Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
Why the Sword is mighter than the Pen...
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
Why the Sword is mighter than the Pen...
|
| Author | Topic: Why the Sword is mighter than the Pen... |
| Darkstar |
posted 07-22-99 04:06 AM ET  
Why is it in SMAC that the Sword (War) is mightier than the Pen (Diplomacy and Peace)? The answer, dear friends, is simple. There are no REAL repercussions other than loss of the best of SMAC peace... pact trade. This is further complicated by the fact that the Opponent Engine (Opp Eng) is such a raving Psychopath. It is saddled with too many hard rules to wage war on you. It even has a rule of "War on Human Player", if you don't trip any of the OTHER rules to wage war. What is missing from this game that we so enjoy to make it less of a Conquerfest? The answer... those people and resources become YOUR happy citizens within just a generation or two. What is the big deal about this? The big deal is we humans are much pettier than that... If Canada started a war and conquered the entire Eastern Coast of the USoA, 4 generations later, there would still be people pissed off about it. Still fighting the occupation, if only passively (working 1 hour out of 4). We are a petty, pathetic race at times... we are capable of such great selfless acts, yet... we still remember that the damned French/Japenese/Germans/Chinese/whatever attacked us back 6, 10, 20, 50 generations ago! We still remember that they tried, or DID, conquer our sorry butts... There are NO repercussions of serious merit in SMAC concerning war. If the USoA invaded Panama and KEPT it, we'd have rioting on the streets if it took more than a couple of weeks. Mothers, Fathers, Wives, Husbands, Brothers and Sisters would be protesting the action as soon as the first 2 dozen troopers were sent home in a body bag. Why? In this day and age, its not ours to take. SMAC, on the other hand, only has support to show unrest. And that is only if those troopers aren't on your land, and you have a sucky Support rating. Within a generation in SMAC, Panama would be happy citizens of the USoA, just like New York or Pittsburg. Life doesn't work that way though... that is why we had to go to Kosovo... that is why so many racial and national hatreds are still around. The Japanese invaded Korea how long ago? And Koreans won't use those Japanese buildings that have survived to this day. Why? Because of passed down stories and simple hate. Hate is missing in SMAC. Maybe that is a good thing. But without it, there is no penalty in taking what isn't YOURS... it will be soon after you take it. Add to that the fact that 50 nations won't invoke sanctions or send men and munitions to fight the aggressor (due to mutual defense pacts against larger, more aggresive factions), and you end up with a Conquerfest. SMAC, the newest Empire game... -Darkstar |
| Shining1 |
posted 07-22-99 04:23 AM ET
Edward Bullwer-Lytton was a bloody moron anyway... |
| SMACTrek |
posted 07-22-99 04:48 AM ET
The rewards for land-grabbing in SMAC have turned me from a reluctant fighter to a berserker. Miriam, Yang, and Santiago are now my official faction leaders. Backstab, PB, threaten, repeal the charter, vendetta, break pacts and treaties, steal tech, and lie. Success won't be far away. Besides, either you do it or the AI does it to you first. And even if your reputation suffers, you can still get pacts. How? Pound on the faction until it becomes submissive. If they pact, good. If you have to wipe them out, good too. You don't need all 6 opponents to be your flunkies at the council. As soon as all viable factions are knocked out of the race, you can win any way you want. |
| Krushala |
posted 07-22-99 07:43 PM ET
You have to up the police penalties of your units away from friendly territory. I like the territory borders. Units outside these borders should have harsh police penalties. |
| jimmytrick |
posted 07-22-99 10:45 PM ET
Darkstar, this is one of your best posts! But, if looking for an example, how could you not refer to the War of Northern Agression? I would, today, jump on a horse and ride to Washington, if Lee, or Jackson, or even Longstreet were to rise from their graves. And this from a war where the two sides had largely the same ethnic and religious background. I would like to see this implemented by drones in conquered bases, not those from the homeland. What a splendid idea! Of course, this reminds me of MOO2 and the time it took to assimilate population. |
| Krushala |
posted 07-22-99 10:48 PM ET
There are drones in conquered bases. They are easy to take care of for me. I just allocate specialists or use military units. I can care less if I starve their city down. I don't conquer it for it's production value. |
| OldWarrior_42 |
posted 07-22-99 11:06 PM ET
JT...a serious question... did you lose descendants in the civ...er I mean the war of Northern Aggression. I was wondering if any ancestoral blood of yours or DS or MtG had been spilled in that war, It is the most contested argued about war between people of the same nation. Just a curious Yank. |
| K |
posted 07-22-99 11:18 PM ET
Hey Darkstar, why do you keep whining about peace in a WARGAME. You've whined about the Attack/Defence ratio, you've whined that the game favors conquerers, and now you want more Drones for conquered bases. Why don't you go play Simcity and leave the wargames to the wargamers. K- "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgia's |
| OldWarrior_42 |
posted 07-22-99 11:25 PM ET
Because a man states his opinions on the game and gets enjoyment from good inteligent discussions...You call it whining? I dont think it is whining , just one mans opinion that he is entitled to. Thats how I see it. |
| Krushala |
posted 07-22-99 11:33 PM ET
I don't think smac is a true wargame. It's a combination buider/wargame. The comabat models are primitive. Play operational art of war for a real war game. Sometimes I like to play peaceful, sometimes I like to play warlike. Smac allows me to do this most of the time. |
| jimmytrick |
posted 07-22-99 11:39 PM ET
OW: Yes, we did, as you may have as well, but that is not the point. I don't think any Yankee, no offense intended, could ever understand the paradox of a conquered people living in "the Land of the Free". It is a condition you have to be born with. Literally. I think it must be a particular of our gene pool. We just can not live with someone telling us what we can and can not do. I just resigned from my firm, after ten happy years. Why, because we have a new owner and he is prone to tell us what to do. Now, granted, the things he tells us to do are the things we are supposed to do, and the things that we have always done. And the the things we have always done without being told to. But, under the old owner, we always felt we were working with someone, rather than for someone. I will never work "for" anyone. I guess that puts me on the level of a mule or something. So, I am going to start a business of my own, and I will probably starve, but, I will be happier if thinner. The spirit of the South lives on in the hearts of every man or women who resist the heavy hand of the Federals in Washington, DC. The only thing that has changed is the geography. The South may never rise again, but the possiblity of organized revolution in this country is far from remote. |
| MajiK6pt5 |
posted 07-22-99 11:47 PM ET
Actually, if your police rating is low (like in the US) drones will occur in the conquered bases (and all the rest if you go to all-out war). In real life, people in (the former) USSR or China don't riot when their countries attack someone (OK, SOME of them do). That is why conquering factions don't have many drone problems. I mean, Yang would keep his citizens under tight control, even if he did tell them that he was fighting a war... |
| OldWarrior_42 |
posted 07-22-99 11:53 PM ET
Actually JT. I did not lose relatives or ancestorsin th war. They were still killing themselves in Europe at the time(UK,Scotland,Ireland and Germany)So I really cant have the same feelings as you and I truly am sorry for that loss for you. It was an inevitable war though ,you have to admit. Good luck with the business venture,as I had one in NY just before I moved south. For three years I worked my ass off only to have my one brother, who was the silent partner and original money man,steal the bussiness dry and bury it and me. That is why I sold out and left NY altogether. Hard to leave my parents and my wife's parents but not the rest of the stuff that went on and certainly not my brother.Just remember to keep your eye's on all facets of the bussiness and give it your all and you might not starve. Good luck. |
| Alkis |
posted 07-23-99 04:25 AM ET
Not that I disagree with Darkstar, but I want to add something. At the start of the game when you discover that you share your continent with other factions the best thing you can do is orient your strategy towards conquest. The real question is how and when to attack. For example I would prefer to get some cities rather than destroying them, I would prefer to get the other factions surrender rather than eliminating them; so I have to play accordingly. Personally I don't consider this element in the game bad, at least not any more. It's opportunity that's how I see it. After you conquer your own continent the question arises, what shall I do next? Shall I invest on swords even more? The answer I give to these questions is no. Matter of taste perhaps but I don't find it enjoyable to go for a full conquest. What I do is prepare to change my social settings to free market and play a builder game from then on. I think this is the realistic way for a builder to play, eliminate all possible dangers to your building strategy first. So to paraphrase Darkstar's expression I would say: P.S. Darkstar, I read your post about military supremacy on the other thread. It's a peculiar logic, but I see your point. |
| Bossman |
posted 07-23-99 04:48 AM ET
I must admit that even the enhanced diplomacy in SMAC is still not quite up to standard. I agree that it must be difficult programming wise to make th diplomacy a little more 3dimensional. At the moment it seems a little flat! Other things that players should be able to do is "Urgent Diplomacy". The computer will sometimes say that he needs to speak to you urgently and you cannot refuse. Why cant Human players have access to this type of control? |
| Darkstar |
posted 07-23-99 05:02 AM ET
JimmyTrick... Thanks! And good luck with your business. I didn't use the War of Northern Aggression because I didn't think of it when I was writing the first post in this thread. I was drunk off my ass at the time, which is why I didn't notice I mispelled "mightier" in the title. Oh well! And its probably why I forgot to mention Police SE. Thanks for the correction, but you get my point people. Old Warrior, I have ancestors that died on both sides of that particular "Disagreement". I am just a Southern Boy in my heart though... although I still think the South probably had a few more idiots of high honor in it than the North. But if they had set the "Freedom" line higher in the beginning, it would be a whole different ball game today. And we wouldn't know the difference... K, its simple... I want all future products of Sid Meyer and Brian Reynolds (who does read this forum on occasion), and anyone else involved in designing World Empire games, to understand why SMAC is not the end all be all World Empire game. I do play SimCity, thank you. And Railroad Tycoon (I & II), and Rollercoaster Tycoon, and Master Of Magic, and Master of Orion (I & II), and Populous (II & III), and Kings Bounty, and Heroes of Might And Magic (II, & III) and Transport Tycoon, and Empire Deluxe and ... (all of those, and more, are still played on occasion by me) Yes, I do enjoy a wide range of games. While the computer will never match a human for an opponent in games of conflict or competition (in the near future), it is easier to find and set up a time to have a match. (And yes, I have a very healthy life outside of the realm of computers.) SMAC is ok to good. But it's not the game people hoped it to be... CivIIa (CivII in space). I know the claims, as its similar, but it favors War a lot more than Civ. In Civ, I found I waged wars of expansion. Sometimes after building Women's Sufferage, I would launch my Starship, and raced against the clock for world conquest and closed the game out (I aimed for dual victory... winning world conquest on the turn of arrival). In SMAC, I wage war because its more efficent, and nothing prevents it. That, and I know the Opp Engine will come after me. Added to the fact that if I am peaceful, it REALLY comes after me. Then I enjoy getting Empire on the offending faction until its been put down properly. At which time, some OTHER computer faction goes nuts... They designed and built the game to antagonize the passive Builder into a war. That works on me. I rarely trip the code that causes it to push harder if you stay peaceful. Why bother? I know what SMAC is by now. And when I want to play a nice quiet game of Empire BUILDER, rather than World Conquest, I crank up a different game. But I feel cheated, as SMAC directs and guides you into War, and often insist very hard. It should be just as easy in a World Empire game to maintain peace with the majority of the world, as it is to be at war with it. And that is NOT SMAC. -Darkstar |
| Marslow |
posted 07-23-99 12:17 PM ET
First of all it is certainly possible to play a successful Builder in SMAC. While I agree that the Sword strategy is generally superior in most situations, I have played Builder games to victory numerous times. Generally my scores are comparable. There seems to be a widespread belief that you can't defend in SMAC. This is a misleading half-truth. The real point to remember is that you can't defend USING ARMOR. Sitting in your bases waiting for the enemy to attack you just does not work. Your units WILL die and your base WILL be captured. But if you use the Attack to Defend tactic to kill encroaching enemy units before they can attack you, you can easily defend your territory from all threats. Once you develop airplanes you can make your territory almost impregnable. Some posters have complained about this superiority of gun to armor and about the general superiority of offense to defense. But I don't see how it can be a failure in the design of SMAC that it ACCURATELY reflects reality. Throughout history it has always been easier to design a weapon to defeat armor than it has been to design armor to defeat weapons. The superiority of long range weaponry to defensive protection is the very foundation of much of history. You need only look at Kosovo or Iraq to see proof of this fundamental fact of warfare. In the strategic realm a similar effect applies. The way to defeat an enemy is to carry the war to his territory. Very few enemies are going to surrender if you aren't actually on their territory taking their cities, no matter how hopeless their strategic situation. Consider the example of the War of Southern Stupidity. By 1864 it was apparent that the South was not going to win the war. It was heavily outnumbered, surrounded, and lacking in even basic war material. Did the South surrender? No. To win the war the North had to attack the enemy in his home and destroy him. SMAC accurately portrays this reality or warfare. |
| dilbert |
posted 07-23-99 06:38 PM ET
One major reason to prevent a builder's strategy is Chairman Yang's love for PBs. He will use it against any faction stronger than his, regardless of UN Charter, and he always PBs the base with most SPs. The logical consequence is that a human player has to exterminate Yang before he gets PBs. Defeating the Hive usually requires a large military. When you finally have kicked Yang out of competition, you suddenlly end up with such a huge military force that is almost mandatory to pursue your conquest. You can defend in SMAC as long as there is no PB threat. I would not subject my faction's survival at Chairman Yang's or any other factions' mercy. |
| Marslow |
posted 07-23-99 10:05 PM ET
Well, ODP's are a necessary part of a healthy breakfast. Just make sure you have a dozen def sats and you're alright. |
| SMACTrek |
posted 07-23-99 11:54 PM ET
On the matter of defending using bombers, any invader with SAM capabilities could build counter-air units to support an invasion. From here, it's a battle of who gets there first with the most. If you're defending against a swarm of units, I don't see many alternatives to switching your production and social engineering empire-wide so that you can kill enough invaders to switch to offense. This will hurt you in the tech race, but if you're ahead of your attacker by a few years, then there's time to build a sizeable force of higher-tech units. When you have enough, you can go and invade. In fact, a good army in the field can be used to set back anybody else who's ahead of you in building. Other builders will know this and they might even decide that you're Public Enemy #1. It's all too easy for a game to spiral into gerneral warfare, and the chances of negotiating a lasting peace are small, since anybody you let live will join the anti-you coalition. Go for the throat. |
| Zoetrope |
posted 07-24-99 12:47 AM ET
Granted, SMAC lacks sufficient incentive to stay at peace. Can we edit Alpha.txt so that Pacts and Treaties net so much cashflow that they are more desirable than conquest? |
| Darkstar |
posted 07-24-99 12:51 AM ET
Look guys, being PB in a game for me is rarely a THREAT. Heck, I have only seen the Hover chassis three times EVER. I only saw the Grav chassis the one time I built a special faction that started with the tech. If you try real hard, you can build to victory. But don't try that in a MP game where any other Human isn't a full transcend builder... you'll get your throat cut open. The rewards for the Conquestador are outrageous... the rewards for the Builder minimal (in the same time span). Not a nice balance... And you can't build your way out of a coffin or Punishment Sphere... -Darkstar |
| Zhaus |
posted 07-25-99 08:15 PM ET
One problem is that the conquest option is available in the game much sooner than the others. To encourage growth, in the beginning of the game battles should be heavily weighted toward the defense ("no armor" should be 2, the next few armors upgraded slightly as well). Towards the end of the game the familiar 2:1 attack/defense ratio will reassert itself, but to get to this point one must make a larger investment in growth and science. A builder will also have real opportunity to prepare for the assault. I think we'll know a good alpha.txt when it forces gameplay to follow a pattern of distinct stages; EXPLORE-> DISCOVER/BUILD -> CONQUER. |
| jimmytrick |
posted 07-25-99 09:38 PM ET
I have been tinkering with a simple alpha.txt modification that includes +50% armor, 50% sensors and 50% intrinsic base defense. I was thinking about getting a PBEM started using this to see if it changes the flavor of the game. Anyone interested. Darkstar, I know you don't PBEM, but you could test it SP? |
| Jythexinvok |
posted 07-27-99 02:01 AM ET
Marslow: Actualy it's not QUITE true that throughout history weapons have been more powerfull. More often we see jumps in one or the other, so at any given time either weapons are more powerfull then the armor, or vice versa. The common examples: city walls, untill the advent of the cannon no weapon could realy hurt them: Ironclads. Increadable armor, they couldn't even hurt eachother! Maybe someoen should sit down and put together an alpha.txt that reflects this? Also, on the topic of problems in captured bases. I think they did a pretty good job here. In genearl memory fades while the economy is good. If there are plenty of jobs, food on your plate, roof over your head, ect,.. people tend to forget. The exception is when religious issues come into play, but even then it's MUCH harder to sway a prosperous population away from thier current, stable government. |
| Goobmeister |
posted 07-28-99 01:36 PM ET
JT, I could most likely give it a go in a MP game if you are still looking for takers. |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.