posted 04-01-99 04:41 AM ET            

Shining1: singularity reactors aren't alone in increasing movement.

Carrying capacity? I wouldn't know, I still cannot persuade the design window to build carriers (sub or not). The first time I tried to build a carrier, the special option disappeared and never returned.

posted 04-01-99 10:57 AM ET            

But in the end I must (...dissent! ) vote

NO

I don't care if SingEng HPs are 30 or 40,
provided they DO kill the Psi-Combat weakening side-bug!!!! If FRXS had a motive in making such an environment, I can simply adapt to it.
ONLY, it would be at least appropriate if they'd mind(worm) cut a time slice out of their CPUs, descend from those nitrogen clouds, and explain us all

WHY, OH WHY

posted 04-06-99 02:52 PM ET            

The Doc's suggestion that changing the reactor strength is not unbalancing because everyone can build them misses the point. If the benefit of the singularity reactor becomes too great, everyone will *have* to build them in order to remain in the game. Alternative strategies will fall to the wayside because only a fool wouldn't build a ton of these units.

posted 04-06-99 03:04 PM ET            

Well then can someone please explain to little simple minded me how 30 is not unbalanced when compared to 20? or 20 to 10?

posted 04-07-99 02:19 PM ET            

If anyone (like Pyrimider) feels the Singularity reactor is unbalancing, the only thing to back up that statement would be that Brian Reynolds said so.
I'll tell you that it's mathematically (and realistically) flawed to say that Singularity is unbalancing and not Fusion or Quantum, as Micje points out. Case in point:

Fission to Fusion (10 to 20) = 100% increase!
Fusion to Quantum (20 to 30) = 50% increase
Quantum to Singu. (30 to 40) = 33% increase

posted 04-07-99 04:26 PM ET            

Put it back to 40! If you want to talk about Game balance, then don't increase the hits by 10 apiece. Go for the doubling option or the +50% options (as pointed out previously). Fusion reactors are a humongeous edge, and everyone knows it. No other reactor tech is such a huge leap in relative power...

And to anyone who thinks SMAC has a real balance, you are just deluding yourself. Its got as much balance as Robin fighting Superman, or the USoA taking on Grenada... none what so ever.

posted 04-07-99 06:09 PM ET            

In a truly balanced game, it wouldn't matter what strategy you follow, they would all be equally viable. However, this is not true in SMAC.

Militarily, the game seriously favors the Attacker, and The Rush. While that means MP should be relatively quick, it means that you have to attack the computer occasionally... Let me restate that for emphasis. You have to attack the computer occasionally. And that means you need to have the ability to attack.

Want the computer to stop invading your homeland? You have to take a city on the computers homeland. Then the computer will focus on retaking that city. That leaves your homeland free to a life a peace and research and building... until the NEXT faction invades you. Then you have to go take a city in their homeland.

If you make peace, even bending over backwards to do so (giving lots of gifts and what not), all you are doing 9 out of 10 tens is ARMING YOUR ENEMIES. That's a crime against your people, my Lord. Treason. And you deserve to have your Faction crushed. And the Computer will try, using the energy you gave it to speed build the newest units to invade you... :-)

Seriously, if you can't maintain peace because the Diplomatic model wants to treat the SE like bad Alignment choices from D&D and have people immediately try to crush you because you are Free Market, or Green, or Wealth or Knowledge... That guarantees you have to have a strong military. And if you are at war, you attack back. There it is again... you attacked the computer. When you take a city of theirs, they ask for cease fire. They may demand that city as the terms, but they offer a short time peace...

But to get it, you have to prove you can roll the computer over. And you have to keep doing that until the game is done, you have eliminated the computer, or they surrender. So you are being guided to play a Conqueror. The quickest way to win is Conqueror. If you get into a Brother/Sister Pact with EVERYONE on turn 50, the game isn't over. Why? Because the computer KNOWS its going to betray you and that you will be at war. Its in its code. (And the excuse will be the SE choices.) If everyone is already pacted with you, you should be able to vote on supreme commander then and there, and if you can SWING enough of the votes due to diplomatic bribes, win then and there. Game Over. That is ENOUGH of an accomplishment (IMHO), and harder to obtain, I think, than most of the others.

To obtain all other victory conditions, you have to have the military machine to be top dog. You might not THINK of your Morganite Free Market Society with the Probe Teams that bribe back lost cities as being a Military tactic, but that is what they are. The tool allowing you to turn your resources into a force that brings a city under your control. The only OTHER way to do that is take that city by occupying it with a military unit. And you get the former occupational force causing your military strength to go up. When does the computer STOP messing with the Big Daddy M under those conditions? When Big Daddy M is the number one military guy, and not before. :-)

So, whether you like it or not, the only strategy that the game really acknowledges is Military. Its not a coincidence (IMO) that you get Supreme Leader as a Council option when you get Choppers (the games single greatest unit). The designers are acknowledging that the game is over now that the Human has the Chopper. Play on, if you enjoy it. But in case you want to just go to the win screen, elect yourself Supreme Commander...

Seriously, if you have to attack to KEEP your cities, and the only thing that needs armor is that unit that goes with the troops to keep the dreaded Toilet Attack from decimating your Rovers and Beserkers/Crusaders (Infantry with no armor) the balance is non-existant. The fact that the only reliable Defence is Attack points out there is no balance.

Heck, if you are attacking, you don't need a guard in your cities! Its nice to have something to take that Worm hit, but they only need Trance for that...

Sorry, but the game is from turn one a war game that includes empire building as a side plot, and not very major over how it affects the capability of your War Machine Production.

In reality, the Arms have tended to jump ahead of the Armor when an aggressor focused on neutralizing the Armor. The Armor *does* catch up *when* a non-aggressor focuses on neutralizing the Arms. This all leads to a change in the balance of which to do... Attack or Defend. We never see this sort of action in SMAC. Attack is always the answer (unless you have a very odd and very runaway game such as where I had Impact Weapons and Probability Sheaths Armor (due to Artifact Advancements)).

While no Defender can forever hold out against a Determined Attacker willing and able to focus their force on a single point, there is no need to go to such extremes in SMAC. Just attack. That's all you need to do as the rule... Weapons have much too strong a lead. Why is it that you don't need 6 scouts to take out one dug in scout defending a city? That's a lot closer to REALITY than the 2 scouts (all morale being equal). 3 scouts at the WORST random seeding... (BTW 3 Attackers to 1 Defender is the worst odds any Military Commander in HISTORY every was ever willing to gamble at (well, that survived to be recorded!) Up to modern times, most preferred a 20 to 1 odds, although traditionally willing to attack at 12 to 1. The USoA has always insisted at 6 to 1 for the WORST of odds to order an attack, according to its Battle Manuals... Situations may dictate worst, but those are desperate gambles)

posted 04-08-99 08:54 AM ET            

I'm forced to agree with most of what you're saying here. Its true that military strength is key to winning and that once that is true, the TYPE of victory you choose is entirely your choice. I generally go for supreme leader or conquer victory, running up my score with transcendence became tedious after the first time or two.

Upon self-examination, I always TRY to stick to a build strategy, but in the end I'm always forced into conquest with rovers and the odd rover skirmisher/garrison for support.

I guess we differ in our expectations in what SMAC is supposed to be about. I look at it as a turn-based strategy "war" game where the build is secondary to conquer (although I DO enjoy the build part of the game more). Building infrastructure is only for the purposes of getting and supporting a well equipped army used to take out the enemy factions, or if you're feeling lucky and have a lead in tech, agressively defending your borders. SMAC just isn't a "building" simulation, I don't think it was meant to be.

I was confused about your comments on balance because I assumed (oops) you were speaking in terms of things like the faction profiles and the combat/tech system.

Does the game push players into a conquer strategy? yes, I must "assent". Does any one faction have a clear, unbalancing, advantage over another? I think they're pretty balanced. Each has advantages and disadvantages that apply to that factions ability to succeed (OK, conquer). Some of these apply directly to military strength like Santiago's free prototypes. Others are less obvious, like Morgan's energy production (best applied to mind control, still a military strategy).

I'll take time out later to look at this and maybe post more, I have a meeting (work before SMAC)

Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it.

posted 04-09-99 02:27 PM ET         

1. Singularity reactors will be boosted to 40 points;

2. The AI missile range bug for conventional payloads will be squashed once and for all; and

3. Our talented portrait artist, Jerome Atherholt, is working on new alternative artwork. Look for the 'nude Deirdre' codes in the 4.0 Enhancement Patch.

posted 04-09-99 03:00 PM ET         

I'm NOT Firaxis' Brian Reynolds (note: that's B-R-I-A-N). I just play him on TV.

I hope that he does fix 1. and 2. (well, and 3., but I'm not holding my breath. ;-)

posted 04-13-99 07:13 AM ET            

Doc, I agree!