Getting kicked - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Getting kicked

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Getting kicked

Beta1 posted 05-05-99 10:05 AM ET
Right the situation is simple.
Playing on second hardest level as spartans I'm in second place overall. Due to the mistake of watching TV while playing SMAC at the same time I've let the UOP get out of control. Mistake 1: let them build Hunter-seeker. Mistake 2: Let them build Cloning vats. That taught me to lose concentration. Anyway UOP now ahead in tech&Pop&territory and I'm involved in a niggling little war with niggling little Yang. I am rapidly running out of patience and would appreciate suggestions.
I see 3 ways out.
1 : Go nuclear and PB UOP cities containing wonders. Then probe them to death. Lets see them fight me off then.
2 : If wonders (esp H/S) are on coastal cities do suprise attack with missile barrage/amph assault group, take city, sell most then raze to ground.
3 : continue to fight annoying little war and lose when UOP decide they want to trancend/attack on their terms etc.
Due to incompentence on my part UOP have better attack tech than me. Therefore I think my only bet is to make sure they dont get a chance to before I can pull level.
I think the commando tactic is the best bet but am open to suggestions

sandworm posted 05-05-99 10:43 AM ET
Nerve gas is maybe a better option than PBs... if you can get a group of four or five X jets to attack UoP cities with cloning vats and HSA you can raze them to the ground without pissing planet off and having everyone else declare vendetta on you. You -will- be sanctioned, probably for the rest of the game, but do what you must to make the world over in Santiago's image
You could also combine conv. missile attacks with drop troops, if they're available. Once you've dropped into the enemy city upgrade them to AAA and/or ECM troops with best avail. armor ASAP. A bug in the game will often permit you to drop troops into a city and upgrade on the same turn, but that would be cheating...
(Santiago would never cheat
wait till the next turn and upgrade, its more fun that way. You can also speed build perimeter defenses and an aerospace comp if you like.
One warning: once you station an air unit or build aerospace in a city -another- bug in the game will prevent you from dropping your own troops into that city, yes, your own city. You can temporarily move a jet out of the city square and drop in, but if you build an aerospace complex you can forget dropping in reinforcements, they'll have to come by sea.
posting too much, too often
sandworm
icosahedron posted 05-05-99 11:42 AM ET
Sandworm's idea of using nerve gas is a good one.
Also, don't forget that UoP can use probe teams, too. I don't know if the AI will do so as UoP, but in my current game I have UoP with Hunter-Seeker and I have been using probes to accelerate my campaign against Yang -- air-bomb or 'copter a stack down to one unit, probe-control it, and turn it on the Hive unit in an adjacent square. Sure, it's more expensive to probe as UoP, but with high-morale probe teams I am doing ok, and I know it just frosts Yang's dingleballs to have the University probing his stuff (he keeps trying to contact me just prior to my probe attacks).
Try drawing the UoP fire with a minor offensive at a city remote from the one you really want to take, it will make your commando raid easier.
icosahedron
Beta1 posted 05-05-99 01:15 PM ET
I have a few x-chaos jets around already - I was just waiting for Yang to try and repeal the UN charter. I think the main problem with trying to hold the SP cities will be the distance from my mainland - this is too early in the game for orbital insertion although not by much. I think if I take the cities using nerve gas I might as well raze it. Noone will talk to me from that point anyway. And I always said if your going to be antisocial you might as well be really antisocial.
I've had few problems with enemy probes - If you keep a decent number of interceptors airborn than you can spot them coming a mile away.
I think the final plan is :
1 : Squash Yang quickly - Gas if needed. (OK just gas)
2 : Raid university from sea/air and raze sp. - 1st target Hunter-seeker
3 : Probe University to death
4: Go completely mental and capture all those lovely cities the other factions have built for me.
In fact while I'm in this sociopathic mood I might PB miriam. Just for the hell of it.
Just as a side point if you put decent armour on your bombers, attack a lower tech faction and they get attacked by interceptors before returning home the interceptors often end up destroyed. (especially when you have that handy spartan morale boost).
HMFIC posted 05-05-99 01:41 PM ET
Shoot, if you are going to cheat, trade one of your totally crappy bases to UofP for the base with Hunter/Seeker. It will make your head spin how fast the AI will make that trade.
Beta1 posted 05-05-99 07:02 PM ET
HMFIC - I try to avoid abusing the AI even when it abuses me.
Anyway - nerve gas on Yang worked a treat.
Raiding and destroying the HS also worked, unfortunately I may have over done it with the nerve gas. I didnt realise it caused ecodamage like PBs. Result planet goes into one of those vicous circles - fungus pops up all over the place and at one point sea level rose 1300 meters in 20 years. So I fired off the PBs I had amassed, resigned and went of to swim with the isles of the deep.
On the bright side this game gave me one of the biggest laughts so far. Some one suggested raising the sea level and Lal supported it. 20 years later Lal was doing the best impression of a dolphin I've seen. Started with ten or so land bases, ended up with two. Prat
Beta1 posted 05-05-99 07:04 PM ET
HMFIC - I try to avoid abusing the AI even when it abuses me.
Anyway - nerve gas on Yang worked a treat.
Raiding and destroying the HS also worked, unfortunately I may have over done it with the nerve gas. I didnt realise it caused ecodamage like PBs. Result planet goes into one of those vicous circles - fungus pops up all over the place and at one point sea level rose 1300 meters in 20 years. So I fired off the PBs I had amassed, resigned and went of to swim with the isles of the deep.
On the bright side this game gave me one of the biggest laughts so far. Some one suggested raising the sea level and Lal supported it. 20 years later Lal was doing the best impression of a dolphin I've seen. Started with ten or so land bases, ended up with two. Prat
JT 3 posted 05-05-99 08:02 PM ET
Prat?
sandworm posted 05-06-99 08:52 AM ET
Nerve gas causes ecodamage?? Uh-oh.
Beta1 posted 05-06-99 09:08 AM ET
I think so - it was too early in the game for mineral production to be the cause.
The game appears to treat nerve gas bombing differently from gas attacks from ground units - that really pisses off the other factions. But if you're already facing 120 years of sanctions who cares?
jimmytrick posted 05-06-99 09:08 AM ET
Beta1, I was under the impression that air to air combat ignores armor (attack vs attack). Am I incorrect?
sandals posted 05-06-99 10:35 AM ET
Air to Air combat uses attack vs. attack when a Tactical performs an intercept.
Air to ground & tactical to needlejet (no intercept) uses standard attack vs. armor rules.
Beta1 posted 05-06-99 01:39 PM ET
Now I'm confused
So any air unit attacking ground unit is normal attack:defence rules
Air interceptor attacking Bomber is attack:defence rules
Interceptor attacking interceptor is Attack:Attack? - not sure about this
Seems strange but interceptor v bomber must be standard rules otherwise the interceptor wouldnt have a chance - if identically armed there would no advantage to the attacker so it would basically come down to relative moral levels. In game situation the unarmored bombers will (almost) always lose where as the armoured ones have a fighting chance.
sandworm posted 05-06-99 02:45 PM ET
Is the air to air -intercept- supposed to be attack vs. attack? It seems it should be attack vs. armor -any- time an interceptor attacks a bomber. Does anyone know whether this was an oversight in programming or a game balance decision? ...or is it something else entirely?
Plato90s posted 05-06-99 07:08 PM ET
Special rules apply when two units with Air Superiority ability attack each other. Armor has no relevance, so putting armor on tactical fighters is an waste of effort.
Bingmann posted 05-07-99 04:01 PM ET
Air unit vs. non-air superiority: attack vs. defend.
Air unit vs. air superiority: attack vs. attack.
sandworm: It seems you want Air unit vs. air superiority: defend vs. attack. That would be kind of strange since it would switch the roles of "attacker" and "defender". I think this is how you should look at it since SMAC is based on simple game mechanics instead of a simulation of reality. (Why does a defender's armor damage an attacker?) Actually, the attack vs. attack is better than Civ2 where an air sup. defender simply got a 3X defensive bonus.
sandworm posted 05-07-99 06:57 PM ET
Bingmann,
I can see your point, I guess it just depends on whether you consider jets built for air defense as defenders. I tend to think of them as jets built to -attack- other air units. Attacking units, in my mind, are bombers and should be at a disadvantage when forced to defend against interceptors, which are built to attack other air units. The extent of the disadvantage should be reflected in the resources put into allowing a bomber to defend itself from interceptors (a belly gunner turret or anti-air missile pods, for example). I tended to think of those resources as reflected in the extra cost of "armor", but, then again, whoever heard of a synthmetal missile?
My take on an air intercept is that the interceptor reverses the roles of defender and attacker -because- the "bomber" is not equipped to attack other air units with its air to ground bombs. (Yes, its a generalization, one could imagine a "cruise" type missile that could be adapted to attack air or ground targets even in mid-flight)
Anyhow, that's how I see it, but I can see good arguments the other way as well, I just don't happen to agree with them.
Oh, why does a defender's armor damage the attacker? It doesn't, the designers just had to simplify the combat system somehow. They -do- seem to have done that with air combat too. If your point was to tell me "its a simplified system, live with it", its a good one. Its just not the way *I* would have done it
TGIF, Saturday should be renamed
SMAC-all-day
sandworm
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Getting kicked
Beta1	posted 05-05-99 10:05 AM ET Right the situation is simple. Playing on second hardest level as spartans I'm in second place overall. Due to the mistake of watching TV while playing SMAC at the same time I've let the UOP get out of control. Mistake 1: let them build Hunter-seeker. Mistake 2: Let them build Cloning vats. That taught me to lose concentration. Anyway UOP now ahead in tech&Pop&territory and I'm involved in a niggling little war with niggling little Yang. I am rapidly running out of patience and would appreciate suggestions. I see 3 ways out. 1 : Go nuclear and PB UOP cities containing wonders. Then probe them to death. Lets see them fight me off then. 2 : If wonders (esp H/S) are on coastal cities do suprise attack with missile barrage/amph assault group, take city, sell most then raze to ground. 3 : continue to fight annoying little war and lose when UOP decide they want to trancend/attack on their terms etc. Due to incompentence on my part UOP have better attack tech than me. Therefore I think my only bet is to make sure they dont get a chance to before I can pull level. I think the commando tactic is the best bet but am open to suggestions
sandworm	posted 05-05-99 10:43 AM ET Nerve gas is maybe a better option than PBs... if you can get a group of four or five X jets to attack UoP cities with cloning vats and HSA you can raze them to the ground without pissing planet off and having everyone else declare vendetta on you. You -will- be sanctioned, probably for the rest of the game, but do what you must to make the world over in Santiago's image You could also combine conv. missile attacks with drop troops, if they're available. Once you've dropped into the enemy city upgrade them to AAA and/or ECM troops with best avail. armor ASAP. A bug in the game will often permit you to drop troops into a city and upgrade on the same turn, but that would be cheating... (Santiago would never cheat wait till the next turn and upgrade, its more fun that way. You can also speed build perimeter defenses and an aerospace comp if you like. One warning: once you station an air unit or build aerospace in a city -another- bug in the game will prevent you from dropping your own troops into that city, yes, your own city. You can temporarily move a jet out of the city square and drop in, but if you build an aerospace complex you can forget dropping in reinforcements, they'll have to come by sea. posting too much, too often sandworm
icosahedron	posted 05-05-99 11:42 AM ET Sandworm's idea of using nerve gas is a good one. Also, don't forget that UoP can use probe teams, too. I don't know if the AI will do so as UoP, but in my current game I have UoP with Hunter-Seeker and I have been using probes to accelerate my campaign against Yang -- air-bomb or 'copter a stack down to one unit, probe-control it, and turn it on the Hive unit in an adjacent square. Sure, it's more expensive to probe as UoP, but with high-morale probe teams I am doing ok, and I know it just frosts Yang's dingleballs to have the University probing his stuff (he keeps trying to contact me just prior to my probe attacks). Try drawing the UoP fire with a minor offensive at a city remote from the one you really want to take, it will make your commando raid easier. icosahedron
Beta1	posted 05-05-99 01:15 PM ET I have a few x-chaos jets around already - I was just waiting for Yang to try and repeal the UN charter. I think the main problem with trying to hold the SP cities will be the distance from my mainland - this is too early in the game for orbital insertion although not by much. I think if I take the cities using nerve gas I might as well raze it. Noone will talk to me from that point anyway. And I always said if your going to be antisocial you might as well be really antisocial. I've had few problems with enemy probes - If you keep a decent number of interceptors airborn than you can spot them coming a mile away. I think the final plan is : 1 : Squash Yang quickly - Gas if needed. (OK just gas) 2 : Raid university from sea/air and raze sp. - 1st target Hunter-seeker 3 : Probe University to death 4: Go completely mental and capture all those lovely cities the other factions have built for me. In fact while I'm in this sociopathic mood I might PB miriam. Just for the hell of it. Just as a side point if you put decent armour on your bombers, attack a lower tech faction and they get attacked by interceptors before returning home the interceptors often end up destroyed. (especially when you have that handy spartan morale boost).
HMFIC	posted 05-05-99 01:41 PM ET Shoot, if you are going to cheat, trade one of your totally crappy bases to UofP for the base with Hunter/Seeker. It will make your head spin how fast the AI will make that trade.
Beta1	posted 05-05-99 07:02 PM ET HMFIC - I try to avoid abusing the AI even when it abuses me. Anyway - nerve gas on Yang worked a treat. Raiding and destroying the HS also worked, unfortunately I may have over done it with the nerve gas. I didnt realise it caused ecodamage like PBs. Result planet goes into one of those vicous circles - fungus pops up all over the place and at one point sea level rose 1300 meters in 20 years. So I fired off the PBs I had amassed, resigned and went of to swim with the isles of the deep. On the bright side this game gave me one of the biggest laughts so far. Some one suggested raising the sea level and Lal supported it. 20 years later Lal was doing the best impression of a dolphin I've seen. Started with ten or so land bases, ended up with two. Prat
Beta1	posted 05-05-99 07:04 PM ET HMFIC - I try to avoid abusing the AI even when it abuses me. Anyway - nerve gas on Yang worked a treat. Raiding and destroying the HS also worked, unfortunately I may have over done it with the nerve gas. I didnt realise it caused ecodamage like PBs. Result planet goes into one of those vicous circles - fungus pops up all over the place and at one point sea level rose 1300 meters in 20 years. So I fired off the PBs I had amassed, resigned and went of to swim with the isles of the deep. On the bright side this game gave me one of the biggest laughts so far. Some one suggested raising the sea level and Lal supported it. 20 years later Lal was doing the best impression of a dolphin I've seen. Started with ten or so land bases, ended up with two. Prat
JT 3	posted 05-05-99 08:02 PM ET Prat?
sandworm	posted 05-06-99 08:52 AM ET Nerve gas causes ecodamage?? Uh-oh.
Beta1	posted 05-06-99 09:08 AM ET I think so - it was too early in the game for mineral production to be the cause. The game appears to treat nerve gas bombing differently from gas attacks from ground units - that really pisses off the other factions. But if you're already facing 120 years of sanctions who cares?
jimmytrick	posted 05-06-99 09:08 AM ET Beta1, I was under the impression that air to air combat ignores armor (attack vs attack). Am I incorrect?
sandals	posted 05-06-99 10:35 AM ET Air to Air combat uses attack vs. attack when a Tactical performs an intercept. Air to ground & tactical to needlejet (no intercept) uses standard attack vs. armor rules.
Beta1	posted 05-06-99 01:39 PM ET Now I'm confused So any air unit attacking ground unit is normal attack:defence rules Air interceptor attacking Bomber is attack:defence rules Interceptor attacking interceptor is Attack:Attack? - not sure about this Seems strange but interceptor v bomber must be standard rules otherwise the interceptor wouldnt have a chance - if identically armed there would no advantage to the attacker so it would basically come down to relative moral levels. In game situation the unarmored bombers will (almost) always lose where as the armoured ones have a fighting chance.
sandworm	posted 05-06-99 02:45 PM ET Is the air to air -intercept- supposed to be attack vs. attack? It seems it should be attack vs. armor -any- time an interceptor attacks a bomber. Does anyone know whether this was an oversight in programming or a game balance decision? ...or is it something else entirely?
Plato90s	posted 05-06-99 07:08 PM ET Special rules apply when two units with Air Superiority ability attack each other. Armor has no relevance, so putting armor on tactical fighters is an waste of effort.
Bingmann	posted 05-07-99 04:01 PM ET Air unit vs. non-air superiority: attack vs. defend. Air unit vs. air superiority: attack vs. attack. sandworm: It seems you want Air unit vs. air superiority: defend vs. attack. That would be kind of strange since it would switch the roles of "attacker" and "defender". I think this is how you should look at it since SMAC is based on simple game mechanics instead of a simulation of reality. (Why does a defender's armor damage an attacker?) Actually, the attack vs. attack is better than Civ2 where an air sup. defender simply got a 3X defensive bonus.
sandworm	posted 05-07-99 06:57 PM ET Bingmann, I can see your point, I guess it just depends on whether you consider jets built for air defense as defenders. I tend to think of them as jets built to -attack- other air units. Attacking units, in my mind, are bombers and should be at a disadvantage when forced to defend against interceptors, which are built to attack other air units. The extent of the disadvantage should be reflected in the resources put into allowing a bomber to defend itself from interceptors (a belly gunner turret or anti-air missile pods, for example). I tended to think of those resources as reflected in the extra cost of "armor", but, then again, whoever heard of a synthmetal missile? My take on an air intercept is that the interceptor reverses the roles of defender and attacker -because- the "bomber" is not equipped to attack other air units with its air to ground bombs. (Yes, its a generalization, one could imagine a "cruise" type missile that could be adapted to attack air or ground targets even in mid-flight) Anyhow, that's how I see it, but I can see good arguments the other way as well, I just don't happen to agree with them. Oh, why does a defender's armor damage the attacker? It doesn't, the designers just had to simplify the combat system somehow. They -do- seem to have done that with air combat too. If your point was to tell me "its a simplified system, live with it", its a good one. Its just not the way I would have done it TGIF, Saturday should be renamed SMAC-all-day sandworm