.

C. Each turn after the successful infiltration, there would be a small chance of the probe team being caught and losing all the information gained. This would be equivalent to having the infiltration "time-out." Needless to say, you would be notified when this occurred; but you could still view all the old data you had on cities, with a big red "old data" stamped on the city screen of course.

D. The chances of the probe team being caught would depend on the morale level of the team used, as well as the probe of the faction infiltrated. For instance, a disciplined one's might be balanced to have a lifespan of roughly 25 years; an elite would, on average, be able to stay hidden 100 years. The probability of this occurring would be on a nice increasing exponential curve to prevent elite's dying on turn 3 and disciplined's surviving till turn 75. As for the probe SE setting, a positive rating of n creates (n+1) times the probability of getting caught- so it's 3 times as probable for a team in a probe +2 society of getting caught. Similarly, with a negative probe rating, the chance of catching infiltrators is 1/(|n|+1) per turn, so Probe -2 is a third as likely of getting caught and triples the probable time of capture, and a rating of -4 would be 1/5 the time (500 years for an elite probe team).

E. The paranoid could put several probe teams into a faction's network so that even if one were caught, you wouldn�t lose your information suddenly. Your infiltration screen would show how many probes you had in that faction's network getting the stuff.

F. If your faction's probe was +3, the first infiltration that I mentioned (that lasts the whole game) would still be possible, but all this "Secondary infiltration" that gets you all the city information and everything else would be strictly impossible.

G. (An advanced option) You, as a paranoid faction leader, could commit "security purges" at a cost of 100 energy credits and no excess nutrient production in all your cities that turn (innocents killed in the purge). On that turn and that turn only, each probe team infiltrating that faction would have a 50% chance to die in a +0 Probe society (100% in +2, 75% in +1, 25% in <0). Considering that their chance to die is more like 1% normally, this would be quite helpful to the multiplayer faction leader.

posted 03-23-99 04:33 PM ET         

What I'd like to see if playing "conqueror", is more or less a 50/50 chance of conquering either in the early to mid game (a "Spartan" conquest) or in the endgame UofP style after a long build, with all the grav/blink/drop/buster geegaws. Right now it looks like 80/20 in favor of the Spartan style.

To this end, another idea:

posted 03-23-99 05:24 PM ET            

On the subject of defense vs. offense, I have the following changes to suggest (all of which I have played with for the last 4+ games and seem to work well)

Set Sensor terrforming time to 2 turns
Set Perimeter defense cost to 4

Set Plasma Shard prereq to Nanominiturization (gives more of a gap between Fusion lasers and this weapon).

Set Hover tank prereq to Monopole magnets (makes more sense anyway, and means the tanks appear much earlier). Hence you can use your SAM tanks to destroy aircraft, quite an effective ploy. Plus a single tank with the +2 moves/attacks makes a great offensive/defensive unit.

P.S: Apologies if I seem a bit obsessed with Alpha.txt lately. But I do agree with analyst's view that tactics are more important than how the game is 'supposed' to be played.

posted 03-23-99 08:03 PM ET            

I think you should get a one turn snapshot of the faction, so you can see everything in their bases during that turn ONLY, and you retain datalinks information about the faction for that year (there's no need to lose the team). Maybe also add a 'permanent' infiltration for a single base, in which case you do lose that team (require a veteran team for this, like assassination needs an elite team).

posted 03-23-99 11:32 PM ET            

I am looking at defense from the computer players 'side.' The best defense is a good offense, as the saying goes. After the initial land grab, I usually defend my continent by placing one or two strategically located airbases filled with air-to-air, air-to-ground, and empath helo�s (sometimes), and attack and kill all incoming units long before they actually touch my bases (in truth, I have had damn few units ever launch an attack on my home bases when I have the continent under control, but this has been pointed out by many in this thread). If a unit or two does get through, my 1-1-1 police garrison slows it down and keeps it out until the Calvary arrives.

The problem with this strategy is that the computer AI is completely unable to duplicate it. While I�m still not very deep into a 3.0 game, I have never had the AI in 2.0 do anything other than use units to reinforce city garrisons. It has, on occasion, launched minor, sporadic, and ineffective counterattacks on a unit or two I have had out in the open, but as a whole the AI is unable to grasp and/or implement the �offense is defense� strategy. It is ridiculous when you take out 5 needlejets on the runway with a force that has been working its way across the AI continent for 5 or more years.

So�.the solutions as I see them are to either modify the AI to take advantage of the most effective counterattack strategies OR modify the units that the AI uses to defend it�s bases so that it has some prayer of holding onto one occasionally.

Since I believe decompiling SMAC and reprogramming the AI is well beyond most of our abilities, the only viable option is to modify the armor values and/or weapon values to give the computer players a fighting chance after the first 150 years or so have passed.

Of course, this would have severe drawbacks early in the game, when the special abilities are limited and devastating chassis like the helo are yet to be discovered. Taking a base would be near impossible unless you caught it empty or almost so�with conventional units. Of course, you could always make a beeline for mindworm tech and start pumping those out as offensive units in the early game.

It would also skew the current defensive strategies in a human vs. human environment, but we aren�t talking about modifications meant for multi-player here when we say increase the defensive strengths of garrison units.

As an aside, I have posted my strategy of fighting for survival and struggle for isolation until I have my three conquer-the-world prerequisites (drop pods, helos, and decent probe teams) a few times now, but I have always forgot to include that I always, always try to begin my war of the world against a faction that has yet to achieve fusion reactors. If I can conquer that faction (and then any others in the same boat), I will then have enough research power to shoot to quantum chambers in short order. If you pick your wars so that you are always (if possible) fighting against a faction with one level lower reactor tech, the extra hit points virtually guarantee your success in a war with a small number of elite units, no matter what the AI tries to whip out to counter your assault.

Of course this strategy, as well as my defense strategy, etc., is useless in early game, which is why, once again, I so often lose during that time. My early game techniques are really lacking, and I survive only about half the time long enough to bring on the mid-game world war.

posted 03-23-99 11:42 PM ET            

Up to this point, things have been going pretty well. I'm building some infrastructure to prepare to build more mindworms. I check with Miriam to see if we can trade some more technology, but now that I'm stronger the relationship has gone south it seems. She wants a one-way street. Oh well. I explore the seas now, and I find two island suitable for colonization. As I approach Mount Planet, there's a sea Unity pod. It has an isle of the deep, but my Unity rover and captured mindworms manage to disembark before the transport is sunk. I trade some technologies with Brother Lal, who I find on the Mount, but my army has no ride back home, so they sit there and annoy him instead. I build a new transport, and one city arae I want to found on has a Unity pod. Given no choice, I open it with the colony pod... and mindworms pop out. Of course. Well, I found the other city and collect my troops, and everything seems to be going just peachy. Then Chairman Yang pops up and demands massive amounts of money for appeasement. I realize in horror that since my conquests, I have barely inched into second place. And Yang is about twice as strong as any faction, as he started in Monsoon Jungle on a decent sized continent, so he now, as #1, wants my blood. Well, no problem. He lands his impact infantry in fungus to fool me, the sneaky guy- except I had just completed some sensors on a hill that spotted them immediately, and with my mindworm's bonus in fungus fighting, their carcasses made an enjoyable snack. Then, one turn before it completed its trance synthemetal garrison, mindworms land on that other island I colonized. Sure enough, no more colony the next turn. Arghh! Memo to self: No matter how silly, always always buy the garrison of mindworm food colonies, or drop off some troops to guard it initally. Now, the Hive decides to make a play for University Base with two 4-2-1 Impact Infantry. I had moved some Boil mindworms as well as a Unity rover up there and a Trance Synthemetal Garrison already stood there. I now (foolishly, I later found out) moved my mindworms through the fungus out to meet them and attacked them. However, the victims put up surprisingly good resistance and my mindworms had a mere 2 hitpoints left after that battle. And since I hadn't waited for them to come to me, my mindworm wasn't protected by the garrisons and other defenses of the city. The other impact infantry chewed it up the next turn, and it was down to 6 hitpoints now (3 from collateral damage on attack, 1 from kiling my mindworm). This time I decided to let them come to me before unleashing the fist of death. Just to be safe, I even switched the production from formers to another garrison, and patted myself on the back for my preparations. Well, the infantry attacked, and only took a mere 2 damage killing my garrison. Time for revenge. I attacked with my Unity rover now, which should have one by all rights- hardened, and attacking in the open for roughly 1.4 against a straight 2 with half hitpoints. Well, it almost works... except it doesn't. The infantry still has 1 hit point left. Not one to let it escape, I have my garrison hit it now, and much to my surprise... it loses every single "battle" and is killed off. I felt like the computer playing a save-and-reload human- no matter how good the odds seemed, they went against me. Now I had left a lovely size 3 base undefended at the cost of 2 garrisons and some experienced mindworms and equally experienced Unity rover. Well, I could do a pawn defense by moving my enarby formers into the base and quickly buying a new garrison... but I had already moved my formers earlier in the turn. Noooooooo!

posted 03-24-99 01:02 AM ET         

Note that I'm talking about a +1 increase of "midrange" armor, the bottom 2 and top 3 excluded, a -1 to cost for all, and an EQUAL percent increase (to be determined) in both base defense bonus and infantry attack bonus. Also Air, Copters and Gravships cost 2, not 1 - let's see the AI build those 15-stack needlejets now (my fear is that it will continue to do so, severely distorting its economy in the process).

More reliable base defense could actually make a mobile defense easier, and therefore more likely, for the human player, by freeing units for field deployment - they're not needed in the base. Cheaper (and stronger!) armor makes it cost-effective to armor fast attack units in the early-to-midgame - right now that's a foolish thing to do for a conqueror.

As its effects for the AI, well we know its sad story. I've seen the AI try to put up a field defense, but after you give them a good drubbing they crawl back into their bases and never think about how to get back out for the duration of the vendetta, so long as you stay on the offensive. That's because they never massively intervene with that huge stack of needlejets they have stashed away in some base somewhere. They also are slow to build interceptors to counter my own air offensives (and, in an aside, they never build boreholes or echelon mirrors, I've never seen ONE. Why's that?).

So, absent all of that, better armor / base defense can only help the AI and that's always good.

posted 03-24-99 01:07 AM ET            

DerekM, If you look at your list you will see that the game is balanced so that generally the attack factor is usually 2x the defence factor in terms of the techs needed. There is a reason for this. City improvements and terrain improvements exist to double and eventually triple the defence value of a defending unit. If defence values were near or equalled to their offensive counterparts defense would have too great an edge on offence and the game would bog down, becomeing a battle of attrition that would finally be resolved by whatever faction could build the greater number of PBs.

Pique. Your comments on MP vs SP are right on the money in my opinion. Having said that you must also consider the effects that your modifications would have on CP vs CP fighting. If you modify the units so that it is harder for you to conquor an CP city you make it that much harder for the CP to take any cities from another CP. IMHO the toughest games for us as humans to win are those where one CP faction gets a good start and parleys it into what at times seems like an insumountable lead. If 2300 rolls around and we face 6 more or less equal factions the rest of the game is a walk.

BTW I cannot agree that the game is biased in MP in favour of the attacker. While attacking may be easier, if you examine the facts there is no reason that it should be more effective. First, unless both sides have a tech edge your both useing the same units. Second, the defender has base and terrain improvements that enhance defensive strength. Third, while the attacker can chose the ground and the timing of a battle the defender (unless he has been faked out of his underware) has shorter supply lines and nearby repair facilities.

posted 03-24-99 11:02 AM ET            

Off the offense/defense topic: What does everyone think of diplomacy/planetary council aspects in SP SMAC? This topic has been brought up before in other threads, but I think there should be far more diplomatic and council options to choose from. Some examples:

DIPLOMACY
1. Negotiate arms reduction treaty - this option would be used to negotiate the mutual destruction of weapons of mass destruction (planet busters and possibly nerve-gas units) between two factions to reduce tensions due to a missile standoff (ala START treaties from the cold war)
2. Negotiate mutual surveylance treaty - allows two factions total access to each other's datalinks while treaty is in effect (another cold war spinoff) This would go hand-in-hand with the limiting of probe team actions in the "infiltrate datalinks" operation, which would no longer be permanent.

COUNSIL
Declair Economic sanctions against a faction - puts target faction under santions until ban is lifted (this was already proposed in another thread)

posted 03-24-99 11:11 AM ET            

On AI behavior: Pique, I didn't see any Probes used in explorer capacity in this v3.0 game at all, but I saw it in v2.0. I was actually wondering if v3.0 had modified away from this behavior, so it's probably a luck of the draw thing. Agoraphobe, I've mentioned before that I never see the AI build a borehole, echelon mirror, or drill to aquifer (UofP built a condenser in my current game, but just one). At the same time, it builds bunkers like they're going out of style, then never uses them effectively. Here's a good one: Yang founded a base on top of one of the boreholes in the borehole cluster. Since I have the Guild, I peeked inside the base. Sure enough, the base square is ignoring the effect of the borehole and is only producing 2n/1m/2e. that base is also not putting any of the other boreholes into production. So much for the AI taking advantage of this landmark.

Agoraphobe: Thanks for the words in my defense.

DereckM: Thank you for posting that excellent analysis of the tech tree. It keenly highlights the tech tree bias in favor of offense.

Shining1: You've almost got this computer-phobe convinced that he should try to rewrite the rules file. I'm very interested in implementing some of your modifications to change the flavor of solitaire play.

gotag: "like one of Analysts disertations"? LOL! Yeah, I know. My userID says it all. On a more serious note, your response to DerekM disregards one of my prior dissertations. Defense modifier bonuses are meaningless when I posess units that can disable your defenses (Probes) or disregard them (Native Life and Air Units), or do both (Artillery). That's why the bias in favor of offense remains overwhelmingly powerful. Your five points of defensive strategy are sound, but only if others grant you that big IF of time to build everything you need to implement them. Anyone who gives you time to develop all of that probably deserves to have their attack fail.

posted 03-24-99 03:05 PM ET         

Of course there are the exceptions: bases with a 10-stack of defence, etc., but these can be isolated precisely because they are exceptional.

And, of course, the human "build" player will do better on defence, assuming the stock alpha.txt. However, the bottom line will be that a builder will defend best in the same manner as a conqueror - with a bunch of unarmored fast attack units plus probes. The fatal flaw in the builder's scheme is that, by definition, they will not be able to attack _consistantly_, and Analysts' challange to the builders is that, regardless of whether playing SP or MP, and regardless of which faction is played, a conqueror with a consistant attack strategy has the highest probability of success.

posted 03-24-99 06:21 PM ET            

I'm not really sure what you mean by a 'consistent attack strategy.' If it simply means a consistent stream of attacks, then it is doomed to fail against a well prepared builder. IMHO, I think the only way for a conquer to crack the defense of a veteran builder is to attack in one short, very powerful surprise attack. I have played a small bit of SMAC MP, and have on several occasions been forced to attack an aggressive neighbor to protect myself. This was not done by a 'consistent attack,' but rather an overwealming surprise attack that seized half his cities in one turn. This is the strategy I use in my 'conqueror' game situations, and have found this to be the most effective strategy against both human and AI. And it is this effectiveness which makes surveylance so important for a builder, as I have often stated. If the attacker is denied the element of surprise, his chances of success against an experienced defender is greatly diminished.

posted 03-25-99 12:14 AM ET            

Snowfire: Is it you who runs the excellent 'Mind Worm' site? Would you be interested in posting the proposed faction modifications when they're done?

Still more changes, too. Suggestions to rebalance the university's end game have got me completely flustered. Heh heh heh. If you want a real offensive UoP challenge, try adding SOCIAL, -SUPPORT to the faction file. This totally screws the UoP's early game production, especially if attacking units are needed (contrary to Analyst's experience, it is quite possible to be very closely surrounded during the early part of the game in version 3.0). Makes the university a pacifist organisation for at least the first half of the game, and as a result the effects of this lack of early military muscle should keep them running away in the later part of the game.

Same for Morgan. Changed -SUPPORT to -GROWTH. With his inability to use Planned economics, this left him with some very small bases. That population limit doesn't help, either. So he must use democracy to boost growth to +1, and forgo Police state, which means he must suffer under that -5 police for Free Market. Cruel, but effective.

This gives me three Conquerors (Hive, Believers, Santiago), three Builders (UoP, Gaians, Morgan), and the Peacekeepers, who are probably the most stable faction now.
Each of the builders stands a better chance of winning the end game, while they must play very defensively during the early parts of the game (especially the university, who cannot afford to spare units away from home base).

Also gave each faction 50 energy to start with. This allows early completition of facilities, pods, etc, or my factions that begin with a government type - Morgan (free market), Hive (Police state), Believers (fundamentalist) to change over immediately.

Thoughts on version 3.0: This is SMAC. Performs like a dream, the bugs are gone, and the A.I is definitely smarter in nearly all areas. One thing - the diplomatic A.I seems a lot more erratic. I had Lal cancel a pact with me immediately after I had given him something he wanted. Not a stupid move, as it turned out. But totally unexpected and seemingly uncalled for.

posted 03-25-99 07:13 AM ET            

Historically no defence has ever withstood a determined attack forever. Even Constantinople fell. The task of the defender has always been to trade defensive strength for time. Time used to good effect in some other fashion. ie: build up their own military, secure allies, ware down the attackers strength to enable a counterattack.

The point of my previous post was to show that it is not unit attack and defence factors that cause most players to adopt a aggressive stance but faction seeding. You yourself have said in a previous post that if you started in the middle of nowhere with little contact with the other factions you would have to rethink how you would go about winning.

My job as defender builder is not to create a defensive bastion invulnerable to attack, even if such a thing is possible. Rather it is to win. This means I have to predicate my defensive stance upon being able to secure victory by some means other than conquest.

Ideally therefor, while you are attacking my presumably well defended cities I am building up my energy to win economicly, building up my population to win diplomaticly or just building the Accent to Trancendace. Your job is, ideally, to thwart me by removeing the means (cities) that I have to accomplish my goals, while enhanceing your own means of achieving victory.

The problem for the builder, as I see it, lies not in his units but how he formulates a whole board stratagy. The builders weakness is his inablity to "project" strength. That being said there are still things he can do to make the aggressive players (AP) life more difficult. 1st build those SP that are near and dear to the AP's heart like the CN, HSA and the CF. 2nd disrupt the AP's alliences by probe teams and bribes. 3rd loaning money and units to help the other factions against the AP. There are no doubt other things a builder can do, and do them he must because you can bet the AP is trying to do them to you.

The main point here is that the builder must have a consistant stratagy as does the AP. Every extra unit and city improvement that the builder can force the AP to build is a small victory. Enough small victories add up to the big one.

posted 03-25-99 11:02 AM ET            

Agoraphobe: The primary purpose of my "Morganic Experiment" was to try to determine the relationship of cost and opportunity cost involved in using social engineering to manage diplomacy v using social engineering to maximize inherent faction advantages. My personal conclusion from the experiment was that, unless you could isolate your Morganic empire from border conflicts, the price in military hobbling and AI hatred for being Dem/FM/Wealth was greater than the corresponding economic gains could justify. When I changed strategies in mid-game to assume my more usual divide-and-conquer posture, I achieved victory in a very short span of time.

Prior to my Morganic Experiment, I had already concluded that playing Conquerer strategy with a Builder faction (i.e. Gaia, Morgan, UofP) was only a little bit less efficient than playing Conquerer strategy with a Conquerer faction. The primary difference being that Builder factions absolutely must have either (i) a combination of Command Centers and Impact weapons or (ii) a significant Native Life military component to commence serious conquest, while the Conquerer factions can usually get busy earlier than that. The additional conclusion I drew from my Morganic Experiment was that Conquerer strategy did a much better job of keeping AI factions small and underdeveloped by keeping them constantly under attack, either from me or from the inter-necine wars I stirred up.

This is how I think it translates to MP play: In games on anything less than larger sized maps, I don't think that the Builder strategy has a chance. The Conquerer can develop a highly effective, mobile offensive force much earlier than the Builder can create the defenses required to deal with it. Larger maps *might* give the Builder a chance, but that's largely a moot point in my MP experience as people with the patience and perseverence to play a large map game from start to finish in MP are truly rare birds.

gotag/player2: I understand the points both of you are making, but I remain unconvinced that your plans are actually capable of achievement within the structural balance of this game. I keep going back to my experience with CivII: MPG. Though that game is balanced to make early game conquest more difficult than is SMAC, I've never been defeated by a Builder strategy in that MP arena. SMAC is tougher on the builders in the early- mid-game combat ratios, so I reach the conclusion that's natural for me based on that experience.

I'm going to add something that's seems both immodest and unlikely, but that I swear is true. I've never been beaten in a game of multiplayer CivII. Never. I can't tell you how many persons I've played that postured themsleves "experts" at the game, who said that Deity level presented no challenge to them, who I then proceeded to steamroll with Conquest strategy mode on. I've heard all of the derisive opinions hurled at early game "rushers" who ruin the game, but my opinion is that if the game is balanced to favor early rushes as the best strategy, then the complaint is not with me, but with the game designer.

I can appreciate that there is only one way to prove the point of whether *your* strategies are superior to *my* strategies in *this* game. Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to settle that point someday

Shining1: Agree that with 3.0, SMAC finally seems "finished". We are no longer beta testing for gross errors like infinite range missiles and menu commands that don't work. I'll leave the industry debates about whether that couldn't or shouldn't have been accomplished on the first release to the other threads.

posted 03-25-99 11:42 AM ET            

Furthermore, I'd say that the Spartans are an even more reliable (not better, just more reliable) Builder faction. This is due to the great respect neighbor factions give to the Spartans in the early game. While Morgan may be struggling to keep the wolves at bay, striving to form treaties and avoid war, the Spartans can pursue land development and colony seeding without worrying too much about foreign aggression.

In short, I haven't found too much difference between a socially moderate Morgan (to avoid hatred) and a socially aggressive Spartan (hatred? Don't make me crush you Deidre...) when it came to development and inter-faction relations.

posted 03-25-99 12:26 PM ET            

ZZ, I think you are probably right. For the reasons I detailed in the "constructive criticism" thread, I don't think that multiplayer SMAC is going to be a very attractive or popular option.

posted 03-25-99 01:40 PM ET            

I want to quickly respond to a comment you made because I don't want to be misconstrued. I do not measure success solely by date of victory. In solitaire play, you are free to measure success any way you like. I have to be honest, though, and say that I find the scoring system supplied with the game kind of weak, especially in light of the effortless power of the Vats+TTMatrix combo to run up that score. I tend to measure the power of a particular conquest strategy I was employing by rapidity of conquest.. Something like: "Hmmm, by doing A, B & C I was able to get victory in 2325, but by doing X, Y & Z I got there 40 years faster. I wonder if I can get that down even more." The idea is that the quicker the pace of conquest, the tougher it is for any human player to put up effective defenses. I'm fine tuning my strategy towards that end.

posted 03-25-99 08:35 PM ET            

I agree, the clustering hasn't been fixed in 3.0. My most recent game had the Spartans a mere 5 spaces away from me, being one space away from overlapping HQ radii. But there was a body of water inbetween us, mercifully. And yet Yang had the other end of my continent in that game, and Lal had the other end of the Spartan continent, and this was on a large map with 70-90% water. 4 factions in fairly close proximity. After both Santiago and I basically conquered our respective continents to become the two superpowers, I sense a showdown soon...

posted 03-25-99 08:44 PM ET            

Anyway, I wouldn't inflate your own already impressive reputation yet - SMAC ain't a game where one against three is a viable option.

SMAC 3.0 isn't yet the definitive version, I'm afraid. Two things I've noticed - warnings appear irregularly, especially food shortage ones, and while the echoing sound has gone, it still sometimes plays the wrong wav. I guess that's the fatal flaw in the Virtual World - if you receive incorrect information, and act on it, you get hurt.

Also, the break pact algorithm for the A.I is a little whacked. As the UoP, I was defending Morgan against the incursions of the Spartans. Having finally found the time to build a pack of chaos infantry (8-1-1 - and these things work great in packs, I even want them to get killed, because of the -3 support I'm suffering under at the moment), I rushed quickly morgans territory, in time to defend his second largest base from Santiago's impact rovers. I massacred them.

posted 03-25-99 08:46 PM ET            

I was on a huge map with the Believers close by. They lacked Centauri Ecology and Doctrine: Mobility, but they were rabbiting like crazy and when she declared vendetta I infiltrated and noticed that every base was cranking out either colony pods or attack units.

I had to divert my early economy from the critical early buildup to military, but she pumped out so many colonies for me to grab that my growth curve pretty much jumped the track, and I spent -- not kidding -- the next 130 years building support for my huge number of colonies.

In the meantime that huge number of colonies gave me a huge early return because I was Morgan / Free Market, which gave me extra energy per base. Bases I had aplenty, and before you get Environmental Economics, base energy is extremely vital.

Having a massive number of bases in the early game limits SE choices to high efficiency (Demo / FM / Know), but it also means they all industrialize early, so the typical mid-game 2-3 base industrial powerhouses number around 10, allowing incredible Economy of Scale. While 1 base builds a wonder, another is cranking out Assault Choppers, while a third works on a "local" project like a Hab Complex or Research Hospital.

By the time I had Plasma Shard choppers I was discovering 1 tech every 2 turns, and now, in the middle of my blitzkreig against the Spartans, I've already built Cloning Vats, Teletubby Matrix, Space Elevator, and it's a race between Transcendance and Conquest victories. (Okay, I could also probably get elected Supreme Leader, too.)

The kicker is the year -- I'm in the second decade of 2300. (231x)

Morgan might have it rough building Colony Pods and expanding in the early game, but if someone else does the expanding for you ... zoom!

posted 03-26-99 04:57 AM ET            

and oh yea,
TB

guess not all of us who don't usually play TI are wimps.

sidenote: I am SOOOOOOOOO glad this was not the demo. to miss the victory by 4 yrs would have Pissed me off.

posted 03-26-99 05:31 AM ET         

I went straight for the planet buster and nuked everyone's HQ's, enemy or friend (b/c they'll eventually attack me). Then, I nuked all cities with SP's that wasn't mine. Consequently, I had about 100+ years of sanctions. Oh boy, the fun was just beginning.

The Gaians were at war with me and the Hive, but I was wedged inbetween them. They were constantly sending their probes to try to take my cities near Yang even though I had the hunter-seeker. Thank god for their stupidity.

So, when units were coming through my borders my eyes started to bulge. Roughly 20-30 units and about 6 or so missles inbetween turns were coming at me. By this time I had adequately garrisoned my cities with Hovertanks AAA, Cloak so I could withstand the missles. They only way I won was by using Heliocopters and formers to break the land--warding off the attacks.

Of course, while they're doing this I had a small patch of units ready to invade. 6 rover Probes and a few cloaked Hover tanks. The funny thing was:

AI's cities all switched to Conquer mode, stopped building up their cities, and started cranking out rovers and infantry. I lost a few cities but I was still growing exponentially b/c I was still building in 4/5 of my cities. After 10 turns of wave after wave, the AI started to lose cities. I used my hover tanks to take over a weak city or two so my probes can have a base close to the enemy.

Suffice to say, it only took 15 units to take down a combined total of 30 cities in a relatively short span of time. So I lost 6 of my developing cities, but I nuked them since the AI automatically moved ALL their offensive units to the new city (which, consequently saves me from having to worry about new waves of attackers).

Now, Although my end games are a lot harder the AI still does stupid stuff--stuff that anyone will know how to exploit. For instance, moving 15 or so units to a front line base? I KNOW the other factions know I have PB's b/c they always try to missle or nuke my cities with PB's (good thing for Defensive Pods!) I mean, do they think the human player won't see the opportunity to nuke a site with 15+ units? Once a faction, like the Gaians, changed to conquer mode it was actually easier to invade. I'm guessing they move most of their garrison units to the attacking line b/c for a long while I had weak resistance to 3 hover tanks. The Gaians stopped growing. It seems the AI can't manage a war and grow effectively. I think the AI does one or the other relatively well, but not at the same time.

posted 03-26-99 10:32 AM ET            

However, I always turn of victory by Acendance, its just ridiculously easy as the human. In my first ever full game, at Trancend level, playing Spartans I was struggling along at third place to a massive Peacekeepers and Strong Gaians. Naturally, PK got the vote as supreme leader after completing every almost every SP (OK, OK I was learning, had no clue of most capabilites). I rebelled, held off some pitiful AI attacks, dropped all production to stockpile energy and brought TTA. What a hollow 'victory'.
Since then I've won twice as Sparta and once as PK. I'm now playing as Morgan, with the self-imposed restriction of never leaving Democratic/Free market,although wealth/power/knowledge I'll allow myself to manipulate, as with future tho' I ain't got any yet. I've just got Air Power so the morale hit for bombers (choppers as well?, and where is that in the manual?) could be a big restriction, but I'm gonna try for Economic victory without (much) aggression.

The PK win was without a single borehole, aquifer, condesor or echelon mirror, only forest, farms and mines. Not by prior choice, just turned out that way. Virtually no trouble with Planet except when I went free market for a bit. Conquered the whole planet from my island in the south in 35 years (Drop grav/blink/amphib hovertanks, blink/psi choppers and blink gravships/deathspheres, who needs more).

Sure, first time I try a new faction, I get taken out after a while as I learn the impact of the strengths/weaknesses and can get to the late-early game intact. Once I've got that far I know I'm gonna win just when and how.

posted 03-26-99 01:23 PM ET            

One interesting difference is that, in CivII, I always reach a point in the game where using this trick to boost population is an absolute necessity. In SMAC, I've experimented with this trick, but I've also found that it's unecessary (and occasionally even counter-productive) to a Conquest strategy. Another interesting difference is that the "high end" productivity of a base in SMAC is so much higher than a city in CivII. The kind of mid-game economic productivity that some Builders are achieving in SMAC is impossible in CivII. It may just be the case that this shift in balance is what invalidates my prior experience with CivII MPG (but then again, maybe not ) At any rate, the ability to achieve incredible economic production from a relatively small number of bases is the kind of thing that, as Radegast2 points out, make buying your way to victory in the endgame rather easier than it should be.

Shining1, I have no intention of playing MP games under my Analyst handle. I'm not a lunatic. I mentioned in another thread that I play the old Avalon Hill game of Diplomacy (also a seven player conquest game) in a thriving little PBEM community of a couple of thousand die hard fans of the game. Owing to the reputation effect, I'll only play in games now where the players' identities are anonymous. There's no point in painting a target on your forehead and inviting six other people to shoot. The remainder of your observations are well taken. I wasn't really trying to boast (down, ego! bad boy!), but merely put some empirical evidence behind my claims/POV regarding the balance in favor of the conquest approach--even in Sid's "god games".

I had to laugh at the game sending all of your infantry units to a sea base. Firaxis claims to have fixed the bug of sending naval units to landlocked bases, but seems to have overlooked the opposite (though I would have thought equally obvious) kind of goof in this regard. I haven't had the sound problems I used to; v3.0 seems to have cleared that up completely for me. You might seriously consider sending Firaxis a detailed bug report with a detailed description of your machines sound hardware and drivers.

posted 03-26-99 01:26 PM ET            

2) Why do y'all find large continents hard? Being an 'ole Civver, I'm used to the 'ole Archers n' Chariots method of conquering. I've had games on a large continent, tried to be nice, but Miriam (as in, person with big combat bonus) decided to pick on me after colonizing 3/4ths of the continent. Why the heck does the AI even bother using walkers (infantry w/o special movement abilities) as "offense"!? Really, strip the rovers to no armor, then make sure that a plane is always flying overhead, and the poor little girl just can't take it. When she finally made some anti air, I just made an armored rover with AAA. She did some nice Blue Angels, but that was it.

3) Dang it, I forget... Like they say, short term memory is the second thing to go. Or was that long term?

posted 03-26-99 06:01 PM ET         

But that is really a topic to be raised in the context of a discussion of the Conqueror Triad of Victory. Analyst established two pillars of the Triad - military and diplomatic - but there's been little discussion of the third pillar: the Conqueror's build tactics. Just aas a Builder has to be a bit of a conqueror to survive, so is the converse true for a Conqueror - in fact, the exact build sequence is even more critical for a Conqueror than for a Builder.

What are those build tactics? Well, that's soon to be coming at a forum near you, but it basically breaks down into a Core sequence and minor variations depending on faction and situation. For example, I'll never build the Hologram as the Believers (it's sinful, anyway), but I MIGHT - and only in particular bases - as the UofP, if I thought it would lead to an immediate big boost in minerals production.

posted 03-26-99 07:18 PM ET            

I typically use a farm/mine combo for my cities in rocky and rainy areas and use forests with the appropriate enhancements in all others. Since rainy and high altitude squares are usually not the mean, my empires are predominantly forested.

In regard to build tactics, I completely agree that Conquerors need infrastructure too. Command centers and other military enhancements are the mean. Other highly beneficial basic structures such as a Children's creche, recycling tanks, and rec. commons are certainly in order for moderately sized conqueror cities. Basic energy enhancers (Network Nodes and Energy Banks) are also a good idea for larger cities and cities in special landmark areas. And then there are some lovely military SP to be had as well. More advanced structures (Research hospital, Hybrid Forest, Fusion Labs, etc) are uncalled for due to the relatively small energy base of a conqueror city.

So that's my stance on conqueror build strategy.

posted 03-26-99 11:19 PM ET            

Terraforming, I'm with player2 pretty much, with the occasional solar collector thrown in on flat+rainy ground.

TheRob: The standard advice for game setup I've seen in TI threads has reccomended the 30-50% water setting, giving as large of continents as possible, but the main reason for it is the exceptional inability of the AI to effectively develop sea bases.

While forced into conquer mode, I usually try to build as many of the secret projects that give a facility in every base as is possible. This usually entails keeping 2-3 bases on SP construction at all times and switching between them to get the one you want in a hurry.

posted 03-28-99 08:08 PM ET            

Santiago has just wiped my Lal off the face of planet with a perfectly executed early game rush. All impact rovers and a couple of impact squad. Checked out her bases - not a facility anywhere. All supporting this heavy military.

SMAC lends itself to these kinds of actions - the str 4 particle impactor is a killer in the early game, against synthmetal sentinels and no city defenses.

Next game, Santiago (and me as PK's) run into same result - Sparta's free scout rover runs into my inital colony pod, she declares war, and I'm left with no expansions. This really sucks, and I'm not joking in the least. Playing unaggressively on a standard (i.e - multiplayer zone) map is more or less suicide - and I have already edited alpha.txt quite heavily to improve the builder's odds against the conqueror. No dice.

SMAC is Starcraft - roll on the masses of zerglings, please, and don't spare the drones while your at it...

P.S This isn't a new revelation at all (thank you Analyst ). But the scale of the imbalance is starting to irritate me - especially wrt the Peacekeeper's, who don't get any early game battle advantages.

Morgan: Money to buy tech or defenders
Santiago: Morale and free rover
Hive: Industry and free defenses
UoP: Tech boost - better weapons
Gaians: Free mindworm for first capture
Miriam: Support, attack boost and Morale from Fun.

posted 03-28-99 08:15 PM ET            

Building forests on low terrain is the way to go. But for high attitude, you get more benefit from a mix of farms, Echelon mirrors and solar collectors (+4 energy for three 1000m squares with 2 adjacent mirrors).

And remember that a rainy square with a farm AND a soil enricher will give you +4 food, while a forest with Hybrid gets you only 3. So its a likely 4 1 4 or 4 1 3 versus the 3 2 2 at altitude, which is where your real high output Science cities should be.

Those forest base facilities are good, though. Always have a couple of squares of forest with sensors on them, regardless of the altitude being wasted.

posted 03-28-99 11:01 PM ET            

Also, you could go even farther, and make military power curves for each faction. For instance, the Morgans start out high, with Synthmetal preventing a Unity Rover conquest and money to buy troops, but falls off after the -1 Support starts kicking in and never really recovers, especially if you use Green/Wealth instead of Free Market/Knowledge. Deidre has another initial spurt from captured mindworms, then her bonus fades away and her curve drops until she gets Centauri Empathy and builds Bio Labs in all her bases and starts cranking out mindworms. Warning to MP players: Better keep this a secret, because the mindworm rush is ridiculously easy to defend against if you're a human. Santiago is another person who gets the quick bonus from Morale and rovers right away; but her bonus lags as the game progresses due to the -1 Industry. Yang starts out strong (no rushing him) and stays strong with his Industry bonus and free walls. Miriam starts out weak until she gets rovers, particle impactors, and probe teams; with a researching an ally and a good home base, her military power curve goes crazy. Zakharov: Starts out medium, and if you want to research the military techs, can easily keep up with the worst of them. Lal: Starts out weak, and stays weak. Oh well...

In my Deidre game, the Believers got lucky in their assault: I had the Neural Amp (somewhere else) and a mature Boil in the town she landed a whole flock of infantry next to. With her -1 Planet, she'd be toast if she attacked. And then her probe team got off the boat as well and took over the town. Drat! I only had one other mindworm in that sector as well to stop the infestation from spreading. I sued for peace. Now let's see if she's going to intelligently reinforce her precious beachead by brining over a load of more troops and probe teams before I can reinforce, and then break the truce... nah. I'm set.

posted 03-28-99 11:19 PM ET            

As for minerals vesus energy, you're sacrificing +1 food and energy for +1 minerals, in a base where science output is more important. AND you have to build two large base facilities to achieve that. Not only do you support a smaller population, but you receive less energy.

posted 03-29-99 07:55 AM ET            

So I'm ready now for transcend, and I won't make twice the same mistakes (already heard this...).

But as for IronMan, frankly, saving just takes me 4/5 Enter strokes with one Alt+Tab, and 10 seconds more wait. Countless free reloads, although lesser randomized outcomes.
Raise hand who auto-enforces REAL IM.

Topic Ace Award:
I HAD TO PRINT DOWN THIS TOPIC. BY FAR THE MOST INTERESTING, USEFUL & JUICY I FOUND IN THE FORUMS.

posted 03-29-99 08:42 AM ET            

one question: do you get get tech if you conquer a city? because i ask myself how you keep your forces up-to-date without all the facilities of science. this feature (getting tech or not by conquering an enemys base) is one of the best advances.

posted 03-29-99 11:16 AM ET            

two minors:
-probing can balance your low energy/research if you content to keep up, but in my style I like to lead (better equipment)
-I'm not a humanist, but Agor� comes from Greek, guess was the square (open space) where the citizens gathered/hold council or something