posted 07-22-99 01:14 PM ET        

The purpose of this thread is to share new strategies between players that play, or are interested on playing on the most difficult single player settings. Multiplayer strategies are also welcome!

Is it just coincidence that I chose to come back at the very instant when Darkstar was resurrecting my old TI threads? Or an omen of some kind? You be the judge!

posted 07-22-99 02:10 PM ET            

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

What you are espousing is an elastic defense based on fortified localities. This works neither on the real battlefield nor against another human player. However, I will concede that this strategy may succeed against an A/I opponent as they tend to come in "DUMB".

Your strategy will not work against a human because it doesn't matter if they allocate too many units. A conquitador has more than you to start with(or you wouldn't be a builder to start with)and they have the initiative so that you will wind up trying to chase them down. Also, they won't waste time/units attacking you in fortified positions when they can bypass you and fight you under their terms down the road somewhere. This wastes your assets and prevents you from effective counter attacks to relieve the pressure and wrest the initiative from the attacker. In short, by the time you figure out the attackers axis of advance and place your forces to counter, you're a dead duck as you have lost too many cities and are now in a position to fight a pitched battle that will hurt even more if you lose it.

Historically, this defense was used several times during WWII and each time it failed miserably.

The Russians first used it when the Germans attacked in '41. They fortified cities and gave whole army groups "die in place" orders to slow down the German advance. Not only that, but they literally stripped the entire production facilities of dozens of cities and moved them beyond the Urals. However, in trading space for time, the Russians ultimately realized that overstretching the German lines of supply finally halted the advance and not the millions of lives that were sacrificed.

Second, the Germans used an "elastic" defense starting after the battle of Kursk in '43. Time and again, Mannstein brilliantly regrouped and cut off attacking Russian forces only to find several holes popping up in the line at other points. Soon the elastic defense became a rout as the armored "fire brigades" were chewed up in combat.

In summary, your system will not work for the following reasons:

1) You give initiate to the attacker and only a fool would give it back.

2) You do not have space to give away.

3) The attacker is taking your cities and this costs you production as you can't move them.

4) There are no lines of supply.

5) Your losses are more difficult and progressively more expensive to replace due to the lost cities.

posted 07-22-99 02:47 PM ET            

I just wanted to briefly argue that Blind Research and Fierce Rivalry are NOT the most difficult settings. I will be brief as I am sure you are familiar with these old arguements. None the less I shall post them for people who may not be familiar with them.

Blind Research: I am with Analyst on this. The human is more adaptable than the A(non)I and thus deals better with random technological advance than the computer. The computer is clearly oriented towards using and moving towards certain very specific techs. Not getting them cripples the A(non)I, whereas a human can adapt. This could be a flawed argument, but no one has to my knowledge yet found the flaw.

Fierce Rivalry: Okay, so I am at war with everyone. They are also at war with each other. Result......I win. Every time. Not using fierce rivalry allows people to ally against you. This logic chain is more easily flawed in that a skilled player can use SE to manipulate diplomacy quite efficiently, however the computer players fighting each other almost always results in a human win.

Uncleroggy: Your analysis is cogent, but I think Player2 is still correct. The point to the rapid movement of forces is not to reinforce an attacked base. Rather it is to be capable of moving forces to front for offensive use. Everyone agrees that to attack is to live in SMAC. By having Rapid Response Forces (RRFs) in place I ensure that you only get to attack my city's defenders. My RRF then gets to attack your invasion forces.

Admittedly it is not a guaranteed defence. I have come around to Analyst's position over time, 'it is better to conquer than build', precisely because building is difficult. The A(non)I makes building a viable option, but I believe in Multi-player games the builders are toast. Sorry Player2, I've been converted.

posted 07-22-99 02:49 PM ET            

Uncleroggy: Remember it is not whether or not the conqueror outnumbers my forces over all. The key point is this. 'Superior forces at the point of contact'. Interior lines of communication should allow a good player to achieve this.

Sorry for the double post.

posted 07-22-99 02:52 PM ET            

Are you sure those setting make the toughest play?

Fierce Rivalry... it just makes the Opp Eng do your work for you and reduce rivals, doesn't it?

Blind Research is one of my favorite setting, but... it does seem to screw the Opp Eng controlled factions. They have certain things they WANT to learn, and it seems that Blind On skews their ability to some degree. Aside from being able to easily control what you get on Blind (most of the time), you are hurting the Opp Eng using Blind, aren't you?

Pods On is another item that tends to help the Opp Eng, from my experience. It permits it to boost its tech level quickly. (I don't tend to play Pods on much anymore, but I turn them on every once in a while...)

Defender reserves not locatable via links... its a nice ploy, but you need them 3 out, not six out, don't you? And the aggressor can always look through your security nexus and unit production to get an idea of your overall strength. But anything that helps against the agresssor is a good thing.

In general, I am in agreement with your distinction about the only difference is which action you choose... but there are some extremist who don't build much more than the Opp Engine.

posted 07-22-99 03:31 PM ET            

Interesting to see you still clinging to the builder paradigm--though I think that you have backed down a notch or two by redefining what that paradigm is, exactly.

In commenting on the bunkered defense strategy you outlined at top of this thread, I would say that it is an improvement to storing units inside cities, but not a big one (for the reasons that Uncleroggy points out). OTOH, I would caveat Uncle's disagreement with the distinction that, for the Russians and Germans, men and machines were finite resources. For the SMAC "builder" faction leader, neither necessarily are. As a consequence, the time bought the SMAC builder faction leader is more valuable to him than it was to Hitler or Stalin. Still, it is a strategy that should fail if the attacker makes good use of his initiative. The improvement, though, could be good for requiring an attacker to display a higher level of strategic/tactical skill to prevail.

posted 07-22-99 04:43 PM ET            

To all, concerning my difficulty prefs:
I figured that blind research hurts the player more than the AI as it doesn't allow us the advantage of using our intellect to choose techs according to our playing style.
Concerning the Fierce Rivalry option, I suppose I forgot to look at it from the conqueror's viewpoint. Yes, the intense rivalry option makes it easier for the conqueror, as the A(non)I (good one, absimilard ) spends it's resources beating itself up. For me (the builder), this makes things much more difficult! I have to spend more time building defenses, and even outright attacking if I am placed in an unfavorable location. This was well demonstrated in a game I started recently. I was placed on the corner of a large continent, wedged between the Hive and the Believers. To make matters worse, I was the peacekeepers, had intense rivalry on, and only had enough space for about five land cities. Naturally, the two were very unneighborly, and my reaction was not unlike that of a cornered animal. I was very much the conqueror in this game. I only managed to survive by converting my intended builder utopia into an Orwellian society; churning out missile rovers as fast as I could, only allocating enough resources to keep the masses from revolting. To sum things up, intense rivalry sucks for builders! One note is that it probably mimics MP better than the normal settings, but this is just a theory.

uncleroggy - Good points, but I feel obliged to counter-attack your invasion The theory behind this strategy is that the attacker only has knowledge of the defensive city garrison units, and not the RRFs. The invader may fully expect to seize a city with two plasma garrisons with three or four plasma missile marines; unfortunately he is unaware that there is a bunker containing four missile rovers nearby.
In the second scenario where the aggressor uses, say 8 or 9 units to seize a single city, he has grossly overdeployed his forces, allowing the defender an extra couple turns to rally his RRFs and mount an attack. Instead of seizing several cities in one carefully planned assault, he now has his army concentrated at a single point. This leaves him at a staggering disadvantage, as his movement options are severly limited; he is much farther away from his lines of supply than his intended victim, and the loss of one city is probably a minor blow to the productive capacity of the defender anyway. The real trick to conqueroring is using just enough units to seize and hold your prize, in order to do maximum damage to the defender as quickly as possible. Denying the conqueror the ability to do this by using the method I outlined above undermines his ability to successfully invade. In short, an attacker with intricite knowledge of the placement of the victims units would probably require half as many units as that of a conqueror who possessed no such intelligence. And of course, all this assumes that the attacker has the initiative (has reached the victim undetected) which is difficult if the builder has set up any kind of surveylance infrastructure (sensors & AWACS)
Regarding the reference to the WWII analogy, I'm not reffering to a "maginot-line" type defense; the bunkers are just a place to keep your rovers so the whole stack doesn't get wiped out by a lucky missile hit. It's not a perfect solution, but it makes life more miserable for the conqueror, which is always good for me!

absimilard: Traitor! I think the builders have a fighting chance if their placement is ideal in MP. This still remains untested, however. Good point about the 'point of contact.' A stack of 8 plasma missile infantry is dogmeat to 2 well placed missile rovers (this in fact was precisely the case in my current game). Its all about position and planning.

Darkstar: You're right; it's 3 spaces and not 6 (unless they're elite, which isn't likely for a builder). As for pods, I leave them on since it makes exploring more fun, and I don't think they have a signifigant impact on player advantage, since the AI can pick them up too.

Analyst: Wow, I thought you were long gone before I came back today! Good to see so many people still here. I think I answered most of your comments in the ones above, but I concurr that my strategy is only a minor improvment. Still, every little bit helps. Combine this with my surveylance strategy, and I think the builder stands a good chance of repelling the conqueroring scum.

posted 07-22-99 05:00 PM ET            

Actually, Player2 was making two points. Yes he referenced counter attack. however, his main point was an elastic defense where his RDF would catch an unwary attacker in the field or quickly reinforce a city to deliver a bloody nose.

However, lacking the initiative, none of these strategies are very effective. First, the aggressor should have substantially more units already in the field. Otherwise, our builder isn't one. Afterall, what use is it to build and not use em? Second, our builder will have to rush buy units or waste production by changing priorities. Third, even with transport, units take time to reach the point of attack.

If player2 counter attacks the aggressor cities, he will certainly run into a follow on stream of reinforcements that were headed to the front. Even if he trades 1 for 1 on cities or units, he is fighting a losing war as he is giving away better than he is getting.

If player2 waits in his bunkers, he will be bypassed and soon be forced to fight in the open or face dying on the vine.

If player2 counter attacks the attacking forces, he will always be a step behind as he can only react. Also, fighting a pitched battle against the attacker puts everything on one roll. The attacker can aford to lose this fight while the builder can't. Othersise, he opens the door to total annihilation.

As a result, the best that Player2 can hope to achieve with this strategy is to contain the advance and limit the losses.

Now, if lines of supply or communication(rudimentary to any war game) were included, then Player2's strategy would be potentially more effective. He could then cut off and isolate weakened attackers which should buy him enough time to build additional forces and thus take away the initiative.

Analyst, your point is well taken. I agree that units are unlimited resources in this game. However, space is not. Due to the ICSing and even the normal sprawl, most of the land masses are pretty much carpeted by bases. Therefore, defending in depth has a much higher price as every lost tile hurts.

BTW, anyone remember how fast your armies melt away when out of supply in Diplomacy?

posted 07-22-99 05:13 PM ET            

The French and English do much better with this problem. Errm, so do the Russians. Of course we all know it is best to be the English/Russians so no surprise there.

posted 07-22-99 07:15 PM ET            

I see we were posting at the same time before so I'll try to point out a couple of things that are specific to your comments.

First, I think that you're making some assumptions that reconnaissance only occurs through probe teams. I for one actively recon 100% of the time whether at war or not. Therefore, my attack groups will be preceeded by cheap recon rovers and a carpet of needle jets. In the army we have a saying about what you do to an enemy. You Find em, Fix em and F**k em. The only way to do this effectively is with eyes on recon assets. Given this, you have no surprise so your idea of catching a "competent"(my assumption) attacker is not well founded. BTW, I do not regard the A/I as competent.

Second, you seem to be focusing on how efficient an attacker is. I certainly agree that the momentum of the attack needs to be sustained. However, this is usually dictated by shifting the focus of the attack(as Analyst points out)as this allows the attacker to maintain the initiative. Also, please remember that these games are based on attritional combat and most of the units will be involved eventually. As a result, as long as the attacker is not grossly inefficient, it should only be a question of when rather than if.

Finally, I was not referring to A Maginot Line type of defense. Rather, your RDF is an elastic defense that is based on the ability to hunker down in a strongpoint. Ideally, this is supposed to provide you with some freedom of maneuver as well as the ability to afford some amount of protection. Please see my previous comments to ABS as to your options from this position. None of them are good if you cannot gain the initiative.

I'll now try to give you a quick look as to how a defender would take away the initiate in a real world environment.

As a cavalry troop commander I would deploy my platoons in advance of a defensive force(armor/infantry). The attacker would do the same thing with their recon forces. My primary mission would be to destroy those attacking recon assets as it will force the attacker to deploy their main force units to break through my screen. In doing so they will give away their axis of advance which will allow me to report to my defensive support so that they can redeploy if necessary.

At this point I would then use artillery to deliver minefields to channelize the attacks. Additional Artillery and airpower would then be called in to pound the attackers as they are unable to maneuver. Voila, the attacker has lost the initiative. Now, I can go over to the offensive and scout the flanks in preparation for a counter attack.

Needless to say, this don't work in SMAC. That's why the builder has little or no chance.

posted 07-22-99 10:22 PM ET         

Multi-player settings:

Huge maps w/ no water, lots of fungus.
usually get 2-3 friends around and the rest are AI. Max of 10 cities.

Even as a builder I always take the take time to build and upgrade my army (which usually means just enough money to rush that SP when I need to before I go broke ).

As an active defense, I not only attack units outside of my territory, but I try to maintain as little units as possible (unless of course they're independent). I forest everything and everywhere, drill to aquifier when there are hills, etc. Forests are excellent tiles that cancel movement. I hide my units in strips of fungus (while building my sensors inside too). I have mobile APC's that heal on the go (as well as submarine bases that repair units/hide in the sea fungus). Even as a builder, I never keep off that idea that I'm constantly at war AI or Humaaan.

Also, structurally. . .I build my cities like I was in war. Rush every building when it's economically feasible in my favor. Build my nation in a circular tier defense while treating each one like a city-state . Seems to work most of the time.

Part of that active defense also deals with psychological warfare and guerrila warfare. I try not to build huge armies and build my buildings in war time priority.

And Most importantly, the best way to increase your demographic rating is to reduce other players', therefore I always have 1 or 2 "groups" of hidden attacks that roam around the map--my retaliation force
They deter the enemy: steal money;, strip land; take a poorly defended city, sell, and burn it to the ground; raise land to destroy units/cities. Being a builder is rough, but I want to survive

posted 07-22-99 10:25 PM ET            

I think what it ammounts to is that conquerors in general hold the opinion that numeric superiority is key to victory, which is NOT the case in SMAC, or at least to the extent of which it is in the real world.
On the modern battlefield, it is generally held that a 3:1 ratio between two technologically equivalent adversaries is needed to guarantee victory with minor casualties. In SMAC, however, numeric superiority supercedes placement and initiative only when the difference is much higher (> 5:1)

An example is the war I am currently fighting against the AI. All factions are nearly technologically equal. In my two front war against the Believers and the Hive, my humble Peacekeepers have destroyed nearly 150 units versus less than 10 of my own. Naturally, this is attributed to the shortcomings in the AI, but it also shows that ill placement and lack of initiative can make the difference between victory and complete annihilation. In this instance, needlejets were used to spot the enemy early. A couple of rovers would be dispatched from my elastic defense to meet the enemy outside my base, positioning them one square away from a stack of infantry (or two if the force consisted of rovers.) After the enemy moved into an adjacent open field, the entire stack of units was completely wiped out. This methodology is also used against sea-borne invasions, where the needlejets are again used to spot the enemy before they can land, and eliminate the transport on the high seas.

You mentioned that it shouldn't be possible for a competent attacker to be detected. My experience is competely to the contrary; a competent defender shouldn't fail in detecting an approaching enemy.

In one scenario, the enemy is denied the use of needlejet reconisance since his cities are too far away (the AI does not employ this tactic anyway) and thus loses initiative. The use of recon rovers as reconnaissance is kind of pointless; even a lowly scout patrol could eliminate it before it could penetrate the perimeter; assuming it could make it through the needlejet patrols.

In terms of initiative; if the invader is at the limit or beyond needlejet range, it will lose the initiative INDEFINATELY. (if the defender is "competent," of course )

Furthermore, you mentioned that a builder could not withstand continuous waves of assaults. In my experience; if the opponent is attacking in waves instead of massing for one large attack, then he will surely fail. The ONLY chance for complete victory against an organized defender is a single overwhelming assault. Wave attacks will get you nowhere in most instances. I can think of exceptions, but only when the attacker has intricite knowledge of the defender's assets. (ala luring the RRFs into a trap with a small initial attack, so that a larger second wave can wipe them out (a feint, basically))

In a second scenario, the enemy IS close enough to use needlejets to recon a signifigant portion of my land, in which case he is already too close for a builder to adopt a builder playstyle in the first place. The builder must give way to the conquering playstyle until his neighbor is either vanquished, or becomes a trusted ally. For a builder to do otherwise would be foolhardy (one does not continue building palaces and marble monuments while Hannibal is at the gates!) See the top of the thread for more info on the builder/conqueror paradigm. Sometimes one must assume the role of the other for survival.

posted 07-22-99 11:17 PM ET            

You can easily win vs the AI with a basic builder style. Just a little combat to kept the AI off your back.

But there is no way that you can win with a builder style against human players.

I am running a SP game with altered alpha.txt that features armor increased by 50%, intrinsic base defense at 50%, and sensor bonus at 50%. I am doing this just to see if it can stop the conquerer's rush. So far, I can't tell because I am on an island map.

But with plasma at 5, it is a bit more difficult to snatch that odd base.

posted 07-23-99 01:16 AM ET            

Actually, you took almost everything I said 1005 out of context. Either that, or senility is catching up with me faster than I thought.

First, I couldn't really care about numerical superiority. In fact, numerical superiority in SMAC is composed within a unit rather than by the number of units. Just look at the relative attack/defense strengths. Also, not meaning to nitpick, but your 3:1 adage is based on successful completion of the mission and has nothing to due with casualty ratios.

Second, I already pointed out that the a/i is inept and I'm sure that all of us have handed out brutal losses to the a/i due to poor coordination, lack of airpower and moronic naval behavior.

Third, I was not suggesting that the defender would be blind. Rather, even the a/i in defense in vigilant and I would expect far more from a player like you. Instead. I was challenging you on the point that an attacking player would not come in "dumb" like the a/i and it would be rare for you to spring a surprise attack on a human player.

Fourth, I agree with you that loss of air superiority will affect the ability to project power and recon properly. However, the abundance of bases and other means makes it incredibly easy for a human to project airpower with great effect. Not only that, but as soon as the attacker takes the first bases, they,re in business regardless of other factors.

Fifth, I never suggested wave assaults. My only reference to additional units was that an attacker will have a developed stream of reinforcements headed to the front since they are geared for war from day 1. This provides a ready force for the attacker to counter your force if you choose to counter attack. On the other hand, a builder has to switch their economy to a war footing and the weaknesses and inefficiencies of this should be quite apparent. Finally, please reread my post as you will see that I was pointing out that a competent attacker will shift the focus of their attack to maintain the initiative.

Finally, I disagree strongly that military principles are inapplicable to the game. In fact, they are 100% applicable and you contradict your own posts by saying they are not.

Oh well, it's time for my aggression therapy session.

posted 07-23-99 02:38 AM ET            

A builder will want to ally with any early neighbours encountered, in order to trade and to share tech, so that they can defend themselves. When faced with a hostile opponent, they will often take the chance to expand their empire, but will usually stop short of eliminating that player outright. Finally, builders often tend to base their game around gaining wonders.

A conqueror will immediately look for early neighbours and target them aggressively, only holding off on attack if they seem to be too well defended for the available offense. When faced with a friendly civ, they will usually think very hard about the consequences of making alliances with that player, especially if they feel that breaking that alliance may prove too costly. Lastly, a conqueror will usually have one or two pet wonders (the Great Library in civII was very popular) that they like to build, since there is always a chance of getting at least one.

Ultimately, both players are after the same thing - to reach a level of superiority that reduces all other nations to the level of also-rans. Builders reach this when they have a tech rate that yields advances every two-three turns, have a skyrocketing cash intake, and are producing near maximum ammounts of minerals in each base. Conquerors attain this level when they have reach technical parity, have more money than anyone else, and own at least a half of the up to date military units in the game.

Attitudes to combat vary widely. A builder will feel happiest going in with a small number of highly effective, advanced units, knowing that they possess an easily controlled tactic force that is not tying up unnecessary support in their cities - in short, they tend to run very close to the wire in combat, often capturing bases with the last move of the last unit. As such, they hate casulties and will feel upset at any major loss of units, since this usually represents their core strike force. A builder will also try to keep their military at the lowest operational level possible, rarely having more than a single city stacked with offensive units. Military specialists are occasionally produced, but are unlikely to be present in advance of a major conflict, as the builder with invest resources in settlers and caravans instead.

Conquerors accept casulties as a matter of course and tend to pump out far more material than is strictly necessary, specializing in defeat in detail strategies whereby they will use a large number of unit to overrun an empire guarded by a very few. Attacks often come in waves, as the next generation of units is made and sent into battle. They also tend to produce more military specialist units, for scouting or tech/spying purposes.

Builders focus on infrastructure, and see units as random, movable things that should live in a base or have a worthwhile job, such as terraforming. (They are usually highly inept at launching sea invasions, and will rarely try such a thing). Conquerors focus on units and neglect infrastructure, other than roads, and maybe fortresses you are unlikely to find any signs of developement within a conquistador's empire. They always know where their units are and do well at delivering units together in large groups.

posted 07-23-99 09:16 AM ET            

This raised a few questions in my mind:

1. Anybody remember the Gaian Sweep?

Back in the days when we were all unofficially beta testing play balance via the demo, the discovery that one could win as the Gaians, inside the constraints of the demo, via a simple-minded strategy of mindworm farming and rushing, put everybody up in arms. The rules regarding mindworm capture were changed to prevent the strategy.

Well, as the Spartans, you need to research exactly three techs to get Impact Rovers. After that, revert to the simple-minded "chariot rush" strategy of the original Civ game and you can breeze to victory. On smaller map sizes, well within the limits of the demo. On larger ones, a bit later, but still without victory in doubt.

So, if the Gaian Sweep was so horrifyingly imbalanced because one could win with it within the limits of the demo, why is the Spartan Sweep any better?

And I guarantee it can be done with other factions--just not as efficiently as with the Spartans is all.

2. Doesn't this conclude the "style" debate before it starts?

You can't win as a builder if you can't build. This was the lesson driven home in the attempt to make the original Civ a multiplayer product. Apart from the fact that the original Civ Multi was so hoplessly buggy that one had no prayer of finishing an online game, the game was "busted" by the knowledge that there was no cure for the chariot rush, other than a counter chariot rush--no matter how big the map.

CivII improved the tech tree by delaying the appearance of the all-important 4-1-2 unit until later and added a unit that could specifically bust it (1-2-1 pikemen, which get 2x defense against mounted units). It took me a while to see past SMAC's bells and whistles, but it reverted the early tech tree to look more like CivI than CivII and brought back the feature that "busted" that game for good players--the 4-1-2 unit rush.

3. Do huge maps change anything?

Map sizes can be much larger in SMAC than in the original CIV, but this doesn't "cure" the early game imbalance. It only hides it. If so-called builders are forced to insist on either (i) protecting themselves in the early game with large distances; or (ii) the right to execute early game warmonger strategies without shedding the "builder" label, then they are admitting to the fundamental tilt of this game towards conquest strategy.

With all due respect to Player2 (who is by far the most militarily sophisticated of all defenders of "builder" style), all of his strategies, based on sophisticated defense networks that take time to build, are moot. No person with a life outside the game is going to play multiplayer SMAC on a huge map. Without the time to build that huge maps afford, the builder strategy is stillborn when that pack of rovers comes to call. If Player2 reserves the right on smaller maps to counter with his own early-game rover rush, then he has admitted the game requires conquerer strategy as the primary victory skill--all attempts at double-think to the contrary notwithstanding.

And even granting Player2, for the sake of argument, the ability to build his empire into the mid-game, I just don't see how all the strategy in the world defeats that *long* midgame point when Shard power rules the roost.

4. What game am I playing?

To paraphrse a popular line of books: everything I ever needed to know about winning SMAC I learned from playing Civ. When every single strategy you ever learned to bust the Civ games works in playing SMAC, you begin to wonder why you bought the game. How can you call it a new game, when it doesn't require you to learn any new skills or strategies? I'm certainly wondering now why I continue to bother playing it or talking about it. [A lingering sense of tremendous opportunity squandered, I suppose.]

It's even worse than that, since fundamental flaws in the original Civ game design that were cured in CivII have reappeared in this game's design. Ugh, ugh and ugh.

posted 07-23-99 10:21 AM ET            

Uncleroggy: Wait one moment while I ignite my flamethrower here... Sorry if I misinterpreted some of your points in your last post.

On the issue of numeric superiority, yes, there is an internal numerical superiority to be considered as well, just as you stated. One thing that I think we both completly agree on (or everyone, for that matter) are that static defenses just don't cut it. Armor values don't even appoach being able to repel offense values of the same technology (usually a 2:1 ratio) until they are snugly in a base equipped with sensors, perimeter defense, and interceptors, all reqiring a great deal of resources. Fight offense with offense is the mantra of the active defense strategy, and that's really what I was trying to get at.
As to the real life issue of numeric superiority (3:1 ratio), well, one likes to think the military considers casualties in their equations, anyway
I still don't know what you mean by comming in "dumb." Certainly some invasion routes are better than others (the AI excells in teaching the player which ones NOT to take ) but it is truly very difficult for an agressor to get the jump on an organized defender. Typically, the defender should be able to spot an approaching enemy two turns before he attacks (excepting air units), unless the proximity of his bases makes this impossible, in which case the defender has (hopefully) adopted an agressor stance of his own.
On wave assaults, sorry if I misinterpreted you. My initial reaction was one of shock that a TI player would even suggest such an abomination
And on SMAC vs. life, I think you misinterpreted me here. My angle on this issue is that SMAC tactics are a watered down version of real life, with some unrealistic elements mixed in (probe teams).

jimmytrick: I beg to differ!

Shining1 and Stargazer: Shining1, I could not have said it better myself. I think you hit the builder/conqueror paradigm right on. I think you could combine this with my own; the adoption of one style over another is determined largely by your initial starting point, at least early in the game. It when you come to a crossroads that your personal preference takes over, which can be defined by the paradigm which you gave.

posted 07-23-99 10:24 AM ET            

Shining1: Excellent analysis. It matches my playstyles very well. When I build I am close to your 'builder' archetype, when I conquer I match the 'conquistador' archetype very well also. I will agree with others however that some people may not match the archetypes. I think most people will though.

Analyst: Restating your position again, quiaff? Not that I disagree mind you. I am afraid that you are correct and that is why I have betrayed my builder roots and generally gone conquest. Not that I don't like a good game of 'builder mental masturbation' every now and then. Actually since many people may not be familiar with your basic position perhaps restating it again was the right thing after all.

posted 07-23-99 11:50 AM ET            

Ow, you really scorched my fanny with that one.

Actually, it may surprise you that you and I both employ almost exactly the same build and military systems. I am a strong builder with a solid conquistador mean streak. However, I have test played the conquest strategy a number of times and I have to agree with warmongers like analyst and Darkstar that with only the rare exception will the conqueror strategy fail. In fact, I still hold out hope in MP that personal preferences and petty grievances hold a glimmer of hope in defeating this strategy.

Coming in dumb is the antithesis of coming in smart(IE, what the ai does). Coming in smart is the application of the principles of war using a balanced force, recon, interdiction, surprise, support and focus of attack. The wave assaults you discussed would certainly be considered coming in dumb. BTW, although a dumb tactic, I can personally attest to the effectiveness of wave assaults when executed properly. Just ask anyone who has come up against the OPFOR at Fort Irwin.

Analyst, what's the matter? Did you have an extra 4 minutes? I'll bet that's how long it took you to play speed SMAC.

Shining1 & Stargazer

Although I think Shiny is being quite general, I also think he is right on target. Any variance from his descriptions really boil down to semantics and personal preferences rather than creating any new chain of thought.

posted 07-23-99 12:37 PM ET            

Player2, here's how I do it:

Don't bother trying to optimize base spacing. Just move the colony pods three spaces and plop. Don't worry about base overlap, because your bases aren't getting bigger than 4-5 pop. Get the extra turns of production out of them.

Don't bother with optimizing research after you get the techs for Impact Rovers. A SE setting of 70-80% energy production after that is what I use. If/when I beg/trade/beat new techs out of other civs that give me access to Fundamentalism/Planned/Power I'll move to them.

Build extra scout rovers early (this is where it pays to be Santiago). Build more than you need to merely explore. Send some to pop pods and explore, but send the extras through fungus patches to kick up mindworms. Killing worms does two things for you: it increases the rovers' morale and it makes you money.

If you find an alien artifact (and most games you will), save it to complete your Impact Rover prototype. This is important, even if you are Sparta. You want to be first in the field with this toy.

In the game I just described, by 18 turns into the game I had five bases (my two original; two I built; one demanded from Dierdre lest I squash her like a bug), three scout rovers (my first one, plus one I built, plus a pod gift), 1 recon rover, 1 alien artifact, about 185 energy credits (mostly from dead worms) and all the techs I needed for Impact Rovers. On my nineteenth turn I used the artifact to build my prototype Impact Rover in a single turn (a veteran, due to prototyping--which got upgraded to commmando at the mono-mat) and on my 20th turn, I used 180 energy credits to upgrade the three scout rovers (which now had morales of 2 commando and 1 elite) into Impact Rovers. I also converted all of my bases to making new *Scout* Rovers.

So, it's 2120 and I have a pack of 4 high-morale Impact Rovers (3 commando; 1 elite) and my scouting activities have revealed the locations of Gaia's Landing and New Jerusalem. My Scout Rovers were laying in the fungus on the Believer border when they were upgraded and made a beeline for New Jerusalem. Three turns, and three sacked Believer bases later, Miriam surrendered. I gave her all my techs and immediately had her declare war on Dierdre. Five turns later, as soon as my Rovers could get there, Gaia's landing was Spartan territiory and Dierdre surrendered.

During this time, my five new Scout Rovers were done, sent through mono-mats, and had started kicking up worms to kill--rapidly refilling my energy banks along with Believer and Gaian booty. I started all of my bases on Impact Rovers after that.

After taking out Dierdre, I discovered that Yang and Morgan were just on the far side of her borders. I made peace with them and started massing Rovers in Gaia's Landing as a staging area. The staging and upgrading begins 2128. By 2133, I've massed 9 Impact Rovers in Gaia's landing (minimum morale=veteran, with many commandos and two elites), and Believer reinforcements are starting to show up, so I launch a new assault--splitting my assault force into two rover packs. By 2139, both Yang and Morgan have surrendered--just as my third traunch of Rovers are coming into play.

So it's 40 turns into the game and I've conquered four rivals (including both of the other militarists) and built up a force of a dozen or so high morale Impact Rovers, which have nothing better to do than look for new targets. Unit losses=zero (ain't it grand to be a Spartan?).

At this point, the game was already won. Years 2140-2173 were spent hunting the map for Lal and Zak, then bringing my rover force across the seas when I found them.

posted 07-23-99 05:36 PM ET         

Analyst's assertion that "If so-called builders are forced to insist on... protecting themselves in the early game with large distances" proves "the fundamental tilt of this game towards conquest strategy" is just silly. You might as well argue that inability of a conqueror to defeat everyone on a huge map proves a bias towards Builders.
I see no reason to prefer small maps to huge ones in single player. On the contrary, it seems to me that playing on a small map in single player is far more like "mental masturbation" than playing on a harder, larger map. The ONLY reason I play on a small map is to see how fast I can conquer the world.

In multiplayer, assuming of course that you can get it to work, smaller maps are the only realistic choice. But multiplayer by definition means playing against other humans, and there is nothing to stop them from using the same tactics. Impact rovers can be killed by recon rovers, if the recon rovers attack first.

So I don't know if the problem is quite as bad as Analyst paints it. But don't let me mislead anyone. Analyst's analysis is basically sound. I think a lot of the problem could be solved by eliminating the ability to upgrade units in the field. This is really bogus and really makes the conqueror strategy work.

posted 07-23-99 10:06 PM ET            

uncleroggy: player1 thought he could implement builder tactics by only using static defenses; he died REAL quick! I'm the wiser reincarnate of him
Actually, the forum crashed earlier this year, and my password got switched, so I had to create a new login.
I AM surprised that you've got some builder in you; (I guess there's hope for you afterall)

Analyst: That's very much like what I do when I'm in a really disagreeable position (disagreeable from a builder's standpoint, anyway) I space my cities out two spaces in moderately bad situations, and one if its REALLY bad. But I still never won that quick. Wow! Also, I think this has already been mentioned, but the Spartans make EXCELLENT builders too!

Marslow: keep in mind that alot of these discussions are angled toward MP theory. Large maps in multiplayer are pretty unlikely; Huge ones are out of the question entirely. Analyst's tactics are very sound for conqueroring on smaller maps which are to be found in most MP games. I can say from experience that I have used somewhat similar tactics with great success, so he's pretty much right on. A standard map in MP is reasonable, and is probably the smallest map that a builder can have a reasonable chance surviving in. Anything smaller, and the game turns into a rush-fest, as the chances of a player being geographically isolated are not good.

posted 07-23-99 10:20 PM ET         

As a strategist, I'd have to agree with Player2--the ratios seem to work. In fact, it my be 1 unit per 4 attacker. I say this because I, also, stress guerilla warfare where the odds are against me. It's also true that a builder, whether constantly at wartime or not, needs a lot of space (therefore huge maps). Yet, a builder does not need to be overtly efficient. I do extremely well with my forest (beginning to name my cities after Elven towns too ::grins: . I think many people still overlook the defensive benefits and production benefits of Forests (and Fungus). btw, Thanks Analyst. Forest are great.

posted 07-23-99 10:39 PM ET            

Huge maps are not harder to conquer. They are merely more boring and tedious to conquer. I assure you from personal experience that I can rover rush a standard-sized map. Typically, when rover rushing a standard map, the game will end at just about the time that Chaos/Air Power is being discovered. If the map is bigger than standard, I will be consolidating at that point, but the pause will be brief, only waiting to be able to build shard choppers--the ultimate in conquerer toys.

When you say that there is nothing to stop other humans from using that same strategy against me in multiplayer, you are doing nothing more or less than proving my point precisely. In multiplayer, if you build, I defeat you by rover rush. If you counter my rover rush with one of your own, I've forced you to meet me conquerer to conquerer as your only alternative to death. Either way, the point is that rover rushing is *the* sensible multiplayer SMAC strategy--just as chariot rushing was *the* sensible multiplayer CivI strategy.

Marslow, don't fall into the same trap that Dowdc did in the thread started by Shining1. This isn't about whether you could beat me or not. This is about whether if any decent player rover rushes you in multiplayer, do you have any choices other than (i) returning rush for rush; or (ii) dying? If not, then this is not a builder game. Period. If you think this argument "silly", then I suggest you spend some time reading up on the history of this argument in all of the older threads that Darkstar bubbled up.

posted 07-24-99 12:03 AM ET         

Saying that this is answering rush with rush is just wrong. Naturally a builder can't defeat a enemy rush with no military units whatsoever. No kidding? If I leave my cities undefended you can capture them? This is certainly a true observation but it doesn't seem to be a very brilliant discovery.

A builder must first see that his cities are defended adequately before he can begin building. This is just a basic neccessity of life in multiplayer. But once he has defeated the first rush and built up a force of two rovers per "frontline" base and one for all other bases, he can defeat all subsequent rushes while pursuing a build strategy.

I willingly admit, however, that the smaller the map the less ability for a builder to function. But small multiplayer games are a highly artificial constraint. Obviously such a constraint will favor some strategy or another. In multiplayer favoring a conqueror strategy is probably the only interesting way to go.

posted 07-24-99 02:22 AM ET            

Now In General...
Look, if you are depending on physical seperation and secrecy (Not being discovered until to set up your defenses are set up in MP), you are by your action acknowledging that survival is luck of placement, and the fact that another Player doesn't want to Conquer you... or they will.

Now, if you are better in your tactics than they at War, you MIGHT survive. But the longer you take to return the favor, the more tech the Would-Be Ceaser is accumulating... and eventually, they are going to be able to use some cheap trick to wipe your sorry Faction off of planet. Its a long wait between Planet Busters and Defense Pods... and with Drop Transports now able to carry units, new cheap tricks are possible. (I haven't tested this claim of Firaxis in version 4 yet, but even without it, there are LOTS of tricks availabe.) And Choppers are effective units in the most enept of players hands, unless you can get a LOT of defenses in place... then there is still always ways to get around anything...

If you have to build 2 simple defenders and 2 attackers and a reserve force per base to counter the ill equipped or ill used aggressor force, that is a LOT of wasted time and minerals. And you will have to continue to replace those units as they slowly get wasted in the give and take of the battle of Attrition. If you played with pods on, there will be a few monoliths lying around... adding rivers is just putting in roads for the attacker that will need bunkers to slow them down... and the whole time, you have to race the tree for Interceptors, AAA, and Defense Pods... Without AAA, you can't build those AAA/Aero complex to hope to survive aerial assaults... and without DP, their Planet Busters are going to REMOVE your cities and land and infrastructure (so you can't replenish or PB them back so easily)... with Interceptors, they'll beat the snot out of you, pure and simple. If they have to build sea colonies and drop formers to build airstrips as refueling points, they will.

I'm sorry, but if you are building up for a serious ACTIVE Reserve Force to throw around stomping out the fires of small invasions, you are just wasting time. And PRAYING that you get those critical techs first, aren't you? But wait... you use them, don't you? If you do, you really are a Conqueror, just you like to diddle around before you get to it. No problem, but don't presume that everyone else is dumber than you. We aren't presuming we are SMARTER than you... just not hung up on when to take your stuff from you. That, and we KNOW that you cannot hold out against a determined aggressor indefinately. They will win, or you will have to kill them and take their stuff. They aren't the Opp Engine, so they can fight you until you eliminate them... or shave them down so small and surround them like a mean Opp Eng Faction so they can't do anything, and you probe them into a vegatative state.

SMAC truly is a conquerfest. It will be a rare game in which the Builder will beat the Conqueror without being WAY ahead in everything, much smarter than the Conqueror, much Luckier, and probabaly WAY more experienced at SMAC than the Conqueror. How often is this going to happen? Seriously, in MP, how often is this going to happen? The more Conquer the Builder uses, the less extremes of each of the above are going to be needed, until its a straight Death Match between to SMAC Conquerors. And remember, the experienced Conquerors would rather go for maximum gains over time, meaning easier prey...

posted 07-24-99 11:09 AM ET            

"But multiplayer by definition means playing against other humans, and there is nothing to stop them from using the same tactics. Impact rovers can be killed by recon rovers, if the recon rovers attack first."--Marslow

Unless the recon rovers you need don't exist yet, of course. If we examine this Marslow rejoinder to my anecdote ("nothing can stop them from using the same tactics"), we can see that it is objectively, demonstrably wrong.

In the game I described, I had 4 high-morale Impact Rovers by 20 turns into the game. That's when I launched my assault against Miriam. All she had to defend with was Laser Infantry. Why? Because that's what the rules of the game limited her to using.

[Marlsow (and everyone else) stop and think a minute. What military assets do you normally have by MY 2120? That is *extremely* early in the game. If a human playing Sparta showed up as your neighbor an employed this strategy--rushing you with four high morale Impact Rovers just 20 turns into the game--could you possibly defeat it? As any faction? Using any strategy?]

Miriam can't do reserch for 10 game years. After that, her research is very slow. By MY 2120, Miriam can only reseach *one* tech. The AI went for Applied Physics and built a few Laser Infantry. The Laser Infantry never got off a shot against my Impact rovers. Would she have done any better reserching Doctrine Mobility first? Scout Rovers could have shot back (maybe), but I hardly think they'd have changed the outcome.

One could postulate that Miriam has a chance to get lucky and pop a pod with a good tech. Santiago, however, has many more chances to get lucky, because her first exploration unit is a rover and she can immediately build more. Santiago gets to all the pods in "disputed territory" first. Essentially, Miriam loses the game of pod lotto because she gets to buy fewer tickets.

If Miriam starts out as Santiago's neighbor, Miriam must lose by force to the Spartan Sweep, because Santiago can assemble a strike team of Impact Rovers while Miriam is still fiddling with Scout units. This will be true regardless of who is playing these two factions--just as long as the Spartan player goes for the sweep.

posted 07-24-99 01:21 PM ET            

without a doubt - THE MOST DIFFICULT SP game is - achieving earlier victory than any other HUMAN player on the same SP scenario.

This is human vs human - beat my score!

Make my day - try a SCENARIO CONTEST at:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/3802/

posted 07-24-99 03:19 PM ET            

Marslow is correct when he states that an active defense has a chance of defeating a numerically superior force under certain conditions. I stated that the number of forces required for a conqueror to have a chance at conqueroring an active defense are about 3 or 4 to 1 (depending on tech. diffs and morale). Its been argued that the employment of active defense forces the builder to adopt a "conqueror" style. This is partially true; resources that could have gone to base improvments are instead invested in military units. However, the RRFs only need one unit for every 3 or 4 attacking units to be successful (theoretically). The 2 or 3 unit difference then goes towards building "mental masturbation" improvments The question then arises; how does one know when his defense system is adequately large? An estimation based upon probe infiltration of nearby agressors would be absolutly necessary to have any idea, so this is one possible downside.

Analyst brings up another downside, however. The benefits of an active defense cannot be employed if it does not yet exist! This point shows that it is impossible for a builder to not adopt a conqueror style if he is geographically near a potential threat. He then MUST adopt a conqueror style UNTIL either he or his opponent is vanquished. Then, if there are no remaining nearby threats, he is free to choose if he wishes to continue conqueroring, or switch back to his builder preference.

posted 07-25-99 02:49 AM ET            

Now, Analyst... I might be able to stand up to your Early Spartan Rush with Hive. I've had the computer pull that on me with Missile rovers on turn 23, and all I had was Scouts and colony pod, per usual Yang in ICS mode. Depends on particulars, but I wouldn't want to try it against you... I'm sure you would delay and have swept around to the clear ground... But you never know who might have worst luck. Besides, if I lost, be that quicker to the next game for me.

In General...
The problem I see with having to build up such things as forest and fungus screens, bunkers, AWACS and Foil Guards... is that for a couple more turns of waiting, the pay off would be a full combat unit capable of handling watch/active reserve duty rather than these chassis only designs with Deep Radar. After all, the long term cost in a Builder game is the SUPPORT cost eaten by the unit, not the time to make it. When the game only last 150 turns, 20 turns to make something is a LONG time. When it lasts 200 to 300 turns (or longer?), 20 versus 25 turns isn't as big a slice... and allows the unit to fill double duty.

Of course, the Analyst preached speed build of minimal chassis time and rush upgrade is faster. But that depends on economy, which does often take a while to establish. And if you are in MP, you might want to save that money to prevent easy bribing. Or to allow you to bribe...

The other thing is that as I said before... several of the "Builders" think a Human Conqueror is going to be as bad at their job as the Opp Engine. Not a good presumption. How would YOU, Sir or Lady Builder, attack your position? Expect us to be as smart as you... With the Intel available in the game, they will know everything but where all your units are hiding in VERY short order. I know of at least two MP Conquestadors that won't wage war until they are elected Governor. Why? Intel on all enemies (all other factions)... Until then, they act like Builders...

Marslow isn't correct. SMAC breaks apart the Strength into Attack and Defense. This means 2 Impact Rovers ATTACKING a known stack with no armor rating is the superior force... until those 2 Impact Rovers have finished their turn, and its the survivors turn. An all Attack stack is asking for someone to swat it... it can't defend. So the quick answer is to split the stack, reducing overall loss per stack intercepted. At which point, you need a defender per local incoming stack. How many Attackers? How many Defenders? And if you are talking about any kind of sophisticated defense setup for the Builder, then you will PROBABLY be facing sophisticated ATTACK setup... the more sophisticated your Defense, the more sophisticated the Attack. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have lasted that long, or the Attacker is being a bit slow in reaching you due to delays such as extreme distance, discovering you, or chewing up and digesting someone else's empire.

But please. Don't insult our intelligence by making claims that only the Opp Engine would allow you to get away with. You might be able to do it once against a human, but they are going to adapt QUICKLY and change their invasion plans. That is the problem with setting back and just hitting the Invaders as they come in. Their Commander In Chief is going to try different things when the first time you swat them works. And now, Sir Builder, you are back to racing the Tech Tree against the tick tock of your determined enemy coming up with something you can't easily counter... due to tactics, sneakiness, or just plain numbers.

And we have already DISCUSSED whose side you are agreeing with for survivability if you think you have to swap to War and Conquest when faced with a determined aggressor.

posted 07-25-99 12:14 PM ET            

Has anyone picked apart the new patch yet? (intellectually speaking) I haven't tried some of the new features yet, but the drop transport fix looks like it may have alot of potential for both war and peace applications.

One problem I had with the earlier patches was that the game would crash if an interceptor tried to stop an attacking bomber. This no longer happens in the new version.

posted 07-25-99 04:00 PM ET         

Player 2,
Thanks for the support! However I should mention that I don't intend to defeat a "numerically superior force" by offensive defense. Rather I intend to BE the numerically superior force, at least at the time and place of decision. Interior lines are one of the benefits of the strategic defense (it does have a few benefits). While a Conqueror's forces are spread out due to the travel time to my territory, all my forces are available immediatly and can be shifted along my roads to the threatened point. I can't match Spartan morale, but I can certainly outmatch Spartan numbers.

Also I am completely unconvinced by this whole "you're not a builder if you can't build" argument and I don't think people who consider themselves Builders need be concerned with it. The argument seems to be that forcing me to delay my build strategy for thirty turns is tantamount to defeating me. This is not true. To defeat me you actually have to...well, defeat me. Annoying me by frustrating my plans to build early is not sufficient. It might a minor victory if it contributed to any larger strategy. But I don't see how the Spartans can benefit from forcing me to build a lot of units. And if they force me to build LOTS of units and forge an alliance with the Hive to destroy them, then forcing me to abandon my building program until AFTER the Spartans are dead will seem like a very hollow victory indeed. Of course, the Spartans really have no choice. The Roverun as expounded by Analyst is far and away their best strategy.

Analyst, Darkstar,

If you aren't interested in rehashing old arguments then why did you bring them up? I am, after all, just responding to YOUR recent posts. Maybe you have heard these arguments before and think you disposed of them, but sorry, this is the way the game works for me. Unless SMAC has changed radically in the last week I think my experience is still valid. And, if I may ask, how have the principles of Offensive Defense and strength of interior lines been "demonstrated unsound" in the past few months? By pure Aristotelean logic perhaps? By a process of peer review? Divine revelation? This strategy still works very well for me, despite your claimed 'demonstrations' to the contrary.

Now, responding to Analyst's very well stated strategic argument; Certainly four high morale impact rovers arriving in 2120 can ruin anyone's day. But what are the odds that it will be my day that they ruin? Only one in six. If it ISN'T me, then your destruction of the Believers (e.g.) benefits you, but it also benefits me. You have destroyed the Believers for me, while probably losing one of your precious impact rovers besides (human players are not as feckless as the AI).

But certainly you should be happier about it than me--- you get the spoils. Let's be generous and say that you capture two one-point cities from this victory. You now have four cities producing impact rovers in MY 2132, when you find your second target and start vectoring in your attack forces. Four cities producing impact rovers does provide a powerful military force. Very nice for you. But let's see what I'm doing.

Now if I had a choice I wouldn't want to be the second item on the Spartan menu, but let's assume that it's me you find in 2132. What should you expect?

a)If I'm playing the University--- by 2132 I have impact rover technology and am producing them as fast as I can. Your assault force is not really a threat to me unless I get careless---and I won't.

b) If I'm playing the PK's--- I'll have four cities but will probably be stuck with nothing more advanced than recon rovers (at best). But I will be producing units nearly twice as fast as you are, due to the PK's talent bonus and your lack of police units. By the time you reach me, in 2132, my defenses will be nearly complete. You can hurt me, but I don't think you can defeat me.

c)If I'm playing the Hive----well, then I'm playing the Hive. You're gonna need more than impact cannon to take my bases out.

d)If I'm the playing the Gaian's-----okay, I'm probably dead. It depends on how many mindworms I've captured. But mindworms vs Spartans is not a good match-up anyway.

e)If I'm playing Morgan---I will have used my money to build four or five cities, and be producing scouts as fast as I can. I will be vulnerable, certainly, but not defenseless. I will just have to put as many scouts in your way as I can until I develop recon rovers. Delaying and attrition tactics are the order of the day. If my money situation permits I will upgrade some of my better scouts to sentinals on a "just in time" basis. But I will probably lose some cities, maybe all of them. I still think I have a better than 50% chance of survival though.

But it is here that the strategy starts to run out of gas. The Spartans destroy one faction, possibly two. But they aren't going to defeat a third faction with impact rovers, or even chaos rovers. And the Spartans can't keep shuttling their rovers around the map either. They have to start worrying that somebody else might do to them what they did to others. The Hive and the University are pretty good conqueror factions too, not to mention Gaians with Mindworms.

Certainly the Roverun is a powerful strategy. And it does force all other players on a small map to prepare for it. But so what? You SHOULD have to respond to the potential actions of other players. That's what interactive gameplay is about.

Is the Roverun unbalanced? On the smaller maps, yes, a little. Analyst then asks why this imbalance isn't comparable to the Mindworm Trawling problem. Well, it is. But the Mindworm problem had a fairly easy solution. But how do you maintain the play balance of all SMAC strategies on greatly different map sizes? It's impossible. Reducing the map area of a world by 75% IS going to affect strategy. There is just no way to avoid it. Players will just have to adapt to it, by building more units or by forming alliances early.

posted 07-25-99 06:51 PM ET            

which i thinks proves another valid point about the spartans. they are the second best research faction. they are also the faction best suited to using free market because of their +1 police. the spartans really don't have a true weakness, just a minor set back. all builders know that you need energy to build. all researchers know you need energy to research. all great players know you need pop booms to run up the score. miriam can't research. yang doesn't get money quickly enough. lal doesn't have good enough efficency to change his econ/labs setting much. morgan can't pop boom. diedra can't use free market. zak has drone problems. and all santiago has to worry about is her troops cost 10% more...but with the CN and CF she can make units that come out of the box elite...or +50% in combat. or even without them she can make a base with a command center and a bioenhancement center and get elite units that way. or build a unit with a command center and then hit a monolith and you got a commando.

even in multiplayer i don't kill the computer factions i make them surrender. once they surrender you can get them to vote for you for govenor you get commerce and you can direct their research. the only problem in multi player is a bug. you can't station your probe teams in enemy bases, if you try to peacefully enter a pact brothers base (AI pact brother i don't know about human pact brother cuz i've never had one) then your probe team is destroyed so you can't protect your pact brothers from enemy probe teams. also in multi-player besides keeping your enemy from infiltrating your data links not only is the planetary govenorship of the utmost importance, but the empath guild suddenly becomes one of the top five SP (cloning vats...hunter seeker algorithm...empath guild...space elevator...command nexus) becuase it gives you infiltration and it gives you more votes for govenor two things you want.

if you don't win by an early rover rush then it's going to becom a cold war until missles and choppers are introduced...then things will get hot and people will die.

posted 07-25-99 07:00 PM ET            

Shame on you for calling me a conqueror. I'm a builder! So does that mean I can play on the builder side? Or will you think I'm a probe team for the conquerors?

BTW, I just happen to be the strange combination of a builder who likes to play the Spartans. I personally find this to be the most effective "builder" faction because there really aren't any significant penalties and you get that damned dune buggy early in the game to bust pods and find out what everyone's up to. BTW, I also play them more green than DEEDRUH.

In addition, I'm also a realist and realize that building will only last for so long as the conquerors have pointed out.

Player2

Almost immediately folowing the release of the game I had the same observation as you now have regarding the ability to wreak havok on the attacking a/i. I have specifically kept quiet on this issue because my discussions with BR confirmed this catastrophic flaw and the likelihood that public knowledge of this flaw would take a lot of the enjoyment out of the SP game. However, given that we have seen the last patch and this flaw has not been corrected, we might as well discuss it now as it is at the heart of this SP/MP discussion.

What you are experiencing is disruption of Brian's "gather-then-attack" algorithm. Although he did not reveal all of the details, he did confirm for me that this causes irreparable harm to the a/i's capabilities. Funny though, The GTA algorithm was originally conceived to give the ai a chance in combat.

Simply put, here's what happens. The ai designates points on the map(bases?) to send units in order to build an attack force. A counter is set at the target point for the requisite number of units and cities are designated to pump out the units. Pretty simple and straight forward. Right?

Wrong. The problem is that the ai just sits back and waits for the units to show up. Therefore, if you are smart enough to shoot up the units en route, the ai will never hit the set point and all of those cities will continue to churn out cannon fodder for your needlejets(you're using needlejets, right?). That's why you'll see the same units come down the same route to be shot up in the same way.

Unfortunately, the ai has no means to counter this effect. As a result, the ai loses it's ability to "think" as so many resources are wasted.

The following are the reasons I gave BR as to why this is so easy to do.

1) The scale of the game is too small. Needlejets and copters have very high movement in relation to the overall map size. Therefore, a player who looks outside his borders can see the units as they come.

2) The ai places the target points too close to the frontier.

3) The ai makes horrible use of airpower.

4) The ai is too slow in building airpower.

5) The overwhelming effect of airpower in the game. Specifically, range & multiple attacks for copters and the disparity of attack/defense factors. Even AAA units are dead in the open.

Consequently, my advice to you is please do not mistake a horrible ai flaw as a superior battle strategy as humans are not so inflexible. Analyst and the other conquerors will not come in blind and dumb. In fact, they'll try to win the air war first to take your eyes away from you. Now, if we can get the ai to do that then this might be a better game.

posted 07-25-99 09:24 PM ET         

As far as I know the only way an impact rover can attack one of my bases is for it to first move within one or two hexes of it. I'll see this unless they do it in fungus. But I'm not stupid either. I build a lot of scouts and use them to patrol. And while they are playing around in the xenofungus for a few turns I've built another couple of defenders.

A conqueror might also try a feint, pulling my defenders to one side of my empire while attacking from the other. But this too would take several turns, at least. During which my defenses improve.

posted 07-25-99 11:10 PM ET            

And, Marslow, if BR himself would have been at the helm of the Believers in that game I just described, he'd have gone down in flames. You can't kill what you can't hit--and if you don't have rover chassis, you can't hit back at a pack of rovers. A human can direct battles better than the AI, but he can't change the laws of physics. If the Believers start next to the Spartans, that's a forced loss, based on the rules of the game. *Zero* casualties for Spartan forces, unless directed by a complete nincompoop (or SMAC's AI).

Marslow, the hardest part about carrying on this conversation with you is that you don't know what you don't know. You think that by 2132 the PK can be turning out assets at double the rate of the Spartans? Show me the math that justifies that statement. You persist in arguing that a defender can defeat an attacker with equal or even inferior tech, regardless of the attacker's initiative? I can't believe you ever actually accomplished such a feat against a competent human foe. I know that no one has ever accomplished it against me. You think that you can win against the Spartan Sweep as Morgan by means of attrition strategy? *Attackers* win wars of attrition. Not defenders. That's not even an argument. You think that UofP can beat back the Sweep merely because they can achieve tech parity--even though they are hamstrung by their drones and stuck with troops multiple morale grades lower on average? By what calculus do you regard a cumulative penalty of 25-50% worse odds in every battle (morale differential both advantages the attacker and penalizes the defender) an insignificant factor?

posted 07-26-99 12:29 AM ET            

uncleroggy: On the contrary, I find the Spartans to be the best MP builder faction! I also think they're the best MP conqueror faction. As builders, they have no negative social aspects. Their extra police softens the effects of a free market economy, and their morale makes a great companion to the active defense strategy. I'm not even going to insult your intelligence and explain to you why they make good conquerors The real kicker is that they can switch between the two playstyles at will, with no penalties! And as if that wasn't enough, they get free prototypes and a pod popper. If we ever get together for a MP game, sign me up for the Spartans!

As Analyst mentioned, alot of AI discussions were made in earlier TI threads, many concentrating on the military assault aspect. The only other AI issue of signifigance that we touched upon was the inefficiency of the AI formers and governors. Your revelation of the AI's functionality seems to fit our assumptions pretty well. To Firaxis defense (and again this has all been said before), creating an AI is probably the hardest possible thing to endeavor in programming. Still, I would hope to see some kind of fix for this in the future, but formulating a logical algorithm for a human-like attack would be very daunting. I think an element could be added to implement an "active defense" strategy for builder AIs. This kind of defense can be calculated based on base placement and on infiltrator data on opposing factions. The active defense is a very mathematical and predictable military tactic (thus well suited for an AI task). An offensive strategy, however, must take into account a much larger portion of the map, and thus requires the kind of abstract logic that only a human is capable of. Programming an AI to mimic this would be akin to programming "Deep Blue" (another old TI topic). Check out the old threads if other AI topics interest you.

Analyst: That is very odd that the new patch is giving you so many problems. On the other hand, it seems like every new patch solves some old problems and introduces new ones at the same time After I got the first or second patch, the game would crash whenever an interceptor would try to scramble. This new patch fixed the problem. One thing I noticed is that saved games take longer to load, so something weird is going on.

posted 07-26-99 01:04 AM ET            

UH, didn't we just say the same thing about the Spartans? I'm confused. I like them not only because they fit my personal style best, but also because they are the only faction that allows for successful use of both strategies(IMHO). I have also found that they are particularly effective when used in a way that is agreeable to planet.

Analyst,

That's why I have always said my dog is smarter than the AI. At least he learns from his mistakes. Well, at least he doesn't pee on the floor anymore.

posted 07-26-99 02:24 AM ET            

Look. We were "debating" the superiority of survivability in MP games. Builder or Conqueror. Everyone pretty much went, "Welp, when eyes meets a Conqueror that wants whats mine, Eyes have to swap to Conqueror and beats their butt. Or loose." That means that survivability in MP depends on Conquering. Not Building. Not Transcending. Not Economic Victory. Conquering.

You are either so stupid it takes all your brainpower to log in and type, or purposely acting it. Which is it? My bet is you are just too arrogant from beating the snot out of the Computer (and your little 10 year old brother/sister) that you think you are God's Gift to the Gaming World. Newsflash... you aren't it. I'm not either, so don't feel bad.

You make a lot of claims. But they are all based on your belief that you think you can face a determined aggressor who wants to do nothing but add your empire to theirs, and hold them off indefinately. If you aren't focusing every scrap of your resources on defending yourself and waging war on the aggressor, then you will most likely fall. You don't have to be brilliant to be a good Conqueror, but you do need to be brilliant if you are going to beat one doing that. And lucky.

Tilt the playing field as hard as possible to Build as you can in SMAC (ie Huge maps), and you know what happens? SMAC goes off the edge back to Conqueror. Huge maps can only truly be utilized by the Conqueror. If you take it all, the outlying cities (20 tiles+) ineffeciency prevents ANY Faction from building a per city energy sufficent city like your core. But a Conqueror can turn those outlying cities into more camps for making Military. Command Nexus, Cyborg Factory, the Maritime Project... that's the big military uppers there. And all the support they need. Do you think you can hold off the military might of 50 cities with 20? 80 cities with 25? As a Builder, your empire size is limited in its effectiveness. That is NOT true for the gluttonous Conquestador.

Then, there is always the Wolf Pact tactic... that is the one in which a Conqueror allows the surrendered Faction to live. Now, the Conqueror is getting the Builder bene of pact trade... Just as many Builders have mentioned they do on Large and Huge maps.

There are many flavors to the Conqueror strategy trees. Just as their can be many Building flavors. But you aren't going to fly claiming you will survive one and all with your killer Builder strategy, General tactics, and overall super-brains. That is neglecting basic facts of War, Tactics, and Luck. You might be a hellava General, but no person always wins. There are ways to weigh things in ones favor in SMAC MP, and that happens to be Conquest, not [over] Building.

posted 07-26-99 05:37 AM ET         

I think the Spartans are excellent as defenders. I can have 25 units on the field and not have to worry about proto-types--go into the workshop. . .and upgrade. Since I buy most of my buildings after a few productive turns, the -infrastructure is just a shrug. Getting Mobility early on means I don't have to build infantry units to defend--Which can not be over stressed.

On the other Hand: Until an attacker gets the Hovertank Chassis (or send helicopters/air units), the attacker is still prone to fighting on my turf. Meaning--All Forest, there goes your mobility. Fungus--hidden sensors, units, bases.

The Rushing debate often reminds me of the debate about "Monster Races" (in Stars!)--that is, because of the ability to design your own race in this sci-fi 4x game you can make a race that builds/researchs/expands so fast that the race'll be making 30k in resources (per turn) by 50 turns (equivalent of me saying I can get 1 tech, 500+ credits per turn--after 30 or so turns). The counter to that is destroying the race before he/she/it ::Cackles:: gains momentum.

Builder factions will lose if they become static. COnqueror races will lose if they do not expand by conqueroring (in essence, they become a builder). Obviously, anyone can and will lose if they become remotely static.

I did not see anyone cover this or the last 2, 3 TI threads but as a builder tried attacking the source of the invasions? Instead of just repelling it? Logically, when someone attacks me--I brush it off for a few turns until I can find and attack the source of units coming at me--ie the cities. This is usually when I employ my "attack and sack" tactics (as in burn the city down right after I take it over). Spartans are particular good at this because I can upgrade my "hidden units" on the field without prototype penalities (b/c of combined arms). Trust me. If 1 or 2 of your cities are remotely near water or near where my reserve force, I can take your poor defendly Conqueror city, sell, burn before my turn ends. Scrap 1 of your bases, maybe 2, or 3. Sometimes this works, usually it does. Like most strategy games--mapping and knowing where your opponent is is paramount to winning.

posted 07-26-99 10:32 AM ET            

A long time ago, Uncleroggy's contribution to the "Constructive Criticism" thread was that the AI's pursuit of warfare could possibly be improved by shifting the way it calculates warfare from a static model to a dynamic one. I recall the argument being very compelling. IIRC, none of the programmers ever really addressed whether this would be harder to code, or merely required thinking up a different set of instructions, based on a different set of premises. I'd like to invite the programmers present to go back to that thread and review Uncle's comments on dynamic v static, then speculate on whether the dynamic model is a definable task or an impossibly abstract one.

posted 07-26-99 11:19 AM ET            

Actually, I play the Spartans almost exclusively and have little trouble generating energy. Most of the time I don't even trade, except that the Gaians want to be Pact Sisters since I am good to planet. Perhaps you like to rush buy a lot? I don't, except the occasional SP like the HSA.

Some quick suggestions. First, build the energy producing improvements first. Second, build lots of forest and the tree farm/hybrid forest type improvements. I can usually get 2-3 energy per tile this way. Add in a few boreholes and I've usually got 30-50K energy credits sitting around for bribes and council votes.

Analyst,

Wow, you must have had to beat the dust off of that old post. I'm even surprised anyone read it as no one gave it a response back then.

posted 07-26-99 02:19 PM ET            

Spartans are great for first turn rush, but I frequently do the same with The Hive. Its a great Faction for ICSing and Turn 1 rush against close neighbors. After that, the Blue Bear is generally turning into Big Blue Brother, and the game is locked in SP. Its just getting seriously interesting in MP.

Problem is the Turn 1 rush works a lot better against the Opp Engine than it should... its got a bad habit of EVACUATING its defenders from its only base of two. Said when the choice should be active defense (whap that scout/dune buggy). The Opp Eng can do minor active defense. But its so poor at figuring when to send out a unit to swat you, and doesn't have the Mean Rover attitude down... of swinging to best terrain and hitting, or just moving out and hitting with them. It will often leave those units in the field doing what they had been previously, rather than swing around and intercept an known Aggressor column inbound.

Active Evaluation and RE-evaluation of the situation would make the Opp Eng play better, but let in long delays between User turns as everything has to be rechecked and if necessary, re-designated for its target action. Just like we users/players do. The danger is the amount of infinite loops available that would have to be shaken out... the formers and scout rovers already go in circles... think about ALL the the Opp Engine's pieces going in circles...

It sounds to me like StargazerBC is saying that only 1 city in 5 is Core. The rest are still busy in the early self support cycle, so their loss is really that of a colony pod and time. That wouldn't hurt a long term builder much in the short term... just delay them.

Stargazer, my point is that you have to eliminate those anthills that keep spilling forth those aggressive units. Otherwise, they keep coming... and their general will get smarter about sending them and using them. That is why using one's defense force units only as Black Flag units (swatting those pesky invaders) doesn't hold a lot of respect for me. The aggressor will most likely be containing you as he continues to expand, even if he can't take you out easily. Its that Initiative matter again. By making you keep your forces close to home to defend, he's limited your options, while retaining his. And the more forces he focuses on you in spats, the more likely you are to over-react and go full turtle (ultra cautious and slow) or something... gaining him quite a lot for being a pest. Initiative is a very big deal... its always better to be the attacker, since you know where you are going and what you are after. The defender has to guess, and to succesfully defend, need a lot of resources doing nothing but that... whether its active patrols along the border, building bunkers and stacking a bunch of rovers in it, or whatever.

Aside from blood pressure and hurt feelings, there isn't any real downside for being Aggressive and a Conquestador in SMAC. But there is a down side for being a Builder when a Conquestador is active. The Conqueror's time frame for action is much shorter than that of the Builder.

And what seems to be a critical element of the jigsaw puzzle that is overlooked is Inertia. The Builder strategy seems to revolve around getting a warning that they are about to come into conflict, and being given enough time to change over their empire to a war footing. I don't have any faith in that (obviously ). And apparently, many of you don't either. Its why you start going for Impact Rovers from turn 1... then swap to peaceful pursuits. You know you can't change your empire's inertia if you go down the Builder path and encounter a LOUSY aggressor like the Opp Engine, just a few tiles out. No, if the Opp Engine is a threat due to its aggressive nature when its a moron, then Building is designed to be something you do between wars, when you are looking for a new target...

posted 07-26-99 09:14 PM ET         

hidden sensors--35%+

cities--15%+

patrol units-30%+ (probably increases faster as the empire increases)

Remaining 10-20%--the Variable (esp. if you're playing w/ Pods ::shudders:

Now, the odd thing is--Once I shoot up a Hydroponics Pod into the Sky, I'll be able to see the entire map. I'll know the exact formation of your units, where your units are, where your cities are, where to drop my missles (PB's aren't allowed in my MP games :-( ). Likewise, I'll do my best and utmost to keep my empire hidden as long as possible. It's that certain about of stealth which increases the surviviability of my empire (same as for the attacker too). And, once I get certain SP's (Empath guild = Planetary Governor, etc.) I'll get more information. A few games, I was found relatively easily (right SMAC half a screen, 3 turns away--Doom's Day) which I blame on the AI for badly generating my random start position (on a huge map no less!!).

posted 07-26-99 10:27 PM ET            

Uncleroggy: My Spartan playstyle sounds the same, except I use Free Market rather than Green while building. That extra energy in every square is just too good to pass up, and the Spartan's extra police dilutes the negative effects of Free Market. Other than that, we're in total agreement.

Analyst: I had to go over that old "Constructive Criticizm" thread again; man that was a long time ago! In regards to programming an AI for a dynamic environment, I can think of better ways of spending several decades of my life Yes, creating a truly intelligent AI for a dynamic environment would be tantamount to creating another "Deep Blue," as I said so long ago. And even Deep Blue, in all its glory, was only meant to play in a static environment. Deep blue didn't have to worry about white squares spontaneously turning black, or a sudden increase in board size. SMAC's AI has to deal with precisely that; rising and falling waterlevels, sudden fungus growths, having their units intercepted before reaching their rally point, etc.
In an attempt to preserve their sanity, Firaxis seems to have implemented numerous static environment algorithms to solve certain tactical problems. Everything works okay, so long as nothing unexpected happens. This is why the AI gets "scared stupid" when you take ten cities in one turn. Many people have observed AI units acting strangely after a swarm attack; things like units ignoring vulnerable player units, flying around in circles, etc. The reason is that the environment has changed so drastically so quickly, that the AI literally doesn't know what to do with itself. Its static environment algorithims can't handle the sudden change. The only real solution to this would be for the AI to reevaluate its entire strategy after every turn, but this would only be a half-a$$ed solution, as a dynamic environment really needs some kind of abstract logic which currently only humans are capable of. In short, Firaxis practically needs a Turing machine to handle SMACs environment properly.

In regards to preferred multiplay factions, Spartans get props for being socially multi-talented. The rest can be ranked categorically by playstyle, although most can be played "builder" or "conqueror" to some effect, except the Hive. So here's my multiplay wish list:

Builder: Spartan, Peacekeeper, Morgan, Gaian
Conquer: Spartan, Hive, Miriam, Gaian

I have yet to try Miriam as a builder, though. I know it sounds insane to even contimplate that, but I thought the same thing about the Spartans before I tried them. It may turn out that base improvments dilute Miriam's research penalty to the point of being insignifigant later in the game, and her 25% offense bonus could be used to great effect in RRFs. Add to that the added support and invulnerability to mind probes and she doesn't sound half bad.

Darkstar: Certainly the builder early warning strategy I outlined isn't perfect, but I think it could be better than you give it credit for. Basically, when I try to formulate a new builder strategy, I put myself in the conqueror's shoes and ask "what would I NOT want the defender to do?" The first answers were; 1) spot me before I get to my intended target 2) exploit my lack of air support (if I have none) 3) attack my unarmoured rovers with air and ground units before they reach their target. I then try to figure out how the builder can fufill these unfavorable situations. And then I repeat the whole process. I haven't found a solution for defeating the defender's air recon element; if they return to base every turn, the only way to remove the asset is to attack the city. But to attack the city, you have to get through the recon. As for the RRFs, the agressor can simply bring more units, and add armor as well, thus increasing his costs relative to that of the defender and making invasion a real pain. Its not perfect, but the whole idea behind the continiously evolving builder strat. is to make life as miserable as possible for the agressor.

StargazerBC: I also use a web expansion pattern for city founding. I try to expand omnidirectionally, until I come to a natural barrier or another faction. If I come in contact with another faction, I bias expansion in the direction of that faction to seize as much disputed land as possible. Outer cities produce new colony pods, a former, and a garrison; inner cities improvments, and RRFs later on.
And in regards to the Spartans, if you use Free Market with city improvments, I guarantee you will have no money problems. They're as good a energy producer as anyone else.

posted 07-27-99 12:28 AM ET         

I don't have a core in my nation. Each city can and will defend itself. When I have a city building SP's that give free buildings I still build'em in my cities (ie, naval yard, perimeter defense, etc.). If someone attempts to take over my HQ or a city with good SP's, I burn the city to the ground--usually. If PB's are allowed and someone took over a city with a lot of SP's--I'd just Nuke it. In the MP games I play, there is a lot of back and forth (because of lousy no good preset limits). That's another reason why Forest are good. They slow down the attack to give me time to sell and set up and ambush. Trust me, it sounds silly. . .to destroy my own cities that have SP's--just think of the Gawks I still get. One thing that repeatedly and repeatedly happens, someone takes over a nice city, puts a bunch of units in to set up a defense--and more often than not, the person lapses and I do something sneaky. Lower the land to destroy the units, probe, destroying the forest to reveal the red, crappy, land they have ::chuckles:: That is actually harder to do but a lot of fun.

One time, I even started terraform and building Elcheon Mirrors and Boreholes around an enemy city. Then I watched the hores of demon boil mindworms wander about. hehehe.

posted 07-27-99 01:15 AM ET            

When you orbit the first satellite, you only see the map, and the city layout. You don't get units. Thank goodness... or the game would take forever, waiting on them to move.

Tricks are, people, that many of my games don't last long enough to get Air Power. Not on Standard maps. But on Huge maps, I generally make AP. And sometimes Chaos and Choppers. But not by too much... How many toys are we missing from your tech tree?

I can't imagine most Conquerors would try and totally surround you, but have a similar effect in wanting to hit a human from multiple directions to stress your responsive defenders.

Air Recon that only flys half out and back mean you are limited to 6 range, with Fusion. Else 5 with Fission, for Jets. Hate to face Spartan Elite Rovers... that's 3 squares base, and any rivers would be roads of trouble. Nice thing is they would naturally attract the aggressor and make it easy to find. Choppers would be 4 and 5 air move... Not bad, but since I frequently do the same to watch borders I don't want to move yet, there are ways around things... And that means that air unit will pop up as a defender on an mass bombing of its base. Once you are down to planes holding the base, send in the spare Interceptors...

Not that I am trying to pisha on Responsive Defending (its the only way that works in SMAC for keeping an aggressor from reaching your cities to trash them), but the concept of sitting back and trying to out-build a determined human aggressor in SMAC doesn't sound like a formula for surviving. You got to nail those sources of units to make them stop... or PB them.

I can't imagine that PB would not be permitted in MP. What would be the fun of that? Fear of a total wipe-out might hold my meager arsenal back, but its so much FUN to Buster a human, how can you resist? Other than wanting to crush them under your army, of course.

I don't know... it still bothers me that I can be 2 to 3 tech levels ahead in everything, yet the Comp players still have a good chance of taking my base unless I stomp it in the field. Something seems very off in the game play to this Darkside Builder (SMAC Conqueror).

Well, I'll hope my next opponents are not as smart as those here... make it a long road to Victory.

posted 07-27-99 02:20 AM ET         

Sometimes, by the time the City is under attack I would actually build colony pods to evaculate the city. And thus pawn more cities (only when I have the Planetary Transit) closely packed together (increase inefficiency--lack of squares to develop). If the opponent takes these cities, they've just made the fatal flaw of moving their "nation" extremely near my turf. I'd steal their tech, money, esp. datalinks before ram-sacking that entire area with formers, rovers, jets (thus setting them to the defensive). I have to admit, this is a bit tricky to manuveur. A few times my opponents were able to develop the remaining cities enough to start cranking out units--I had to defend my formers as they leveled the land. Lost of 12 units to take down 3 cities is highly inefficient to me. Most of the time I get foil relatively quick--I start cranking these out and target port cities . That's a nice part about being a builder, easier time to research--If I was too behind in research I'd most definitely lose.

posted 07-27-99 03:41 AM ET            

But I'm still not convinced that a Builder has no chance to win a multiplayer game. Given an even distribution of conquerers/builders, I think the builders have a pretty good chance of success. So, the first builder gets stomped into the dust. Unless he switches strategies. But what about the 2nd and 3rd builders? Will they fall just as easy?

Something tells me no. There is a certain advantage to Building. Even Darkstar has admitted this before--the only question is, will they get enough time to build to the point where they have left the conquerers in the dust? I don't know the answer to this question. I've never seen a MP game that has consisted of 3 builders, 3 conquerers, and 1 undecided, all of about equal skill. I'd love to see that happen.

What I think would happen, and why I think the builders have a chance, is the random starting positions. This goes back to my confusing arguement from before. If a conquerer meets a builder, yes that builder dies, but hopefully he'll switch to a conquerer stance before he does. This will let him last a little longer and slow the conquerer down just a little more. And the conquerer really doesn't gain much for his effort (as long as spoils of war are off!)--he'll wind up with a few cities that he could have built himself in a quicker time. 2-3 impact rovers may take a city, but they will reduce that cities pop, destroy it's buildings, and this is about the cost of a colony pod anyway...

The builder, on the other hand, gains so much from contact with another builder. Every tech is doubled through trade, and the rate of tech progress increases yet again due to pact money. The conquerer gets none of this, if he chooses to immediatedly rush.

And when a conquerer meets a conquerer (say if they are on a mid-sized continent together), they both lose. If they both choose to rush the first faction they come upon, occasionally they will rush another conquerer. They might not even know at first if the other is a conquerer or not, until their respective rover armies are breathing down each other's neck! Then what do you do?
Say "I'm sorry for taking your city, lets go after those weak factions instead?" Somehow I don't think this would fly. The conquerers would end up eliminating themselves from the game--one would win, eventually, yes, but it would have given the builders TIME.

When builders meet, they have a party at the conquerer's expense. When conquerers meet, they have a party at the conquerer's expense. I know that conquerers are MUCH more powererful one-on-one against builders, but builders have advantages, too. These advantages will be enough, in my opinion, to let them win about every other game.

posted 07-27-99 04:37 AM ET         

I was allied with another builder.

I didn't care about destroying cities/arocities/eco-damage (I'm going to die anyway right?).

Reshuffled support, sacked my own cities so the attacker won't be able to take them over. So literally I had 4 cities left--My HQ, 3 other cities with about max of 16.

I converted all research to money. Got as many units as possible. did two feints (1 was a decoy) 2 of my 3 forces were able to enter the opposing nation and sack 7 cities! Boom! about 17 enemy units lost on the map. (all the while I already lost 2 and down to 2). I was able to build a few colony pods and relocated (thus stalling even longer).

I lost my entire reliation force. But the opponent lost half of his nation and military, and was attempting to repell the third player's attack. Consequently, It was a Pact'ed victory. But still one nontheless?

Unfortunately, when I tried this a third game, only 1 force was able to by pass the enemy (didn't have any stealth ability-fungus, submarine, etc.) and lost.

posted 07-27-99 09:48 AM ET            

Scorched earth: This is a strategy I rarely see used by humans, but it is effective. Apart from depriving your enemy of his captured resources (a *very* important element in battling conquerers), it uses geography favorably by setting up a wide "dead zone" between you and your enemy. If you patrol this zone and all subsequent battles take place in the killing fields rather than at your city walls (er, perimeter defenses), then you will gain the time the builder needs to prevail. I think most TBS players don't employ scorched earth because they are just a bit too emotional about how they play the game.

Map Seeding: StargazerBC mentioned being "unluckily" seeded right next door to other factions on huge maps. We discussed this one a while back. Many people shared the observation that the SMAC start position seeder tends to cluster start positions into groups, rather than spreading them out--regardless of map size. I don't think it's luck, but a design "feature" that encourages early conflict. Just another game feature that favors the conquerer.

Dowdc: You need to go back to the "Venting" thread and read my post on triangulation strategy. You obviously did not, since your supposition regarding what happens in a multiplayer game when conquerer meets conquerer still does not address the reality of my experience at top levels of play. In short, your suppostion is wrong. Two good conquerers will not go after each other. They will join forces in the triangulation strategy I descibed. That is my actual experience.

My multiplayer experience with CivII is that any two conquerers employing triangulation strategy will sweep any map up to standard size inside of 100 turns. Keep in mind that it is *harder* to sweep in CivII than in SMAC because CivII's sweep phase starts later and good sweep defenses become available earlier in CivII than in SMAC. What happens after two conquerers sweep the map via triangulation is generally the most interesting phase of the game. I call it the "Khe Sahn" phase--after the famous Vietnam siege of a US Marine base.

posted 07-27-99 11:48 AM ET            

Dynamic v Static: I was serendipitously reminded of what the primary argument is against a dynamic analysis model for AI. It's not that it is more difficult to program (or so at least some programmers argued in a different--but similar--context). In fact, there is even an opportunity to make coding the dynamic rules more elegant, as it were. The problem is that a dynamic analysis must be global and must occur every turn. Required calculations for dynamic analysis would increase exponentially as more economic and military assets are added to the game. It's processing power, not programming skill, that is the current limiting factor.

So you revert to "hard coding" one-size-fits-all strategies into the Opp. Eng., making it the AnotI, executing the same strategies over and over again. You give it a limited amount of choices, based on selected data sets to review and you hope that what it is doing is not too transparent. This (I was told) will be the way that TBS/RTS game AIs are constructed until we get through at least another 4-5 generations of processors.

posted 07-27-99 12:51 PM ET            

i have one question to ask of the builders. how do you propose to win the game?

is your strategy to make sure all of your core citys have every piece of infrastructure available then you are going to build a 24-12-3(4) drop/blink taskforce to eliminate the other players in on turn? if that is your plan for winning then it seems like you should adopt a easier to implement strategy of the impact rover rush. if that is the plan then you are just conquerers. but you are builders right? not conquerers. so how are you going to achieve a non-conquest victory. you have two options. one is to transcend. one is to win an economic victory. are you builders planning on winning by a transcend or economic victory in a multi-player game? (being elected supreme leader doesn't count cause the conquerers will always defy you)

if SMAC is balanced between building and conquerering then it should not be impossible to win a transcend or economic victory in multiplayer game. even if there are seven humans in this game. does anyone see this as feasable? if so tell me how you are going to win by either of these two non-conquest voictories. i wanna heard the strategies.

yes rapid responce forces are a good idea for a builder. and so are dead zones and killing fields. but they are just tactics on how not to lose. i wanna hear tactics on how to win. there is a difference. a builders problem is to win you have to do one of three things. kill the conquerers cities. have enough money to buy all the cities on the map while defending their HQ. have enough production, money to build the AoT before you are nuked, or some other faction builds the AoT. that's how a builder is going to win. so in a multiplayer game can the builder win without conquering?

korn469

posted 07-27-99 02:23 PM ET            

Stop refering me back to previous threads--I'm getting a little tired of it. I've read everything, ok? Including your argument about "triangulation." I just disagree that it would actually occur in the majority of games. Admittedly, you have had experiences where it has occured, and I believe you, but I think this isn't in the conquerer's best interests all the time.

If you had the opportunity to jump another conquerer before he really geared up for war (say you met the Believers before they got lasers/mobility), can you honestly say you wouldn't take it? It is certainly in your best interests. You'd be looking at your primary rival of the future, but weak and pathetic. Why wouldn't you kill him? I'm sure such a great strategist as yourself could kill the 3-4 builders that remain easily. Why do you need the Believers help?

And what if you two were on an island by yourself? Both of you gear up your 4 impact rovers by turn 20, then just sit there? Wouldn't it be a waste of time (a conquerer's most precious resource) to wait to build boats? And then the 3rd guy you meet might be a conquerer! Do you still wait then? Do you think the other two will just wait? You're not making sense, Analyst.

And then there's the arguement: how do you know they are conquerers? If you came breathing down my neck, can I just say "Don't attack me, I'm a conquerer too?" and then would you not attack me? At the very least I could get another 10-15 turns of preparation in before you realized what was up. Then, who knows, I might actually be able to defend.

posted 07-27-99 02:55 PM ET            

SMAC does NOT favor the conquer strategy over the build strategy as a general rule. Rather, it favors whichever strategy is present in greater numbers at any one time.

For example: A lone builder surrounded by 6 conquerers is certainly screwed. He has no chance to win the game with a build strategy, and must switch to a conquer strat. However, this works in reverse, too. A lone conquerer surrounded by 6 builders is just as screwed. The conquerers will shun him like the plague as they all trade tech--every tech will actually be worth 5 more. Research is speeded by more than 6x. The builders will be researching fusion power when the conquerer is still building impact rovers (yes, probe teams can be defended against). The conquerer might kill 1 or maybe even 2 builders if he is lucky and extremely good, but that's it. A builder will certainly win the game.

posted 07-27-99 03:43 PM ET            

Korn, Supreme Commander CAN count... after all, if its only 1 player that nays, they might rethink it. Then again, maybe not. Guess it depends on the bile level and relative strengths and whether they want to continue...

If 2 players deny Supreme Commander, is it still an all out war? Are they two rebels automatically pacted? Or does the suggestion just crash and burn? Is it possible that someone is so big, they have the 3/4 pop vote, but all other factions deny them? Is that a 6 versus 1 war, or every man for himself?

And if SMAC were well balanced, it would be just as easy and rewarding in game to win by Transcendance as it would be to Conquer. It seems we are in agreement that Conquering is easier. You can do it from turn 1. And you don't need any special techs or projects.

Dowdc, I know its a lot to absord. I think Analyst has had some private email convo on the state of Opp Engs and Processor power.

My experience says that Analyst is on the money. Serious Conquerors (like serious Builders) do contact everyone to ascertain intentions. Often in SMAC, the Faction itself gives it away. Believers, Spartans, and Hive are PROBABLY Conquerors... UoP, Gaian, and Morgan are probably Builders, or the Super Slow Conquerors ("Get Drop Hovers and boom!"), with the PK going either way. Then, there is the fact that many people prefer to play with competition they already know (You know that Shining1 and you can pact until Choppers... then he likes to Chop and Drop like crazy... etc). But its not a matter of a super secret code word or something ("Don't kill me, I'm the Bossman!"). Its just how things go.

Analyst would be leary of jumping the Believers. Even with Scout Troopers or Laser Boys, they are a serious offensive factor. But then, at the start of the game, Analyst says he contacts the likely conquerors and offers to team/pact/non-aggres. Smart moves from the Smart One. I am sure he would make the offer (if the Believer turned him down at turn 1) again at first contact... and if they said yes, kept one Imp Rover watching an unknown, and otherwise cranked on.

A Conqueror stuck on a mid sized island with another would do the same as Builders... turn a former or three over to the comp so it could raise a land bridge and get them the hell out of there. Build Weather Project. And exchange tech... otherwise, they will get into it over borders moving... just like 2 builders. The only difference is that its probably going to be quickly resolved, rather than having to regear too much...

And once again, the point is raised... Builders bank on being able to retool their superior infrastructure to be able to tool out better equiped troops faster than the Conqueror can *replace* his troops. There are many addional presumptions to this though. The next biggest presumption are that the Builder troops will be worth multiple units of the Conqueror troops, enabling them to defeat or delay the Conquerors superiority (at start of Builder retooling, at least) in number long enough that the fresh Builder replacements can finish the job. In some cases, this works and works well (one of my favorite passive-aggressive tactics in Civ and several other games).

In some cases, it doesn't. I think in SMAC, the tilt is too strong towards it doesn't. That's due to the fact that in SP, it teaches us to go out and conqueror the pyschopath Opponents. It's difficult to deflect a well excuted blitzcraig in SMAC, even when you know its coming. SMAC requires so little in infrastructure in comparison to the OTHER World Empire games.

In MP, I am a lot less aggressive, actually. After all, you might keep your word. What do I know? So that gives you one good chance... but make use of it while I am weakened, and have decided I can trust you enough to pull more than I should from our borders... the next game, you will be on the list with the SMAC engine... to be whacked immediately... or at least my next convience. What's the point? I'd be willing to Pact with you while carrying out my aggresive tactics against another faction... eventually, our borders are going to meet, even if its 20 tiles of ocean in between... and then will come the decision of kill now, or find something smaller. You can only have 3 non-submissive factions in Coop victory, and if its 4 factions left, something has to go. And I will be presuming that everyone else is thinking the same as I... someone has to go...

But mind you, I'd rather pact with a Conqueror than a Builder... the reason is most Builders try to be a sneaky lot... they like to wait on their pet techs before surprising the world and mad rushing the world. And many think to include their faithful comrades of war. Conquerors are about even split I would say on whether they will pact up or not and keep to it. But they will ally and pact in a heart beat, Dowdc. And many will keep it, at least until the "Lessers" are picked off. And if there are only 2 and they are pacted... Co-op victory. Its just a basic tenet to Conquerors... Strength in numbers. We live by that mantra... Its Builders who think they are better standing alone, that one man equals six. They are going to backstab their allies and Chop and Drop them in just 50 more turns. 49... 48...

The Conquerors that aren't willing to pact, are most likely beneath players of Analyst caliber. FAR below it. It helps to be sneaky and be willing to form temporary alliances if one is out to take over the world... or even a large chunk of it. The INTERESTING game to watch would be one of 7 Conquerors... A boring one would be 7 Builders... But then, what else would I think in SMAC?

Analyst... I don't play with Spoils On already. Otherwise, it just makes me go... oh look! Civ! Well, isn't that special. It might help a little if the barbarians... er, mindworms weren't red... among other things.

posted 07-27-99 04:07 PM ET            

even before the game starts i'm thinking how i can WIN the game. i assume that to win this multiplayer game, i am going to have to destroy everyone on the board but my allies (if we are playing with co-op win on).

hopefully i'd be spartan. and the first tech i'm going to research is going to be applied physics. on a standard map i think it takes about seven years in an average spot (ie not on a jungle rolling river energy bonus spot) for the spartans to get this tech. as long as i don't get any pods, i will be able to research information networks. if i do get a tech from a pod almost 100% of the time the first tech all factions besides morgan get from the pod is industrial base. if i get this tech before i have finished researching applied physics then i won't be able to research information networks next. if i get this after i have finished researching applied physics, i can research non-linear mathematics next. if i don't find a pod then i won't be able to research non-linear mathematics next, so i will usually go for social pysch or centauri ecology depending on drone riots and base growth. then on the next turn i can research nonlinear mathematics. so here's the spartan research path for the early game.

no pods.
1.applied physics
2.information networks
3.social psych or centauri ecology
4.non-linear mathematics

pod before you discover applied physics
1.applied physics
(industrial base from pod)
2.high energy chemistry
3.information networks
4.non-linear mathematics

pod after you discover applied physics
1.applied physics
2.information networks
(industrial base from pod)
3.non linear mathematics

ok that's early game research. now early game diplomacy.

if i come across any faction besides yang or morgan before turn 2200 they are dead. if i come across yang or morgan then i can stop them from expanding. and wait until i get impact weapons and kill them while losing a rover or two after 2200 here's what i'm thinking when it comes to diplomacy.

the most important thing to diplomacy is recon on my enemy so before i do anything drastic i will either exchange maps and try to go for a pact or i will try to infiltrate their datalinks. infiltrating datalinks is the preferable means. after that i will evaluate a few thing.

1. what is my strength? what is my faction's ability to wage war?
2. this new faction i came across what is their strength? what is their ability to defend themselves from my attacks?
3. what is my political situation? am i already involved in a war with a power enemy? are they an ally of my enemy? do i need an ally? is there more benefit from conquering them or making an alliance with them?
4.if i make an alliance do i help myself more by not attacking or do i help them more by not attacking? or there some powerul faction i need an alliance to stop?

then i make my decisions. if they are small and weak and i can easily conquer them, well i will attack unless for some reason i think later on they will be a big help. if they are about as strong as i am then i have to decide who is growing in power faster, and how hostile they are. if i am growing faster i'll wait until i have an advantage. if they are growing faster and then now is the time to strike. if they are a great deal stronger than me then i'll gladly make an alliance and look for ways to grow strong enough to defend myself. what is the consenus among the rest of you?

posted 07-27-99 04:19 PM ET            

Dowdc... you are off your rocker. Again. Should we cushion the floor for you?

Seriously... why would the 6x Human Builders not Pact with the Lone Wolf Conqueror? What makes you think that? Why would they care? Their strategy is not a Share All... its a trade you this neat tech for your neat tech... The more you can get ahead, the longer a lead you have on building whatever pets you want.

So, what is this Prototypical world of Builders you are thinking of? In mine, that Conqueror is going to Pact up, as the Builders won't know the difference (unless maybe its Miriam's Faction) until the armies come knocking on their door. Done by anything less than an idiot, and it will look like an Aggressive Builder dispute(secondary defination of Conqueror, here). It might put a warning bell or three, but Builders get into it with each other, so who would truly know? And out of 6 Builders, I doubt you will get all Pure Transcendi... so there will be some PBers, or some Chop and Drop, or some Noodle Jet fanatics. It seems many of these delayed or slow Conquerors feel they are Builders... probably NOT the type to pact with a fellow Conqueror, but the complexity of your whole supposition has been warped right of the Builder Xanadu with a Wolf trapped in its fold.

But even with pure Transcendi, a decent Lone Mad Man can take them all out... that's at the tactical/strategic level... ICSing will beat out the pure 7 city core style, after all... and Conquerors love to ICS. Land grabbers always make enemies, but its a keystone in many Builders as well, so once again, you have serious stress in your Xanadu... and when talking of humans, we don't know if they would snap and attack, or negotiate for more time before trying to stuff their competition into a Punishment Sphere.

No, I just don't see it. A Lone Wolf may have to bide a little time, or play a little politics, but its still easy to pull a Hitler or a Neapolian... and if not, mad turn 1 rushing will still result in 1 or 2 builders being done before they have all agreed to be nice and share until they can cut each other's throats... so that leaves a war machine growing and expanding... unless you are playing on an ideal builder map as well... and the game setup was done by a CMN...

posted 07-27-99 05:11 PM ET            

your great score has been posted at :
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dome/3802/

posted 07-27-99 10:24 PM ET            

StargazerBC: The lack of support doesn't bother me too much. I usually don't bother putting clean reactors on anything besides formers and garrisons. Offensive military units generally don't last long enough to justify adding a clean reactor.
And you burn down your own cities?! Big Brother would be proud

Darkstar, Dowdc, Korn, and Analyst on teaming up in SMAC: No question that a player stands a better chance of surviving when teamed up with other players that share his playstyle. Builders stand a lot to gain by pacting with each other through commerce and trading techs, and little to gain by not doing so. Analyst's example of triangulation is an example of cooperative aggressors in action; no single player, conqueror or builder, active defense or weenie defense, could stand up to an early game double team attack. T

he problem I have with this idea (if I were a conqueror) is trusting the other guy that I'm teamed up with. My question is; wouldn't you have more to gain by backstabbing? If I could dupe the other conqueror into helping me attack some other player, I could send my units to his bases while his army leaves to engage the third party (this, by the way, was a common strategy of mine in Red Alert) While he and the other guy are beating each other up, I'd roll over his sparsly defended bases with ease. (I would sell the deal even further by claiming that I was sending units to "defend" his base, right before I unloaded my APC full of engineers. He he)

I would then triangulate the survivor of the other battle with the units I used to capture the bases with, along with new units which I built in "my" bases. The survivor was usually banged up pretty good, and he would get steamrolled with little effort. In short, why settle for half when you can have it all? I know I'm kind of comparing apples and oranges here since RA is real time, but I think the theorem applies to SMAC, too. Correct me if I'm wrong Analyst; you've had more MP experience in this field than I have, I think.

Of course, if the conquerors know each other before hand, that's a whole different ballgame. But as a conqueror, I would have problems trusting a complete stranger.

On the issue of Builders pacting with conquerors, I don't find this likely, unless the conqueror is just milking a weak builder for resources (ie: demanding techs in exchange for "protection") If its 6 builders against 1 conqueror, likely the builders will declair open season on the conqueror.

Some of you asked how a builder would win. Good question! I think a MP game in this situation would be very interesting. Here's some possibilities:
Once the conquerors are gone (either wiped each other out or get ganged up on by vengful builders), the builders (assuming their not like Darkstar - Darkside Builders ) may even abolish military units entirely! Now this would be interesting. Nothing besides police and scout patrols would be allowed (to ward off worms) and could be inforced through pact infiltration - if someone starts building a military unit, the others will know immediately. The game would essentially turn into "Railroad Tycoon in Space," the winner being decided by transcendence. Whoever makes the best investment of his resources wins (like tycoon. RT is another Sid Meyer game, BTW) Conquerors may find this boring, but it turns SMAC into an entirely new game.

If that one conqueror is merely the survivor of a darwinian struggle between all the conquerors, with only a couple of builders as opposition, this would be even better! Natural selection has made this lone conqueror the ruler of a vast empire of small cities. Meanwhile, the builder(s) have been building up their infrastructure all the while. Posessing bigger but fewer cities than the conqueror, both parties switch to a military footing for one last epic battle between the two. If the conqueror wins, the game ends by conquest. If the builders win, the game continues in friendly competition until either someone transcends, or someone tries to backstab (Chop and drop, for instance).

Mental Masturbation? Probably. But its something to think about, still.

posted 07-27-99 10:25 PM ET         

On the "prototype world" I'd have to agree with Darkstar and the rest--Dowdc "Lab" scenerios are never the same as real world scenerios. As for the Pact's. . .it's entirely too easy for an attacker to pact with 1 or 2 builders and have that attacker do all the dirty work. A strategy I often deply where I am the "feeder" and the attacker is the "Shooter." Heck, I even swap cities so I can build his and swap it back. Therefore, in my argument--2 builders vs 1 builder+1 attacker the 2 builders will surely lose. 3 builds vs 2 builders, 1 attacker. . .I have never tried this (don't have enough computers/people to play with). The idea that there can be 6 builders 1 attacker is JUST too silly. Already 2 of the builders will have a disadvantage because they're more on the attacking side (ie Miriam, Yang). In the older version it was so easy to build an independent army with Gaian the 'Builders'. Unfortunately, mindworm capture is crippled (PR is "balanced") nowadays.

And of note--I agree that SMAC favors the attacker, but that does not mean I can't play builder.

Analyst--I've never really thought about the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, but the parallels are staggering. I employ guerilla warfare to be the most efficient. It's something of a "resource management." If my 1 rover, can take down 3--cool. But if my 1 sea former with 2 defenders can take down 13 units (+ 500 or so credits to level sea)--even better. I don't know if anyone keeps track of how many turns they "lose" or "win" when they engage war. The "Lost" and "winning" of units is equivalent to how many units you or the opponent will lose. In Every game, I always try to calculate the ratio. If it is against me, I know my chances of losing will increase expotentionally.

Roads--Never! Roads mean the attacker can come to me earlier. I use to build them and then destroy the roads connecting to the fallen cities--unfortunately, this is highly inefficient. I calculated a lost of ~12 turns, units 4 (per connection). And roads would really negate the defensive structure of my forest. Terrain really is the best way to deter early land units. As for those Shard Choppers you mentioned--well, let's just hope I get them first (usually do, or an ally).

My defensive against Choppers.

Some history:

I usually only have 1 or 2 AAA/Police units garrison my cities (rovers no less). The rest of my "forces" are hidden around and near fungus. Nowadays, my confederation is so seperated the chopper really can only attack 1 or at most 2x before it loses fuel and/or become a sitting duck. Active defense is really crappy (Which I blame the game)--it only works for a while then I find my jets roam around like drunken sailors.

posted 07-27-99 10:33 PM ET            

Yikes,

2-3 days camped out in the same house with a bunch of SMAC hooligans?

Then again, I bet the diplomacy is really something to watch!

posted 07-27-99 10:47 PM ET         

The unit lost I referred to earlier in my post refers to "turns" lost not "units." IOW, I measure my entire infrastructure, military, destination of attack, retreats, etc. in turns. I don't just say dang I lost an attack rover but I say, dangit I lost 7 turns, 150 credits. That'll set me back, etc, etc. Thought I had to repost to clarify Night'ers everyone.

posted 07-28-99 06:00 AM ET            

Given that an active defense can often survive against an opponet twice as strong, a cooperative alliance along these lines seems an interesting way to go. Remember that not all multiplayer games are me against the world types - in fact the more interesting ones tend to be 2 on 2 or 3 on 3. Against reasonable opponents, even Analyst (and I use him as an example for reasons of fame only) can easily lose a me against the world game - there's only so much you can do with three factions randomly clustered around you and deciding to attack all out from the word go ("Things to do today: Die.")

On the other hand, whether the SMAC math stacks up so that a combo of 1 builder 1 conquer or 1 builder 2 conqueror (the game is biased, no doubt) vs. 2 or 3 conquerors is interesting to work out. For instance, the tech tree is divided into two halves, so with careful planning the alliance can maneuver to obtain Orbital Spaceflight and air power while the conquerors are racing up the other side, chasing chaos guns. With the impregnible society of the believers as the conqueror ally, you can negate the success of probe teams to a large extent as well.

Make no mistake, I'm suggesting a hard out builder approach here, with the conqueror ally working almost purely as a defender, until they obtain the necessary firepower to sweep all before them. With a cooperative victory, they don't ever turn against their ally, they just share the points.

Discussion?

posted 07-28-99 09:06 AM ET         

A couple of questions
Has anyone tried to counter Santiago's Early Rover Rush with Miriam's Even Earlier Infantry Rush?
How do Conquerors do on water-heavy maps? (Skimships are expensive and transports are slow)

Jaechdan

posted 07-28-99 09:42 AM ET            

I have come back to the forums recently and rather than try to dip into the conversation at mid-stream, I'll just address a recent post. (We are a wordy bunch of armchair strategists, aren't we?)

Jaechdan: What makes the Spartan Rover Rush so strong is its flexibility. Not only can the Spartans get the necessary tech for this faster than most anyone, but using their initial Rover they can find their nearest neighbor almost instantly. This is even easier if you have the "city grid" option on as the radio trasmissions/colonist activity from enemy colonies appear on the map as a red line (their influence radius).

Once researched, the Spartans can demand cash from their would-be victim to upgrade their Scout Rover/ hurry their other Rovers, and attack. It's devious but it works.

Miriam is strong on attack, but Infantry in the open are just sitting ducks for Rovers. Furthermore, a small army of Rovers can focus their strength on the colony of opportunity instead of taking casualties in a steady advance. I, for one, never use Infantry to attack a city. The one turn wait is pointless when Rovers can attack, overwhelm, and capture the colony in a single turn.

posted 07-28-99 11:14 AM ET            

On builder/conqueror MP cooperation: an interesting idea, but unlikely I think. As a builder, I would find it difficult to trust an agressive ally. Some of you have proposed situations where conquerors would handle the military aspect (offense and defense) while the builders churn out techs, cash, and non-mil units. I personally would not agree to an arangement like this, as it is akin to leaving the wolf to protect the sheep. Again, if you know the other guy, that's different. But trusting a stranger with a different playstyle seems unlikely for me.

On conditons favoring conquerors/builders: Analyst mentioned not agreeing to "no spoils" as it would explicitly favor "the other playstyle." Another big conqueror no no would be small land masses. This would greatly increase the chances of geographic isolation (great for builders). If a conqueror gets stuck on an island, he is denied his biggest advantage; the early game rover rush. His agressive ambitions are only temporarily delayed, but probably long enough for the others to erect an effective active defense. Early transports are too slow and small to project power over more than a slight sea distance. By the time cruisers come about, the nice guys already have air recon.

Even worse, the conqueror may have to rely entirely on sea transports if his target is on another land mass. A sea invasion against an active defense would be utterly disasterous if his transports take more than one turn to reach their target. Whereas a land-based active defense gives the defender a theoretical 3 or 4 to 1 advantage, a sea based AD (which is almost entirely air units) is more like 15 or 20 to 1. The ammount of resources needed to mount a successful invasion on even a small island is enormous if faced with an AD. If he's out of range for air support, which is very likely, I would even say its almost impossible without PBs.
In quoting Analyst in a much earlier thread "Any player worth his salt can repel a naval invasion."

Conversely, the cost of the AD is cheaper for the builder; no bunkers, command centers, rovers, or even road networks are needed. Just needlejets. Thus, if given the choice, conquerors should demand large land masses (and vice versa for builders)

posted 07-28-99 11:39 AM ET            

An intricate Road/Bunker network supported by probes/Infantry for Colony defense, armored Rovers for rapid response, and Bombers/Interceptors for recon and amphibious invasion defense, are all fairly large investments and will only come well into the mid-game. Wouldn't a handful of Impact rovers smash the builder long before this defense is solidified? How many Shard Rovers can one purchase for the cost of one Shard Rover with Photon armor? How will AD match up against an invasion of Isles of the Deep rather than Cruiser Transports?

Furthermore, if the Builder is safely tucked into his defensive shell, what is to keep the Conquerer from simply taking the rest of the planet?

posted 07-28-99 12:06 PM ET            

The scenario I outlined in my last post is a situation where the builder DOES have time to build up his defense, which contrary to your statement is inexpensive relative to the cost of the conqueror's military required to overcome it.

posted 07-28-99 12:54 PM ET            

Zorak Zoran: The point you made has been more or less conceded by Player2 in the past, I think. I think he admits to needing: (i) the freedom to behave like a conquerer towards his early close neighbors without being forced to change his self-definition ; (ii) the luxury of being allowed to choose to play on a big map and/or waterworld map; (iii) enough other people in a multiplayer game who think like him not to allow the armies of darkness to march all over the face of Planet.

Player2: Railroad Tycoon in Space? *shivers at the thought* You'll never, ever get me to agree to a big map or a waterworld. But you knew that. Yes, you quoted me correctly about seaborne invasions That is true not just of multiplayer-directed invasions, but human-directed ones as well. The peculiar nature of sea combat makes sea invasions much too unreliable. Foil probes, OTOH . . .

Shining1: You raise an interesting point on organizing multiplayer games. Apolyton players organize some of their CivII League games under a "clan" system, wherein clans take each other on in a 2 on 2 or 3 on 3 game. No individual victories. The game ends when one clan concedes victory to the other. The players in the top two clans at Apolyton have raised the combination of early game ICSing, triangulation and brutal early game rush warfare to an art form. What would happen in a mutiplayer SMAC game based on team play rules, though, if somebody organized an all-builder team? Personally, I don't think that a Morgan/UoP/Gaia team would stand a chance against a Sparta/Hive/Believer team. Would there be a consensus, though, that such a game would fairly test the style theory debate?

Korn469: Very good rundown on early game strategy. I'll add this: talk to everyone. Use that chat feature to start talking to them before the game even starts. People will willingly give you enormously useful data about their playing philosophy before they build their first scout.

Darkstar: You made a *ton* of good points. The best was probably "builders are a sneaky lot". Oh yes. Quite. The sneakiest point being that most builders aren't builders at all, but conquerers running a delayed sweep (just like Bobby Mercer was master of the delayed steal--a stolen base is a stolen base, whether you stole it off the catcher or the pitcher--with apologies to the non-Americans in this thread for the baseball analogy). Barring mutual agreement at the outset of a game, it's hard to picture the "Builder Xanadu" postulated by Dowdc and Player2 because most self-styled builders aren't really builders at all.

posted 07-28-99 01:41 PM ET            

Player2:
I'll have to steal this one. I believe it applies equally well to this reactive defense theory. As a conquerer, if I allowed Analyst's (i),(ii) and (iii) conditions to come into play (in addition to a restriction on PBs) I would indeed be playing very badly. I think you have conceded so many disadvantages to your adversaries that it makes this strategy sort of absurd.

I'm sorry for bringing up these old issues, but I just can't pretend that this strategic framework for empire building would work. There are just too many options open to a conquerer to expect even a flexible reactive defense from crumbling once the invasion begins. If you want to go over some specific points, I'm here. Otherwise I'll keep my mouth shut.

posted 07-28-99 01:41 PM ET            

I would like to point out something to people... I have found the Opp Eng to be a hell of a lot better at defending against early to mid game naval invasions than humans. Why? It always knows where your units are... regardless if you have been puttering up through fungus or out of visible range. it will deploy ships to blow you out of the water 4 to 6 turns early... that's about 2 getter that an Active Intel Gathering opponent in later game. It sucks at making Marine assaults, but its great at making them.

A HUGE map with no land mass and all ocean would be ideal settings for isolation... IF made or modified by a CMN. Otherwise you are ADDING to the odds that SMAC will lay you down with Conquerors. It really DOES like to cluster up Factions.

My point about the Prototypical world is... how do you know who is who? You can ask... but if you don't know them, all you have to go on is your word. For those of you who have missed it... I keep a good bit of my forces back for worm duty, early base guard, and to freaking make sure that noone does to me as I do to them. It also acts as my Final Reserves for the last hard push. Not the most EFFICENT aggressive Conquestador tactics, I know, but then, I am a Darkside Builder. Even if I believe in the Turn 1 Rush, the Army Ant Strategy, and all the world is mine. I like a big sandbox to play in.

I wouldn't have a hard time believing in an temporary Alliance... but I would always be thinking that I was 2 or 3 turns away from all out war with my Builder or Conqueror bud... if I don't know them. I MAY be considering slitting their throat, but... the problem is that this ain't a game versus your little box. Its against another Human. We remember our experiences... so unless I am under a new ID, I'd play it pretty straight. But if the match making service lets you just make up ID's willy nilly... hey, there would be no reason to NOT believe everyone was a psychotic mess that can't remember what they agreed to... and that they are just waiting on Orbital to speed rush PBs to nuke everyone. Yeah, definate Chop and Drop crowd.

But getting back to my earlier question... HOW would you know the difference between Aggressive Builders, and Conquestadors? With all these builders who like to build 2 Garrison, 2 Attack Rovers, and 2 Reactive Defenders a city, not to mention Bunkers, Sensor arrays, Attack Jets (used for AWACS), probe foils, armored probe teams, Arty units... how the HECK would you, as a Builder, know the difference between a Transcendi, Chop And Drop, or PB you till you puke Builder? Or maybe they are a Combined Arms Conquestador... and Build like crazy until they get their Combined Chaos Rovers? Maybe they are still a Civ Tank freak? Tell me... how would you KNOW the difference between them. That Builder that likes to ICS and race for Transcendance by turn 120 you might be able to spot... but the others? If noone knows each other, HOW would you even have a clue what's going on? This is what I can't figure out... this 6 versus 1 issue seems to be: "We would just know, so we'd team up and slaughter the punk for the sheer joy and vengence of it" (talk about frustrated Conquerors! ). I'd like to know... you guys have a secret handshake that you can give over the net or something?

posted 07-28-99 01:57 PM ET            

I missed this in my earlier rants and replies...

There are 3, count them 3, defenses against Planet Busters in SMAC.

The simplest is Defense Pods. But that's quite a few techs up from PBs in the first place.

#2 is to destroy any existing PBs, through whatever means possible. If your opponent only has 2, and you can see them both, you can wipe the out. But this depends on good intel, and being close enough to see them. Not very effective.

#3 is to prevent any ever being made. This is a tactic commonly used by many against the Opp Engine by launching enough Conv. Missiles at the production center, the Opp Eng swapped to something else.

That's it. You can try the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) tactic we used in the RW (Real World), but as SMAC is only a game, there are those willing to hit you first. And since, unlike the RW, you can't have automatic response systems launch yours in a counter strikes, you have to depend on a base surviving so that you can launch your stock from your air chassis carriers... Hope they were clean...

posted 07-28-99 02:03 PM ET            

That's *better*... not *getter*...
and
the Opp Eng sucks at making Marine Invasions, but is great at killing the early ones.

posted 07-28-99 03:35 PM ET            

"They possess exceptional research abilities, and arrive on Planet with the knowledge of Polymorphic Software. The Cybernetic ability to communicate and co-ordinate actions confers an efficency bonus for this faction as well. However, they find it difficult to promote human reproduction, resulting in growth penalties, and they lack any kind of warrior spirit, decreasing troop morale. the Consciousness cannot make the Eudaimonic social engineering choice, but the are immune to the negative efficency penalties for the Planned social engineering choice."

so what does this mean? +2 research +1 efficency, -1 growth, -1 morale...maybe it didn't say.

they are a builder most definatly but this means they can't pop boom. i also think that they will fall especially quick to an impact rover rush. i wonder why they choose eudiamonic for the aversion.

Analyst

i must say that i hadn't thought of really talking to the other factions until i met them. the idea of playing as a clan is very interesting. it'd bring in all new strategies, and in a 2v2 game i would say that Santiago and Zak would be by far they best two factions to have on a team. co-ordinating their research they could both have impact rovers by about 2112 without even finding a pod.

my thoughts about an all water map is this. the Spartans would still have a slight advantage because their starting tech is mobility. it would be either the spartans or the university who discovered doctrine:flexability first. on a water map, miriam would wither and die. even if she went for flexability first she wouldn't discover it until about 2117 so her first colony foil would come out very late in the game. yes in on an all water map the impact rover rush would be useless...but i can see impact foils taking their place.

posted 07-28-99 04:25 PM ET            

Darkstar:
You wouldn't know. This is exactly my point. No one can trust each other--the only thing you can trust is personal gain. Conquerers are MORE likely to backstab each other because they GAIN from it. Builders are LESS likely, because they GAIN from NOT doing it. However, once pet techs are reached, and planet is ripe for the taking, all bets are off. But you will survive until that point. You WILL have time to set up defenses. The game MIGHT end in an economic victory, for example. I certainly admit that transcendance will almost never occur in MP, but who cares? This is the highest form of victory, and it is so difficult that you can essentially never do it against an opponent who knows what he is doing. This does not mean that the early conquer rush strat is the ONLY viable alternative. This does not mean that a Morgan, or a PK faction will never win the game. This does not mean that people will soon tire of MP unless drastic changes are made. This does not mean that CivII is the better game.

posted 07-28-99 06:03 PM ET            

Only Conquerors really AREN'T liable to back stab... unless there are strong motivational factors (ie vengence), and each is, let's say, equally skilled? The reason is that there are easier targets to overrun, with the rewards being greater. Oh, it may happen, but not like how this "Builder" (HA! ) community how Chop and Drop, PB into the water molecules, Blink Hovercraig, Missile/Chaos Rover-rush, or Oodles and Oodles of Noodlejets boil behave. I am perfectly content splitting the victory rights with a fellow Conquestador... if we wipe out 5 too big for their britches Builders... if that fallen number is say, 3 Builders, 1 Conq, and 1 Opp Eng... same thing. Its all the same to me. As long as I had fun, I'm happy. Its easy enough to cut a deal so as to keep tabs on ones allies. If they won't cut a deal, that means you keep back a larger reserves. And look into seeing if any of your victims might not want to survive instead. After all, its all good.

But there is no insurance that those 'peaceful' builders won't roll out the impact or missile squads, and strike before you and Chop and Drop them. Obviously, whichever slow Conquestador is gets his or her pet Techs first is going to be the first one to strike out against the others... In the Prototypical World of 6 Builders vs. 1 Conqueror on Huge Maps with High Fungus and high water, that 'Builder' swapped teams... now its 5 Builders vs. 1 Conq vs. 1 Conq... and the countdown to the others melting into world conqueroring mad men and women is ticking... as in that scenario, Chop and Drop would probably be the overall master techs...

See, that is one of the EARLY Conquerors objectives... sieze the LATER Conquerors resource centers so as the diminish his opponents, and feed his war machine. Every city you lose is a step closer to Total Victory to me, and one to many back for you (depending on if you ICS, just spread like VD, or use a Perfect Core approach).

Not that I think you are going to bother to understand or even try, Dowdc. But I had to try one last time.

posted 07-28-99 09:20 PM ET         

The entire map, huge, was land with only small pots of water here and there. So guess what I did? Created my cities around one of the lakes (lost 3 movements). moved my Capitol to the only sea base inside the lake (was close to land so was able to put mining platforms too ). The remaining cities were around the lake (lost about 10 turns setting this up). Out lying cities I used as bases until it became viable to defend them. When I was being attacked I named every city (including my HQ) CAPITOL. Since this was a "free for all", I had the luxury of pact'ing with AI Miriam (iow beating the crap out of her until she summit) early on. I lost 5 of my far out cities so I swayed a diplomatic truce to one of friends(gave up 4 lvl 2 techs and 1 future lvl 6 tech). Once I had Choppers I went ballistic around the globe, and had the remaining 3 AI's serving a pact with me.

Mid-game: AI was losing cities to the two other players, but still had to wait 5 turns until the human truce will end. I had 5 devisions roaming around and ready to attack (all the while trying to get defense pods, had 6 more techs, ~19 turns, to go!).

Right now--My far out cities are holding ground while I'm invading an enemy's continent (most of my units are on the Active Defense in the "inner sphere" :chuckles: ). All the while my HQ is stocking up on PB's. . .

In truth, The Plane chassis is pretty lousy for just about anything. I use them to patrol "blind" spots to increase the buffer zone. But, more often than not, when I see a bunch of units that can not attack air units coming to me--I use my air planes to hold Zones of Control . This works particularly well against the AI and most human players until they've caught on ::grins:: In this particular game I was setting my my Confederation for the "2 country approach" the land mass was wide enough that I had one batch of cities growing (the one around the lake) and then I moved my colony pod way way off and started another "country." Both working independent of each other.

posted 07-28-99 09:48 PM ET            

The other point that will probably scare the pants off the agressors here is that the jets can do it without letting the agressor know he's being watched! As long as the jet doesn't come within one space of the ground units, he will detect them (he's got a vis range of 2) but they won't see him (they've got vis range of 1) This assumes that the ground units aren't equipped with deep radars of their own, but who the heck is going to waste the extra resources to equip their battle rovers with radars (especially when you can give 'em high morale instead?) So while the agressor is patting himself on the back for being so sneaky and clever, the defender is getting bored waiting for his units to show up so he can swat 'em! I would be very unnerved if I knew that my target could be monitoring me without my knowing.

As for using secret handshakes between pactmates: I really can't say how one could decide whether a stranger would be trustworthy or not. I would find it easier to trust another builder rather than a conqueror. By nature, you KNOW the conqueror is going to be out for blood. The builder might be also, or he may not. I suppose the only way you could tell would be after all the conquerors have been eliminated. Then builders with friendly intentions could propose banning military units (except scouts and police, to ward off worms). If they're not going to attack anyone, then its a waste to support any kind of an army. And if anyone disagrees with the proposal, then you know that somethings up. I'm sure some of you find it inconceivable that builders could ever dominate in MP (naturally, I don't ) but if they ever did, this would be the way to ferret out the "dark-builders."

ZZ: I wouldn't make the mistake of believing that you or anyone else would play badly in a MP game (in fact, I think anyone here would be a great challenge) These techniques are not meant to exploit the misjudgments of an agressor. They are meant to counter every reasonable option he has. The recon element that I outlined earlier is meant to deny the agressor the elements of surprise and initiative. Unless you can make your units invisible, they can be seen, and will be seen, if the defender employs air surveylance properly.

On the issue of PBs: As I said earlier, using PBs in MP is a subject large enough to warrent an entirely new discussion. Nobody here has really addressed the issue very seriously, as the general assessment here is that the game will pretty much be decided before orbital spaceflight (the dominant faction will likely have exclusive rights to this tech, and PBs become a method of ending the game quicker, rather than a way to turn the tables)

But you asked how a reactive defense would react to a PB assault, and I suppose that's a fair question, as this situation could theoretically occur, I suppose.

Before we begin, note that building a PB is no small endeavor. We're not talking about a recon rover here; a PB is a very expensive piece of hardware. Now, remember that in my active defense design, RRFs are stored in bunkers outside of cities to avoid pinpointing by infiltration. If the bunkers are spaced at least two spaces from any allied city (three if fusion has been discovered) they will be outside the blast range of any PB targeting any nearby city. In this case, the kind soul who unleashes this weapon must make a choice; he can have the RRFs, or a city and its garrisons. If he wants both, he'll need another PB. And this would still only eliminate one city, a couple of garrisons, and 2 or three rovers. This wouldn't be enough to severly cripple the defender, as he has his cities and RRFs placed over a fair distance (builder cities tend to make the most of their base grids to reap as much energy as possible for their improvments) This would necessitate the need for many planet busters, all at an enormous cost.
After all of this, the attacker brings in his forces, hopefully defeats the weakened builder, seizes a couple of burnt out cities, and then has to fend off the attacks of a pissed off Planet.

I would question the logic of attacking a builder with PBs. Why expend so many resources just to seize a couple of cities? You could accomplish the same thing (without the eco damage) by putting a fraction of those resourses into conventional units and attacking the unprotected flank of another conqueror.

And all this assumes that the builder isn't going to fire one at you when he sees that your building a PB. The key word here is "building." And no one is better at building expensive stuff than a builder. So unless you've already got a big edge, I just don't see it happening. Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

The scenario will probably have the player erect an AD of his own (I'll probably include instructions as to what you need to do). I plan on starting them off with a somewhat built up builder faction, and a very modest defense. Three or four of his immediate neighbors will be agressive AI that will stop at nothing less than his complete destruction. He then must quickly build up an AD, fend off their attacks, and win by transcendence by any means. I know the AI is a bad substitute for a MP opponent, but I will try to make up for it with sheer numbers of units, and possibly pre-placement to encourage a coordinated assault. The main goal is to show that an AD can fend off many times its size in units (4 or 5 to one in most cases) I recommend everyone check it out when its finished!

Marslow and Dowdc: In defense of these guys, I think all they're trying to say is that the military element of MP is unescapable as long as conquerors are present (which is 99.9% of the time). Adding a militaristic element to a building playstyle isn't becoming a conqueror. Rather, I see it as an agressive means of satisfying a constructive end. And that's what the whole builder/conqueror paradigm is about.

posted 07-28-99 10:13 PM ET            

StargazerBC: I like the idea of putting your HQ in a landlocked body of water. But if this was a MP game, what were the others doing? (you didn't mention any other players)

posted 07-28-99 10:42 PM ET            

the most wonderthing about nerve gas is that when you attack a city with it, if you win the city loses half of its population. nerve gas comes fairly early (most times you can get it two techs after impact weapons). two nerve gas rovers can take a prosperous size six city down to a miserable size one city. the first attack will decrease the population from six to three and the second will decrease the population from three to one, if i remember correctly. nerve gas has alot of advantages for conquerers. it increase attack by 50% it kills population in a city. all in all elite nerve gas rovers are something to be feared by any builder.

i do have a question about PBs. what is the use of making a fission PB, since they cost the same as a fusion PB? once you have orbital spaceflight fusion power is close. is there any use for fission PBs? tell me if there is.

posted 07-28-99 11:53 PM ET            

I'm glad you have volunteered to reset the thread. Otherwise, I would have nominated you since you're the "whipping" boy for the builders.

Seriously though, I found your comment that you were more inclined to trust a builder over a conqueror quite interesting. Other than someone who had proven reliability to me in the past, I would be equally distrustful of either. This is further complicated by the fact that players can and will play under assumed names in order to prevent others from knowing their intentions.

BTW, this also means that I do not agree with Darkstar that builders are a sneekier bunch. Rather, a good double cross, or triple cross makes the MP experience much more fun than SP(IMHO.

Really. You can trust me on that!