Transcend Ironmen ONLY: Revenge of 3.0

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Transcend Ironmen ONLY: Revenge of 3.0

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Transcend Ironmen ONLY: Revenge of 3.0

Shining1 posted 03-28-99 11:23 PM ET
At 180k, the last one was getting a big long to load.
And if anyone isn't finding version 3.0 to be a better challenge, please let me know.
Darkstar posted 04-23-99 06:07 PM ET
In the interest of trying to revive the nice conversations and comparisons of play styles:
This is a general Question to the TI Members... How fast do you expand your empires? Do you expand faster using a particular faction (ie PKs), and why?
-Darkstar
trippin daily posted 04-23-99 07:12 PM ET
Your great 'highness' expands as much as possible. You have to temper your expansion eventually. Far more so than you would on other difficulty levels, to build up your cities and infrastructure. It also great;y depends onthe size of the map, how mad planet decides to be, and what not. So there is no definte answer.
Trippin Daily
-feeling really numb right now-
Pique posted 04-23-99 08:25 PM ET
"This is a general Question to the TI Members... How fast do you expand your empires?"
As fast as possible in the opening game. I tend to stop at about 15 cities in SMAC, give or take (being sure to control my entire continent, if possible). If I am going to lose the game, this is the stage in which it happens.
I expand CONSIDERABLY farther in both Civ2 and CTP before stopping, but 15 is good in SMAC, at least for me.
After that I concentrate on infrastructure, a few defensive units, and make a beeline to chopper and air drop technology, trying to pacify the computer (preferably by giving sea bases to it) in the meantime. Also try to build treasury as high as possible in this stage (energy farm).
After tech is aquired, I build about a 25 unit army (12 paratroops, 4 probes, 10 choppers, all homed in one city with a Punishment Sphere) and proceed to conquest the world. This is about all it takes, with a few support naval units and 1-1-1 police garrisons in conquered bases. Usually put bases to stockpile energy while assault force is in route to build up treasury further.
When an infantry is lost you can build a 1-1-1 unit in newly conquered cities and upgrade to paratroopers next turn. You can buy choppers when neccessary (though I lose very few). This is why energy reserves are so important to a sustained assault.
I generally try to attack a faction one reactor level lower than me to begin. Usually only have to conquer 1/2 or less of the world to win council Supreme Leader vote.
"Do you expand faster using a particular faction (ie PKs), and why?"
Pretty much the same, but make more use of Probes with Miriam and Yang, IotD's, Worms, and LofC's with Gaians.
Now...having said all this, I feel it is the most expedient way to win against the computer, but it is not neccessarily the most fun way to play.
Also, I am a considerably less militant EARLY player than some (Analyst) who seemed to be even more successful against the AI.
Pique
JT 3 posted 04-23-99 10:28 PM ET
Ummm.... 12+4+10=26. Not 25.
Pique posted 04-23-99 10:47 PM ET
"Ummm.... 12+4+10=26. Not 25"
No...it's about 25 though, and only a rough figure in any event. I usually won't build more ground than I can carry on two cruiser transports (16, IOW).
Pique
Analyst posted 04-26-99 01:54 PM ET
Hmmmm. Missed this before.
Early game expansion can vary dramatically. I won a TI game on a standard sized map once, having founded only five bases the whole game. Somewhere between 10-15 is more typical on a standard map for me. The idea I pursue is to fill in my "naturally" boundaried area, but not to let that interfere with going to war as early and often as I can get away with (as the strategy with maximum effect, IMHO).
Current game is an anomoly: Gaians. Huge map. Wanted to play Builder without the option to go Free Market and see how that worked out. Founded 28 cities on my "home" continent. Pinned the Spartans into a corner holding them to a measly 5 land bases. I even threatened them into turning over two of those bases to me before they got fed up and declared war. Resulted in having 30 total "home" bases before I first went to war. That game is now at MY 2370 and I am building the Ascent.
Interesting notes about this game. This is the first game I've ever played where the AI voted to *lower* the sea levels. And from the "that's not what I expected at all" file: I've only been hit by one conventional missile this entire game. Apart from me, the UofP and the Hive have about 20-30 bases each and Miriam and Morgan have about 15 each. Not only are they not launching missiles, they're not even building them. That's the opposite of what I thought would happen when I isolated myself from the AI factions on a Huge map. Go figure.
Smeagol posted 04-26-99 02:36 PM ET
Pique-- Something you said is yet another entry in the list of "things I should have thought of." I always play with Free Market Economics (with the PKs), and I really detest war because it forces me to leave the FME. But with that punishment sphere in one base, I can actually fight a war now! I thank you for dispelling my ignorance.
Pique posted 04-26-99 03:56 PM ET
Smeagol: Thanks for the nod, but I must admit my entire gameplan is shamelessly and almost entirely synthesized from the collective wisdom of other TI's in the old threads. Including the technique in question, revered to as 'Army Laundering' the first time I saw it.
I once thought for an hour or two that I had actually originated the tactic of sea base pacification, only to discover a post made by another (Analyst again!) that preceded my own and also mentioned doing this
In any event, I would highly recommend that anyone who is having problems with the AI in any respect go back and find the Transcend Ironman threads from this year on the Game forum (especially the first couple, IIRC). There have been several of them, with Transcend Ironman and TICHQ titles, and I do believe they have covered every aspect of SMAC in agonizing detail. Unless you are a TBSG GOD, your game will be improved by reading them.
/End plug for old threads/
Pique
December Man posted 04-26-99 04:14 PM ET
This past weekend while playing University (transcend ironman, standard size map) I got to the point where Peacekeepers and Gaians (sp?) were larger factions than my own. Peacekeepers started Ascent to Transcend (and so did I). At this point BOTH Peacekeepers and Gaians proclaimed vendetta on me. To make this short, they just overwhelmed me to the point that I only had 2 bases left (out of 20 originally). However, also during this time they proclaimed vendetta on each other and also PBed each other a couple of times. So guess what. . .I ended up achieving Ascent to Transcendence with only two bases left and only a handful of units. . .although I won the game it sure didn't feel like it!
Analyst posted 04-27-99 10:53 AM ET
Couple of questions posed by events in the latest game. First, the setup.
Bored with the nature of my above-described game, I decided to start building a huge stock of PBs, with the intent of nuking Planet flat just before I built the Ascent. Interestingly, Yang launched half a dozen Orbital Defense Pods one turn before my first PB was finished. No, Virginia he wasn't Planetary Gov and he'd never penetrated my datalinks. It was just an AI cheat. Anyway, by the time I was ready to launch the nukes, Yang had 14 ODPs, which led to two statistically improbable events.
First, I tried to shoot down Yang's ODPs with my own. The first try was successful, but six successive attempts all resulted in the destruction of my own satellites, instead of Yang's. Can anybody tell me what is the supposed formula for successfully shooting down the other guy's satellites? And is there some rule that you can only nail one per turn?
Second, I simply started nuking Yang to overwhelm his ODPs. Each nuke was shot down either on the first or second attempt. It never took longer. It actually took 10 nukes to overwhelm 13 satellites. Given that each satellite is supposed to have only a 50/50 chance to knock down a nuke that's an improbably high number. Anybody else have experience with this kind of situation?
Not that it's much of a gameplay issue for me, but the playing field seemed a bit tilted in the AI's direction when it came to Nuke defense. I wondered if this was consistently the case or merely an anomoly.
Goobmeister posted 04-27-99 04:43 PM ET
Has their been any MP game PBEM or Live between any of the long time TI posters? If not is there any desire to start one?
Goob
I for one would be fascinated to be able to observe.
Goobmeister posted 04-27-99 04:44 PM ET
Has there been... not "has their been..."
Arghhh
Darkstar posted 04-27-99 05:55 PM ET
Analyst - I remember you describing how all the AI factions had teamed up and voted to *lower* the sea levels, thereby a) forming multiple land bridges to your home land, and b) ruining all your costal water improvements. This was about the end of the Analysis of TI play by Analyst.
Second, if its just 50-50 chance, the comp getting the PBs on the first or second one doesn't seem strange. You really should only need 3 or 4 with ROTTEN luck. After all, its only a 1 out of 2 chances per pod. You shouldn't be able to get a missile past 10... that would be 1 in 2^9 chances of penetrating.
But 6 times missing/losing wouldn't be impossible... just highly unlikely. And as observed before, SMAC seems to have a LOUSY random number sequencer...
-Darkstar
trippin daily posted 04-27-99 06:21 PM ET
Darkstar, the random number sequencer is not lousy. It's just great. Ask any AI around, and they'll tell you, it's one of the best there is. Well no, CtP they say might be a lil bit better at it.
Trippin Daily
-dazed and amazed-
trippin daily posted 04-27-99 06:24 PM ET
Oh yeah, Goob, I don't think there is a multiplayer TI game right now. I'm TI, I wouldn't mind playing one. But I have one problem, AOL. Ever had Email take DAYS or even a WEEK to reach you. How about a slow internet connection. So unfortunately, while I would love to be a part of one of these games, I cannot do so.
Trippin Daily
-dazed and amazed-
player2 posted 04-27-99 07:14 PM ET
Wow, I didn't think this thread would still be here; I'm glad I was wrong! I'm back after an extended leave due to a bludgeon of exams, projects, and internship interviews, but now I'm back to wasteing large quantities of free time with SMAC
I also got my hands on a copy of CTP, so I'm going to start a constructive analysis thread comparing the two games.
I noticed there are a few new faces here; welcome new TI's! Has anyone made any ground breaking discoveries in the past couple weeks? Analyst, have you finally seen the light and become a builder yet? It's good to be back!
trippin daily posted 04-27-99 07:22 PM ET
I assume I'm one of the new TI's that you are referring to, so I'll say hey as well. We haven't made any new discoveries yet. We've seen a great man pass away, Yin26. Oh well. We did make on observation, the AI cheats like all hell, go look at singularity's thread "interesting debate r something" couslee and I talk about that for a bit. Ignore the woodchuck chucking on wood bit, unless you want to be severely amused at how severely handicapped some of our brains are to come up with that type of garbage.
Trippin Daily
-feeling numb-
K posted 04-27-99 09:41 PM ET
Believe it or not i prefer to only have about nine bases(sea bses if I can, arranged in a cirle. In the middle of the circle I Borehole, and then supply crawler in energy and minerals. Ineffeciency is next to nil, and I get to concentrate on creating a few superbases which do all my production, and the rest which are just places to put Interceptors to protect the Boreholes and collect energy for research.
Darkstar posted 07-20-99 02:22 PM ET
Heave Ho! And Up We Go!
-Darkstar
(Thread Services, Inc.)
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: Transcend Ironmen ONLY: Revenge of 3.0
Shining1	posted 03-28-99 11:23 PM ET At 180k, the last one was getting a big long to load. And if anyone isn't finding version 3.0 to be a better challenge, please let me know.
Darkstar	posted 04-23-99 06:07 PM ET In the interest of trying to revive the nice conversations and comparisons of play styles: This is a general Question to the TI Members... How fast do you expand your empires? Do you expand faster using a particular faction (ie PKs), and why? -Darkstar
trippin daily	posted 04-23-99 07:12 PM ET Your great 'highness' expands as much as possible. You have to temper your expansion eventually. Far more so than you would on other difficulty levels, to build up your cities and infrastructure. It also great;y depends onthe size of the map, how mad planet decides to be, and what not. So there is no definte answer. Trippin Daily -feeling really numb right now-
Pique	posted 04-23-99 08:25 PM ET "This is a general Question to the TI Members... How fast do you expand your empires?" As fast as possible in the opening game. I tend to stop at about 15 cities in SMAC, give or take (being sure to control my entire continent, if possible). If I am going to lose the game, this is the stage in which it happens. I expand CONSIDERABLY farther in both Civ2 and CTP before stopping, but 15 is good in SMAC, at least for me. After that I concentrate on infrastructure, a few defensive units, and make a beeline to chopper and air drop technology, trying to pacify the computer (preferably by giving sea bases to it) in the meantime. Also try to build treasury as high as possible in this stage (energy farm). After tech is aquired, I build about a 25 unit army (12 paratroops, 4 probes, 10 choppers, all homed in one city with a Punishment Sphere) and proceed to conquest the world. This is about all it takes, with a few support naval units and 1-1-1 police garrisons in conquered bases. Usually put bases to stockpile energy while assault force is in route to build up treasury further. When an infantry is lost you can build a 1-1-1 unit in newly conquered cities and upgrade to paratroopers next turn. You can buy choppers when neccessary (though I lose very few). This is why energy reserves are so important to a sustained assault. I generally try to attack a faction one reactor level lower than me to begin. Usually only have to conquer 1/2 or less of the world to win council Supreme Leader vote. "Do you expand faster using a particular faction (ie PKs), and why?" Pretty much the same, but make more use of Probes with Miriam and Yang, IotD's, Worms, and LofC's with Gaians. Now...having said all this, I feel it is the most expedient way to win against the computer, but it is not neccessarily the most fun way to play. Also, I am a considerably less militant EARLY player than some (Analyst) who seemed to be even more successful against the AI. Pique
JT 3	posted 04-23-99 10:28 PM ET Ummm.... 12+4+10=26. Not 25.
Pique	posted 04-23-99 10:47 PM ET "Ummm.... 12+4+10=26. Not 25" No...it's about 25 though, and only a rough figure in any event. I usually won't build more ground than I can carry on two cruiser transports (16, IOW). Pique
Analyst	posted 04-26-99 01:54 PM ET Hmmmm. Missed this before. Early game expansion can vary dramatically. I won a TI game on a standard sized map once, having founded only five bases the whole game. Somewhere between 10-15 is more typical on a standard map for me. The idea I pursue is to fill in my "naturally" boundaried area, but not to let that interfere with going to war as early and often as I can get away with (as the strategy with maximum effect, IMHO). Current game is an anomoly: Gaians. Huge map. Wanted to play Builder without the option to go Free Market and see how that worked out. Founded 28 cities on my "home" continent. Pinned the Spartans into a corner holding them to a measly 5 land bases. I even threatened them into turning over two of those bases to me before they got fed up and declared war. Resulted in having 30 total "home" bases before I first went to war. That game is now at MY 2370 and I am building the Ascent. Interesting notes about this game. This is the first game I've ever played where the AI voted to lower the sea levels. And from the "that's not what I expected at all" file: I've only been hit by one conventional missile this entire game. Apart from me, the UofP and the Hive have about 20-30 bases each and Miriam and Morgan have about 15 each. Not only are they not launching missiles, they're not even building them. That's the opposite of what I thought would happen when I isolated myself from the AI factions on a Huge map. Go figure.
Smeagol	posted 04-26-99 02:36 PM ET Pique-- Something you said is yet another entry in the list of "things I should have thought of." I always play with Free Market Economics (with the PKs), and I really detest war because it forces me to leave the FME. But with that punishment sphere in one base, I can actually fight a war now! I thank you for dispelling my ignorance.
Pique	posted 04-26-99 03:56 PM ET Smeagol: Thanks for the nod, but I must admit my entire gameplan is shamelessly and almost entirely synthesized from the collective wisdom of other TI's in the old threads. Including the technique in question, revered to as 'Army Laundering' the first time I saw it. I once thought for an hour or two that I had actually originated the tactic of sea base pacification, only to discover a post made by another (Analyst again!) that preceded my own and also mentioned doing this In any event, I would highly recommend that anyone who is having problems with the AI in any respect go back and find the Transcend Ironman threads from this year on the Game forum (especially the first couple, IIRC). There have been several of them, with Transcend Ironman and TICHQ titles, and I do believe they have covered every aspect of SMAC in agonizing detail. Unless you are a TBSG GOD, your game will be improved by reading them. /End plug for old threads/ Pique
December Man	posted 04-26-99 04:14 PM ET This past weekend while playing University (transcend ironman, standard size map) I got to the point where Peacekeepers and Gaians (sp?) were larger factions than my own. Peacekeepers started Ascent to Transcend (and so did I). At this point BOTH Peacekeepers and Gaians proclaimed vendetta on me. To make this short, they just overwhelmed me to the point that I only had 2 bases left (out of 20 originally). However, also during this time they proclaimed vendetta on each other and also PBed each other a couple of times. So guess what. . .I ended up achieving Ascent to Transcendence with only two bases left and only a handful of units. . .although I won the game it sure didn't feel like it!
Analyst	posted 04-27-99 10:53 AM ET Couple of questions posed by events in the latest game. First, the setup. Bored with the nature of my above-described game, I decided to start building a huge stock of PBs, with the intent of nuking Planet flat just before I built the Ascent. Interestingly, Yang launched half a dozen Orbital Defense Pods one turn before my first PB was finished. No, Virginia he wasn't Planetary Gov and he'd never penetrated my datalinks. It was just an AI cheat. Anyway, by the time I was ready to launch the nukes, Yang had 14 ODPs, which led to two statistically improbable events. First, I tried to shoot down Yang's ODPs with my own. The first try was successful, but six successive attempts all resulted in the destruction of my own satellites, instead of Yang's. Can anybody tell me what is the supposed formula for successfully shooting down the other guy's satellites? And is there some rule that you can only nail one per turn? Second, I simply started nuking Yang to overwhelm his ODPs. Each nuke was shot down either on the first or second attempt. It never took longer. It actually took 10 nukes to overwhelm 13 satellites. Given that each satellite is supposed to have only a 50/50 chance to knock down a nuke that's an improbably high number. Anybody else have experience with this kind of situation? Not that it's much of a gameplay issue for me, but the playing field seemed a bit tilted in the AI's direction when it came to Nuke defense. I wondered if this was consistently the case or merely an anomoly.
Goobmeister	posted 04-27-99 04:43 PM ET Has their been any MP game PBEM or Live between any of the long time TI posters? If not is there any desire to start one? Goob I for one would be fascinated to be able to observe.
Goobmeister	posted 04-27-99 04:44 PM ET Has there been... not "has their been..." Arghhh
Darkstar	posted 04-27-99 05:55 PM ET Analyst - I remember you describing how all the AI factions had teamed up and voted to lower the sea levels, thereby a) forming multiple land bridges to your home land, and b) ruining all your costal water improvements. This was about the end of the Analysis of TI play by Analyst. Second, if its just 50-50 chance, the comp getting the PBs on the first or second one doesn't seem strange. You really should only need 3 or 4 with ROTTEN luck. After all, its only a 1 out of 2 chances per pod. You shouldn't be able to get a missile past 10... that would be 1 in 2^9 chances of penetrating. But 6 times missing/losing wouldn't be impossible... just highly unlikely. And as observed before, SMAC seems to have a LOUSY random number sequencer... -Darkstar
trippin daily	posted 04-27-99 06:21 PM ET Darkstar, the random number sequencer is not lousy. It's just great. Ask any AI around, and they'll tell you, it's one of the best there is. Well no, CtP they say might be a lil bit better at it. Trippin Daily -dazed and amazed-
trippin daily	posted 04-27-99 06:24 PM ET Oh yeah, Goob, I don't think there is a multiplayer TI game right now. I'm TI, I wouldn't mind playing one. But I have one problem, AOL. Ever had Email take DAYS or even a WEEK to reach you. How about a slow internet connection. So unfortunately, while I would love to be a part of one of these games, I cannot do so. Trippin Daily -dazed and amazed-
player2	posted 04-27-99 07:14 PM ET Wow, I didn't think this thread would still be here; I'm glad I was wrong! I'm back after an extended leave due to a bludgeon of exams, projects, and internship interviews, but now I'm back to wasteing large quantities of free time with SMAC I also got my hands on a copy of CTP, so I'm going to start a constructive analysis thread comparing the two games. I noticed there are a few new faces here; welcome new TI's! Has anyone made any ground breaking discoveries in the past couple weeks? Analyst, have you finally seen the light and become a builder yet? It's good to be back!
trippin daily	posted 04-27-99 07:22 PM ET I assume I'm one of the new TI's that you are referring to, so I'll say hey as well. We haven't made any new discoveries yet. We've seen a great man pass away, Yin26. Oh well. We did make on observation, the AI cheats like all hell, go look at singularity's thread "interesting debate r something" couslee and I talk about that for a bit. Ignore the woodchuck chucking on wood bit, unless you want to be severely amused at how severely handicapped some of our brains are to come up with that type of garbage. Trippin Daily -feeling numb-
K	posted 04-27-99 09:41 PM ET Believe it or not i prefer to only have about nine bases(sea bses if I can, arranged in a cirle. In the middle of the circle I Borehole, and then supply crawler in energy and minerals. Ineffeciency is next to nil, and I get to concentrate on creating a few superbases which do all my production, and the rest which are just places to put Interceptors to protect the Boreholes and collect energy for research.
Darkstar	posted 07-20-99 02:22 PM ET Heave Ho! And Up We Go! -Darkstar (Thread Services, Inc.)