Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
SCENARIO CONTEST - new amazing score by VictorK on lal_2286
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
SCENARIO CONTEST - new amazing score by VictorK on lal_2286
|
| Author | Topic: SCENARIO CONTEST - new amazing score by VictorK on lal_2286 |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-08-99 05:01 PM ET  
wow - I thought I had seen everything but VictorK has taken the contest to a new level.... He has taken a different approach and he scored an amazing 2204 in lal_2286. His solution is posted at the solution download site. Only those who have entered a contest have access to that site. Join the fun at : |
| VictorK |
posted 07-09-99 02:35 AM ET
I'm not sure I used a "different approach" than everyone else. Basically, I just built up my population and commerce, and captured all Spartan and Hive bases. Isn't everybody's approach the same? I guess the difference is just the degree of optimization, and whether one knows of some important "features" in the game. Here are some notes and hints on what I did: - Capture New Arzamas and Gagarin Memorial in 2286 (yes, the first year). You shouldn't have problem clearing out the defense in these bases with 'copters; think of a way to capture them with land units. - Capture every Spartan and Hive base in 2294 (could've been earlier, but I wasn't focusing on conquest in this scenario). - Steal two techs from the Spartans. - Reallocate HQ in the first year. - Build two new bases early (one near Aid Station, on near UN Headquarters). - Build Children's Creche immediately in new or captured bases (hurry to 10 minerals, then hurry to completion the next year). - Sell all Hologram Theatres and Recreation Commons in the first two years. - Harvest Miriam territory like crazy (one of the important "features" you ought to know...). - Target Industrial Nanorobotics in research, and build Nono Factory immediately after getting the tech. (VERY important!) - Regarding the note above, there is a VERY important "feature" in the game which I just discovered when playing the scenario. (I don't want to spoil everything...) - Next, get Digital Sentience (Cybernetic, Network Backbone) and then Biomachinery (Cloning Vats) and Homo Superior (Universal Translator). - Switch from Planned to Free Market after Cloning Vats is built. - Sell all Aerospace Complexes after Space Elevator is built. - I did make a few changes in the last year to up my score: switched from Cybernetic to Eudaimonic, and changed all transcendi to workers. Only simple changes, nothing too fancy. This raised my score by about 65 points. - I never used the build queue. I know this gave me extra energy credits, but I'm not sure that everybody who enters the contest knows about this bug and always puts something in the build queue. The difference isn't that huge though. - No base swapping (why would one want to do it by the way?), no social engineering "cheat" for building SPs, no save/reload after undesirable combat results (I only fought battles with favorable odds). - I didn't buy Gaia's Landing from Miriam (which is what tfs99 had done). If I did, it would raise my score by about 10 points only (+SP+pop-commerce). - I discovered Threshold of Transcendence in 2300, so I was just a couple years away from winning by Transcendence. I'll try version 3 next (co-operative conquest with renounce pact). Winning in 2296 was a joke, I wasn't even focusing on conquest and I still took all Spartan and Hive bases in 2294. Winning in 2290 is quite a feat though, but I think it is possible to win in 2289 or even 2288. Unforunately, I won't be able to play the game the next few days. Now, the REAL challenge: win by Transcendence on or before 2300. |
| laurens |
posted 07-09-99 05:18 AM ET
VictorK: Winning in 2300, or 2296, for lal_2286 in conquest style is not a joke. It's not as simple as to somebody who's just trying out the game compared to one good player like you. By the way, I think winning before 2290 will be impossible as if you are to make all the movement-square calculations including the ones to reach the sea cities by foil-technology, the fastest you can get to them is 2290. Unless you can get to destroy them by X-weapons when most probably they would only be placing one garrison by 2290. |
| VictorK |
posted 07-09-99 08:18 AM ET
laurens: I think one can reach all sea bases in 2288 except for one Hive sea base. Remember you have the Maritime Control Center from the Gaians, which boosts your foil movement to 6. Regarding that particular Hive sea base, it's not easy, but I'm thinking of the possibility of capturing a nearby land base in 2287, so that it can be reached in 2288. In any case, I think it is entirely possible to achieve conquest victory in 2289. BTW, in the contest I assume one is allowed to upgrade units from the design workshop, which I did with the two initial 1-4-1 units. It doesn't make much difference in the AC score though, since otherwise I would still capture University Base and Sparta Command in 2288 (though looking back, I probably could have captured them in 2287); the only difference is capturing New Arzamas and Gagarin Memorial in 2286 (otherwise I would've captured these bases in 2287). In fact, if I captured these bases in 2287 I would've benefited from a bug (yes, yet another bug): University would've turned some of his units over to my control, and the bug is that (mysteriously) the year wouldn't advance when that happened, so I would've got an extra turn to play in 2287 (I just discovered this bug when playing the scenario). IOW, by capturing the two bases one year earlier in 2286 (which requires upgrading from design workshop), I didn't get the free units from University, thereby avoiding a bug that would have further boosted my AC score. For the conquest version, I agree that it would be impossible to win in 2288 without upgrading from design workshop (unless one takes advantage of the above bug), but I think it is still possible to win in 2289. Regarding the "features" that I mentioned above, I guess it's better for me to state them explicitly: they are the fact that one can convoy resources from squares in a pact brother's territory (provided he hasn't allocated a worker to it), and the fact that with Nano Factory, it is cheaper to build an expensive unit by first building a cheaper unit and then upgrading it (this even applies to supply crawlers). These "features" might be considered some of the game's imbalance issues (especially the latter), and I'm not sure if they are design intention, but they are not bugs or "cheats". Without using this "features", I would still beat tfs99's AC score (probably not by as much as 470 points though, but it shouldn't be hard to top the 2000 mark). |
| laurens |
posted 07-10-99 10:13 AM ET
I named it the "instant-upgrade" trick. Well, I'm not sure about that, because aceplayer didn't state that in his rules. The fact is that I didn't take the frontal Spartan bases on the first turn is because I have to upgrade them to X Copters and Drop troops. If it is allowed then I believed winning 1 yr earlier (2289) would be possible. Such design flaws, like unlimited missile/buster range, unlimited artillery range and this upgrade trick should be banned if possible, but then we are not able to know exactly whether any of us use it - right now, aceplayer and I only managed to find a certain 'loophole' in the game that will allow us to see whether the person has used scenario editor or not. So before any further discoveries can be made we might have o leave things as they are. |
| laurens |
posted 07-10-99 10:25 AM ET
You can get to see the rules at http://www.an.i-dentity.com/ac.cgi/rules Cheers |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-10-99 11:31 AM ET
wow - VictorK, you have said a lot of interesting stuff - I am looking forward to examining your solution closely.  Seems like there is a lot to be learned. The reason I reduced the rules to 4 - and left the 3rd as "you know a bug when you see it" is to avoid problems - but lets discuss the interesting stuff you brought up... 1) "instant-upgrade" - I assume you mean changing what you are building in the design workshop - why would that be a cheat or bug ?? Seems fair to me - if thats what you meant. 3) unit upgrade with Nano Factory - seems that is the whole purpose of the SP - cheap upgrades - definitely intended by Firaxis - fair - something similar would be to upgrade a damaged unit - that restores it to 100% and saves the repair time... 4) build queue - I didnt know that - will test it - seems like using automation to improve your performance is cheating - like automating your missiles so they have unlimited range - or the fuel trick with jets... not fair ! Finally - VictorK can you send me a file without the tweaks at the end - I dont want tweaking - since if everyone has to do it - it will become a chore, and detract from the fun. Ummm - maybe I can un-tweak yours, but send me a file anyways - if you have it - thanks
|
| laurens |
posted 07-10-99 02:45 PM ET
As cut and pasted from the Alpha Centauri online board for CMN rules, B1a> Upgrading units with the design workshop not allowed. That is why I call it 'instant upgrade'. I don't think it's a cheat at first, but some of the rules above indicate disallowance, and anyway I have stopped using it ever since somebody got me to that site. |
| MoSe |
posted 07-10-99 03:39 PM ET
The discussion avout upgrading in the DW is ongoing. Bingmann and me think that it is a different tool from upgrading a single unit, since you have to upgrade all the units of that type, and you have to be able to afford the cost. It could seem a cheat only if you start moving a unit, stumble in a strong obstacle, and upgrade from DW to overcome it (smaky tactic, save.my.arse.kick.yours). |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-10-99 05:52 PM ET
ok - I understand it If you use the design workshop upgrade ( I never used this before so I didnt know about the bug ) - you upgrade - but dont lose your turn - like you would by upgrading a single unit...so it seems like a bug and not fair to use it. It true that when you get a new tech you can upgrade and not lose your turn - lets just say that is due a new tech bonus... I am gonna post this stuff under rules at my site...
|
| VictorK |
posted 07-11-99 07:10 AM ET
aceplayer: My game was saved after I won, and any further changes will not "undo" the score. (My previous save was at the start of 2299, and I don't want to replay it unless necessary.) Anyway, how would you define "tweaking"? If I buy Gaia's Landing from Believers, it can only be done in the last year and it will raise my score. Also, if I give away bases to the Gaians in the last year, it will also raise my score (I'll get more from increased commerce than lost population). To me, these acts also look like "tweaking" in the last year to improve the score (especially the latter, which is quite irrational if the game is to be continued after 2300). Since commerce is a major component of the score (just as important as population or SP), I don't see why the player should be disallowed to make changes to improve this component of the score (is improving the score the whole purpose of the scenario contest anyways?). And if it's not allowed in the last year, how about making the changes in the year before the last (in 2299)? I think you just can't draw a fine line here, so it is only reasonable to allow the players to make any changes he wants. And unless you're trying to be too fine, it won't take a long time - all those "tweaking" in the last year took me about five minutes to raise my score by about 60 points (about 30 points from switching to Eudamonic alone), so it's not exactly a "fun killer". If I had taken an hour to make the "absolute" optimization (e.g. reshuffle worker use between bases optimally), it might raise my score by a few points further, but *then* it would be a fun killer, and I didn't bother to do it. (Speak to me though if anyone even comes close to beating my score - I'll then buy Gaia's Landing and give away bases to the Gaians.) Note that I had discovered Threshold of Transcendence in 2300, so if I were to continue I might have changed from Cybernetic to Eudamonic anyways (for more cash). I also had the Telepathic Matrix, so changing from transcendi to workers would not cause drone riots (though it would reduce energy and labs production). If you look at tfs99's solution, in his save game there are a few base that will be rioting the next year. Regarding other issues: - Upgrading from design workshop: I think it is a design flaw, not a "cheat" (unlike other "cheats" which are clearly bugs, e.g. unlimited missile range). But if you're to ban it, you've got to ban any upgrading when acquiring a new tech as well... this is the only way to be consistent. You can only upgrade when acquiring a new tech if you turn on "design units automatically" and/or "auto-prune" in the preference menu (I'm not sure which one or if both have to be turned on). These features (in the preference menu) are meant to be for convenience only (though I find them totally useless and even annoying), not something that the player can exploit strategically. - Convoying resources from pact brother's territory: It is definitely intended, since you cannot do the same for treatied factions (the program has to check if the crawler is in another faction's territory, and then to check if that faction is a pact brother). Of course, it's a questionable design issue. (But then, the whole supply crawler thing could be a questionable design issue...) - Unit upgrade with Nano Factory: Of course, its function is intended, but I think the potential power of it isn't (especially when it is abused). I think the designers have overlooked something here. - Energy calculation bug with build queue empty: Whenever your build queue is empty when you complete production in a base, you get extra energy (equivalent to the amount you get if you set production to "stockpile energy"). It seems to me that not many of you know about this bug, but it is one of the worst bugs in the game (IMO, a "show stopper"). It is worse than the various automation bugs/"cheats", since to take advantage of those automation bugs you'll likely have to do that on purpose. For this one, you'll be unavoidably "cheating" unless you know about this bug and enforce yourself to always put something in the build queue, even if you're not sure what to build next. It is the only way to be "fair", but it is quite bothersome, and if you forget to use the build queue even once, you've "cheated" in the game. I won't suggest enforcing this; I'd rather suggest not taking any scenario contest seriously until this bug (and many others) is fixed. Blame Firaxis for this one. |
| ARES 7 |
posted 07-11-99 12:21 PM ET
Hi Victor I never thought this possible. Thought, MtG and me were quite good in this scenario. Thought, Ted is absolute king, unsurpassible. Now you come like an elefant, watching some ants fighting each other. I couldn�t take breath first. I couldn�t believe (honestly, somehow I also was thinking about a dirty cheat). To make it short: C o n g r a t u l a t i o n ! Feel like an absolute newbee after months of playing. In high admiration ARES 7
|
| aceplayer |
posted 07-11-99 06:36 PM ET
on tweaking - the problem is - if everyone does the same tweaks - its a wash - just a waste of time... as I said - it cant be enforced and its only a problem on short scenarios - where everyone finishes in the same year...and especially lal_2286 - where everyone MUST finish the same year!!! so if someone beats you one tweaking alone - you can out-tweak and re-submit. So its frowned on but not enforced... the other stuff - I gotta look into and think about....I do tend towards "fewer rules is better" |
| VictorK |
posted 07-12-99 04:24 AM ET
The point is, since commerce is an important part of the score, and commerce depends on the amount of energy you collect in each of your bases, I think manipulating your workers to collect more energy is a legitimate way to improve your score. (Note that energy collected by supply crawlers doesn't affect commerce.) It is a legitimate strategy, just like having your bases pop boom from the first year on, or trying to build as many SPs as possible. So there is no reason to disallow it. And it isn't a wash if everyone does the same tweak - it depends on several factors, such as number of economics techs you've discovered, number and size of your bases and pacted/treatied factions' bases, whether you terraform your base squares for energy etc. And you can't easily beat others' scores just by "out-tweaking" alone - beyond the obvious manipulation (SE changes, turning specialists to workers in all your bases), any further "tweaking" is not likely to improve your score by more than a few points. ARES 7: I think all changes in the last turn affect your score. It might be that if you turn a specialist to worker to increase commerce in one of your bases, your overall score may not increase because commerce in another base may be reduced (remember commerce is determined by pairing your and your pact brother's bases, and increasing energy in one base may affect the pairing order). |
| ARES 7 |
posted 07-12-99 08:32 AM ET
Hi Victor, this observation with no score changing from tweaking in the last turn, I made in lately played (one-turn / five-turn) games without victory, with only "conquer certain bases" goals. In Lal_2286, moving for dipl. victory is like finishing the turn, although the year isn't changing. So, for this scen. you are right. ARES 7 |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-12-99 05:16 PM ET
VictorK - ok I decided that using the upgrade in the design workshop is ok. Maybe the single unit upgrades should allow a move too...Finally - we would never know (only knew because you told us). I dont mean the tweaking will be an exact wash - but it is in the sense - if you do it others have to too and its probably random whether it benefits someone else more than you...So - as the rules said - its frowned on but not illegal...Should only affect short scenarios - I think we are in agreement on this. I still need to try to pin down the exact "bug" on the build queue. If you are saying NOT using the build queue is an advantage - then its definitely ok NOT to use the build queue. I never do...So not using build queue is ok last thing - asking a faction to cede a base is still illegal and I want to keep that. You MAY give away a base though... thanks for the lessons |
| Krushala |
posted 07-12-99 06:22 PM ET
I don't see this build queue bug. I thought the extra minerals is the first 10 minerals that are automatically carried over from excess minerals of your last product. The manual says excess minerals are carried over. Build queues are worthless anyway. Every base is different, I can never maintain peace long enough to build peaceful base facilities. |
| VictorK |
posted 07-13-99 01:18 AM ET
The bug is that you get extra *energy* (not minerals) every time you complete production with build queue empty (the extra amount is equal to the amount you get if you set production to "stockpile energy"). You can verify this bug yourself: find one of your saved games in which one of your bases will complete a facility the next turn. Click next turn, and note the energy reserve. Now reload, put something in the build queue, and note the energy reserve after clicking next turn. You'll notice that your energy reserve is higher without using the build queue, by an amount equal to half the mineral production (same as the "stockpile energy" amount). The build queue is useless, but if you don't use it, you could be considered "cheating". |
| Krushala |
posted 07-13-99 06:10 PM ET
I believe you, but isn't the energy done base by base. I'll start off at say 3000 but the game goes through each base adding energy that each base makes. I notice this when I get a new tech like fusion power and upgrade all my units till I run out of energy. But after all production is updated I'll have more energy. |
| Krushala |
posted 07-13-99 06:17 PM ET
It makes sense I guess. Production automatically converts to stockpile energy after completing most base projects. It must convert to stockpile before energy prodution of that base is added up. |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-13-99 06:30 PM ET
VICTORK - YOU HAVE CAUSED ME SO MUCH WORK !!! To test this - you need to set economy to 0% (make labs 100%) then run 4 times - I used lal_2286. 2 runs with shard battery in queue - 2 without ********************** |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-14-99 05:07 PM ET
ok - VictorK - I did the following I took lal_2286 - and obliterated every base except for UN Aid Station...set research to 100% now - building shard battery finally - shard battery has 4 minerals in year 2187 - which is lost if I dont build - ie I stockpile energy... conclusion - there is a bug in the build queue that causes a loss of energy equal to 1/2 the minerals the base produces. so you got the bug right - but its in the queue - not in the manual build... |
| VictorK |
posted 07-14-99 09:32 PM ET
Krushala: Right, that's the bug. It does NOT make sense at all, it must NOT convert to stockpile energy before energy production of the base is added up (should be after, not before).
If you set research to 100%, you won't get energy credits from commerce... Commerce just increases energy production in your base, which is distributed among labs and energy credits (according to the percentage you set). Also, there is another bug in the game: the maintenance cost of all facilities is reduced by 66% in transcend, so the real maintenance cost in your experiment isn't 23, just 7 (or 8, I forget whether it's rounded down or up). Yan can verify this bug by using the cheat mode to change difficulty level. The extra energy you get from not using the build queue does not depend on the number of minerals needed to complete completion, just the total number of minerals produced that turn. So if your base produces 22 minerals a turn, it doesn't matter if your hologram theatre needs 2 or 22 minerals to complete, you get the same amount of bonus energy (if build queue empty). In your experiment, the bonus for not using the build queue is 3 (which is half your total mineral production). As the manual states, at most 10 minerals are carried over to the next production, build queue empty or not. It never stockpiles energy for unused minerals. |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-14-99 10:39 PM ET
very cool VictorK so i changed it to citizen and ran it again to me - it looks like the F3 projects cost is 66% higher in citizen - accounting for the 15 diff in energy costs. So energy cost in citizen is 23+15=38. so i still think the bug is in the build queue my math adds up so far - i can send you the files... You are teaching me - I am just checking the math.... |
| VictorK |
posted 07-15-99 03:24 AM ET
aceplayer: Trust me on that, the bugs are that the transcend level has 66% lower maintenance cost (and thinker 33%), not that the easier levels have higher cost, and that you receive extra energy with build queue empty, not that you lose energy when using the build queue. If you need to confirm yourself, maybe you shall try out more experiments on other examples (not just LAL_2286 with all bases but Aid Station obliberated - the difference isn't significant for just one base alone). |
| Lo_11 |
posted 07-15-99 11:11 AM ET
There is another build queue cheat/feature that allows you to load a template and then switch your production choice without paying the 50% mineral penalty. They say that confession is good for the soul.... |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-15-99 06:25 PM ET
Lo - load a template? do you mean - they only charge you the penalty once per turn...?? that is ok VictorK - ok maybe I am confused on the details - anyways - bottom line - I dont want to change the rules everytime someone finds a bug I think we are in agreement about the rules. |
| Krushala |
posted 07-15-99 06:41 PM ET
I don't think the bug is that big a deal. It's easy to have everyone not use the build queue. Everyone will be getting the same advantage. Only the ai loses out. But they get plenty of cheats anyway. I know some of you use them, but I don't see why you would use them in such a short scenario. |
| aceplayer |
posted 07-15-99 06:45 PM ET
krushala - its not a big deal it has become an intellectual discussion |
| VictorK |
posted 07-15-99 07:22 PM ET
Krushala: The bug isn't a big deal as far as the "fairness" in scenario contests is concerned, but as far as the game is concerned, it is IMO quite a bad one... The game is too easy already, and I don't like having any further unfair advantage over the AI (even though they have plenty of cheats anyway), and it is quite bothersome if I want to deny that advantage (having to always put something in the build queue). Moreoever, the bug just reflects the quality of the programming (or lack thereof)... It's something that should have been done right from the beginning, you can't rely on beta-testers or players to figure out all these bugs... Sort of like if you're asked to write a function to swap two variables, and you write {a=b;b=a} (where a,b are the two variables), then nobody could help you... |
| Lo_11 |
posted 07-15-99 10:32 PM ET
Dear All, I'm sorry I suggested any kind of cheat in this thread. When top notch players are looking for genuine strategies that are fair and honorable, they don't need some guilty soul coming into the room saying "I just <blah> and <blah> happened. I feel so bad...etc." It makes me think of the village idiot walking into the jousting tournament and screaming "If you say 'Hocus-Pocus, magic armor!' and 'Abracadabra, magic lance!' then you become invincable! We are all characters in a huge hologram theater and this tournament isn't real!" The basic effect is to ruin the tournament and everyone there wants to kill the idiot! Ace...If you want to know more about my previous post, which if I had the power I would edit and remove, then e-mail me at the address posted in the players section of ACOL. Hopefully, I was incompetent enough in my original post that nobody will understand it. Lo |
| Krushala |
posted 07-15-99 10:40 PM ET
What the hell are you talking about. People talk about cheats all the time. It's good to know what they are to recognize them. I still don't know what the scenario editor cheat is (esxept for the obvious one). I don't actively go out searching for cheats. But I stumble accross them. I used to think the design workshop bug was a design feature. |
| laurens |
posted 07-16-99 12:50 AM ET
Krushala: The scenario editor cheat is this - let's say you load one game file. If you turn on the editor, the 'CHEAT' tag will be there. But we have bypassed this simply by saving the edited game under a new scenario, then playing a game from there on, the score starts anew and it's like nothing has happened. Aceplayer's scenarios are impressive, and I couldnt bear to see them abused. It was by chance that I discovered a counter-flaw for this scenario-editing flaw, and now aceplayer will be able to check on it completely. I do not mean that we like to cheat, but if it's a fair play for all creditability of the scenarios should be ensured. |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.