Dear Firaxis, A Word Regarding Missle Range Problems:

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Dear Firaxis, A Word Regarding Missle Range Problems:

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Dear Firaxis, A Word Regarding Missle Range Problems:

yin26 posted 04-05-99 09:25 PM ET
You might have read about my 200x200 supergame by now and how it was ruined by Yang's hitting me with several dozen missles over 2-3 turns, leaving me utterly defenseless to Santiago's otherwise weak crew.
If I missed something in the editor, I'm open to suggestions.
If not, I won't get mad that I wasted 5 hours--I mean, they were a good 5 hours while they lasted. But it was kind of like sex without the climax: fun and all, but something very important was left unfinished, you know what I mean?
So, can you PLEASE send a mini-patch for this one issue? I promise. I'll brew Brian's coffee. I'll handle the hate mail (I know how to deal effectively with those people). I'll file all the clutter on Jeff's desk. Chris--do you have a dog? I'll walk him. You name it. I'm there.
(Of course, if you DO fix this, I'll be too busy playing the game to even post on this board...wouldn't that be nice? )*
p.s.--that was not extortion.

Elemental007 posted 04-05-99 09:49 PM ET
Yin:
Each square represents 200 miles. A singularity convential or PB missile has a range of 4,000 miles. That's roughly about from here in Dallas to Moscow or so. Now if I remember, during the cold war there was something about ICBMs between here nad Russia...in the 1960s....hmm.....
The PB range is fine. Today's tomohawks go abotu 1,000 miles. I would assume that in the day we can use black holes as weapons (singularities) we could come up with a missile that carries a convential payload that goes 4000 miles.
Now, one thing that bothers me is in the way of sattalite defense. Last year the US used a bigass laser to shoot down a sattilite that was damaged. How come we can't do this in SMAC? Once I get some sattilites up, I can keep anyone else from getting any Hydro labs or Nessus mines or anything up. This kind of monopoly guarantees a win. THere shoudl be a weapon land-based, that knocks out sattalites. Along the same lines, there should be a sattilite weapon that attacks units from space, kind of like in Under Siege II. I mean taht isn't that far off technologically, you would think that by that point in tim it would be commonplace.
yin26 posted 04-05-99 10:31 PM ET
Elemental--
O.K. I agree with you in principle that by this point in the future, one should be able to hit anywhere on the map with a missle. BUT, if we are going to design it that way, there should be a conventional missle defense option very early on--like a city facility. My game was still way too tech-retarded for satellites. Maybe the missle defense could be somewhat expensive, so only well-developed factions, or concerned factions, could/would afford it (mine had LOTS of energy credits at the time of the attack).
Plus, it always bothered me that these are encapsulated cities to begin with--a conventinal missile would just tear through the dome and kill everybody anyway. So, as far as realism is concerned, maybe we should just get rid of conventional missles anyway and stick with planet busters--they seem to work the way you think they would. Plus, PBs are already subject to UN sanctions (when applicable), are much more costly to make, and correlate (roughly) with a defense far better than do conventional missles.
What do you think?
a) make a conventional missle defense possible early on
b) limit the range as was originally intended to stop the imbalance
c) eliminate conventional missles outright
a + b would be nice.
Elemental007 posted 04-05-99 10:53 PM ET
I will give you that point. However perhaps the missiles are laser tracked or some sort. But there should be a weapon to block missiles, that I know. I mean we have Patriot missiles now, what would we have 300 years from now?

But I do agree they are not balanced. Mid-way through the game they aren't useful enough; in the end when I can make one a turn they quickly become overpowered. I fired off 48 missiles from my sea battle group in one turn. How's that for overpowered?
geraden posted 04-06-99 12:01 AM ET
I don't want to talk about realism - let's not go there.
What I want is game balance. I want the AI to have the same set of rules I do.
So, if missiles have an unlimited range, fine! That's cool - I can abuse missiles and drop pods just fine, thanks. If they have a limit, that's fine too. Whatever.
Just make it the same for me and the CP.
And perhaps, make units MUCH better against aircraft that aren't bombers. I'm tired of 'copters and missiles making short work of damn near everything.
Gardener Geraden
Travathian posted 04-06-99 12:10 AM ET
Why not just have missles ranges based on the type of engine it has in it.
Start with a small payload missle limited range, damage 2-4 or so, and only range of like 6-10. then work your way up from there with higher payloads having higher ranges but increasingly advnaced tech required
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: Dear Firaxis, A Word Regarding Missle Range Problems:
yin26	posted 04-05-99 09:25 PM ET You might have read about my 200x200 supergame by now and how it was ruined by Yang's hitting me with several dozen missles over 2-3 turns, leaving me utterly defenseless to Santiago's otherwise weak crew. If I missed something in the editor, I'm open to suggestions. If not, I won't get mad that I wasted 5 hours--I mean, they were a good 5 hours while they lasted. But it was kind of like sex without the climax: fun and all, but something very important was left unfinished, you know what I mean? So, can you PLEASE send a mini-patch for this one issue? I promise. I'll brew Brian's coffee. I'll handle the hate mail (I know how to deal effectively with those people). I'll file all the clutter on Jeff's desk. Chris--do you have a dog? I'll walk him. You name it. I'm there. (Of course, if you DO fix this, I'll be too busy playing the game to even post on this board...wouldn't that be nice? )* p.s.--that was not extortion.
Elemental007	posted 04-05-99 09:49 PM ET Yin: Each square represents 200 miles. A singularity convential or PB missile has a range of 4,000 miles. That's roughly about from here in Dallas to Moscow or so. Now if I remember, during the cold war there was something about ICBMs between here nad Russia...in the 1960s....hmm..... The PB range is fine. Today's tomohawks go abotu 1,000 miles. I would assume that in the day we can use black holes as weapons (singularities) we could come up with a missile that carries a convential payload that goes 4000 miles. Now, one thing that bothers me is in the way of sattalite defense. Last year the US used a bigass laser to shoot down a sattilite that was damaged. How come we can't do this in SMAC? Once I get some sattilites up, I can keep anyone else from getting any Hydro labs or Nessus mines or anything up. This kind of monopoly guarantees a win. THere shoudl be a weapon land-based, that knocks out sattalites. Along the same lines, there should be a sattilite weapon that attacks units from space, kind of like in Under Siege II. I mean taht isn't that far off technologically, you would think that by that point in tim it would be commonplace.
yin26	posted 04-05-99 10:31 PM ET Elemental-- O.K. I agree with you in principle that by this point in the future, one should be able to hit anywhere on the map with a missle. BUT, if we are going to design it that way, there should be a conventional missle defense option very early on--like a city facility. My game was still way too tech-retarded for satellites. Maybe the missle defense could be somewhat expensive, so only well-developed factions, or concerned factions, could/would afford it (mine had LOTS of energy credits at the time of the attack). Plus, it always bothered me that these are encapsulated cities to begin with--a conventinal missile would just tear through the dome and kill everybody anyway. So, as far as realism is concerned, maybe we should just get rid of conventional missles anyway and stick with planet busters--they seem to work the way you think they would. Plus, PBs are already subject to UN sanctions (when applicable), are much more costly to make, and correlate (roughly) with a defense far better than do conventional missles. What do you think? a) make a conventional missle defense possible early on b) limit the range as was originally intended to stop the imbalance c) eliminate conventional missles outright a + b would be nice.
Elemental007	posted 04-05-99 10:53 PM ET I will give you that point. However perhaps the missiles are laser tracked or some sort. But there should be a weapon to block missiles, that I know. I mean we have Patriot missiles now, what would we have 300 years from now? But I do agree they are not balanced. Mid-way through the game they aren't useful enough; in the end when I can make one a turn they quickly become overpowered. I fired off 48 missiles from my sea battle group in one turn. How's that for overpowered?
geraden	posted 04-06-99 12:01 AM ET I don't want to talk about realism - let's not go there. What I want is game balance. I want the AI to have the same set of rules I do. So, if missiles have an unlimited range, fine! That's cool - I can abuse missiles and drop pods just fine, thanks. If they have a limit, that's fine too. Whatever. Just make it the same for me and the CP. And perhaps, make units MUCH better against aircraft that aren't bombers. I'm tired of 'copters and missiles making short work of damn near everything. Gardener Geraden
Travathian	posted 04-06-99 12:10 AM ET Why not just have missles ranges based on the type of engine it has in it. Start with a small payload missle limited range, damage 2-4 or so, and only range of like 6-10. then work your way up from there with higher payloads having higher ranges but increasingly advnaced tech required