Running up the score - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Running up the score

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Running up the score

Plato90s posted 05-09-99 12:31 AM ET
For the first time, I played the game out longer than necessary - to see the extent to which the score can be run up. It's ridiculous.
By year 2372, I had the game won in multiple ways. I could win by Conquest, Diplomatic, or Transcendent within a single turn. Obviously, the highest score was by Transcendent - 508%.
But by hanging around for another 9 years and letting Cloning Vats run up the population, the score jumped to 577% by mission year 2381. Of course, I was bored out of my mind just running the empire. I had auto-queues set up and Gravship formers just planting fungus over everything.
So the next time you see someone posting a huge score of 500%+, all it means is this person has the patience to sit through the endless turns. When your average city size breaks the 50 barrier, you have a huge score no matter how well or poorly you played in the first 3 centuries of the game.
Hudson2 posted 05-09-99 01:30 AM ET
I think one way of judging performance would be how many % a player has (depending on victory type and on level of play) near the year of 2400...I notice victories are usually had on huge maps around 2380-90.
David Johnson posted 05-09-99 02:06 PM ET
The most vital part of the expansion is, of course the earliest years. For example I'd be hoping to get the 500% score [without ironman option] around a hundred years earlier than 2372. That's where the skill is in micro-management. After a hundred years you'd be hoping for the tech to have reached mind/machine interface [choppers]. This would be substantially ahead of the AI factions who would then be zilched fairly quickly.
It's a shame that the user interface doesn't allow you to go past that stage without punishing monotony. Maybe the play testers couldn't be bothered? There's no excuse for how poor the facilities for managing large empires is at that point in the game.
High Priest posted 05-09-99 05:48 PM ET
Plato:
What was your difficulty level, mape size, faction, and was ironman set or not?
Va1en posted 05-09-99 06:03 PM ET
It is sooo annoying when it takes 10 minutes plus to play ONE turn! You queue, you use governors, but you still sit, and sit, and sit.
Plato90s posted 05-09-99 09:00 PM ET
Transcend + Abundant Life.
Zoetrope posted 05-10-99 02:30 AM ET
David Johnson: I don't know of any empire strategy game that micromanages large worlds very well; perhaps the original MOO came closest.
When we have a large empire, we're less interested in details than in the big picture. So to reduce micro-tedium, a game needs big-picture concepts (BPCs).
What are some of the BPCs that SMAC (or SMACX) could use? I'd love to read other people's suggestions, but here are some of mine.
1. Strategic orders, such as "relentlessly attack that enemy base".
2. More named large objects, such as attack routes, convoys, sea fleets, air fleets, army groups, combined operations groups. These should respond to orders directed at the group, not the individual units. (Modern generals have a chain of command, they don't direct individual platoons.)
Proof of concept: Space Empires 3 has numbered fleets, and you can order a whole fleet to any location on the map. A stacked portion of a fleet travels at the speed of its slowest member; separated units and groups (even of the same fleet) each travel at their own best speed. Each unit type can be given its own general battle orders. SE3 plays fast.
3. Combining operations, like procedures in programming languages. Bases have queues, but can we name the queues? Why can't we queue commands as well? And name useful sequences of commands.
Programming uses four simple combining forms: sequences, if-statements, tested-loops, and procedures. Similarly, military procedures should be describable, nameable, storeable in a library, and reusable in the next game.
4. AI Governors and terraformers are dumb because we cannot tell them all the details of what we want done. They should be more programmable. (See previous point.)
eNo posted 05-10-99 09:43 AM ET
Another way to pump up the score is to set your psych rating to 100% in the end. I'm pretty sure talents get rated better than citizens.
Plato90s posted 05-10-99 11:33 AM ET
What would be the point of pumping up the psych?
At this point, the average size of cities are 20+. There are so many Transcends that I have cities with only Talents and Transcends. The cities that don't are smaller cities filled with drones, so 100% psych won't help any more than 10% psych.
eNo posted 05-10-99 06:50 PM ET
True but every little bit helps.
Koshko posted 05-10-99 11:11 PM ET
The score is based on total population. I don't think it takes into account Talents.
Aviagion posted 05-12-99 01:43 PM ET
I'm pretty sure that talents are worth two points while workers and drones are worth one.
OncFellow posted 05-12-99 02:34 PM ET
I have a problem with the game... it gets hideously tedious to manage more than say 20 cities. I am aware of the "F" key to look at the cities, but you still have to click back and forth to each control panel to do anything. Is there a way to go to the "build" screen and change the orders without going back and forth to EVERY city you have? I mean, it must take an HOUR to simply order your cities to do anything with 300!
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: Running up the score
Plato90s	posted 05-09-99 12:31 AM ET For the first time, I played the game out longer than necessary - to see the extent to which the score can be run up. It's ridiculous. By year 2372, I had the game won in multiple ways. I could win by Conquest, Diplomatic, or Transcendent within a single turn. Obviously, the highest score was by Transcendent - 508%. But by hanging around for another 9 years and letting Cloning Vats run up the population, the score jumped to 577% by mission year 2381. Of course, I was bored out of my mind just running the empire. I had auto-queues set up and Gravship formers just planting fungus over everything. So the next time you see someone posting a huge score of 500%+, all it means is this person has the patience to sit through the endless turns. When your average city size breaks the 50 barrier, you have a huge score no matter how well or poorly you played in the first 3 centuries of the game.
Hudson2	posted 05-09-99 01:30 AM ET I think one way of judging performance would be how many % a player has (depending on victory type and on level of play) near the year of 2400...I notice victories are usually had on huge maps around 2380-90.
David Johnson	posted 05-09-99 02:06 PM ET The most vital part of the expansion is, of course the earliest years. For example I'd be hoping to get the 500% score [without ironman option] around a hundred years earlier than 2372. That's where the skill is in micro-management. After a hundred years you'd be hoping for the tech to have reached mind/machine interface [choppers]. This would be substantially ahead of the AI factions who would then be zilched fairly quickly. It's a shame that the user interface doesn't allow you to go past that stage without punishing monotony. Maybe the play testers couldn't be bothered? There's no excuse for how poor the facilities for managing large empires is at that point in the game.
High Priest	posted 05-09-99 05:48 PM ET Plato: What was your difficulty level, mape size, faction, and was ironman set or not?
Va1en	posted 05-09-99 06:03 PM ET It is sooo annoying when it takes 10 minutes plus to play ONE turn! You queue, you use governors, but you still sit, and sit, and sit.
Plato90s	posted 05-09-99 09:00 PM ET Transcend + Abundant Life.
Zoetrope	posted 05-10-99 02:30 AM ET David Johnson: I don't know of any empire strategy game that micromanages large worlds very well; perhaps the original MOO came closest. When we have a large empire, we're less interested in details than in the big picture. So to reduce micro-tedium, a game needs big-picture concepts (BPCs). What are some of the BPCs that SMAC (or SMACX) could use? I'd love to read other people's suggestions, but here are some of mine. 1. Strategic orders, such as "relentlessly attack that enemy base". 2. More named large objects, such as attack routes, convoys, sea fleets, air fleets, army groups, combined operations groups. These should respond to orders directed at the group, not the individual units. (Modern generals have a chain of command, they don't direct individual platoons.) Proof of concept: Space Empires 3 has numbered fleets, and you can order a whole fleet to any location on the map. A stacked portion of a fleet travels at the speed of its slowest member; separated units and groups (even of the same fleet) each travel at their own best speed. Each unit type can be given its own general battle orders. SE3 plays fast. 3. Combining operations, like procedures in programming languages. Bases have queues, but can we name the queues? Why can't we queue commands as well? And name useful sequences of commands. Programming uses four simple combining forms: sequences, if-statements, tested-loops, and procedures. Similarly, military procedures should be describable, nameable, storeable in a library, and reusable in the next game. 4. AI Governors and terraformers are dumb because we cannot tell them all the details of what we want done. They should be more programmable. (See previous point.)
eNo	posted 05-10-99 09:43 AM ET Another way to pump up the score is to set your psych rating to 100% in the end. I'm pretty sure talents get rated better than citizens.
Plato90s	posted 05-10-99 11:33 AM ET What would be the point of pumping up the psych? At this point, the average size of cities are 20+. There are so many Transcends that I have cities with only Talents and Transcends. The cities that don't are smaller cities filled with drones, so 100% psych won't help any more than 10% psych.
eNo	posted 05-10-99 06:50 PM ET True but every little bit helps.
Koshko	posted 05-10-99 11:11 PM ET The score is based on total population. I don't think it takes into account Talents.
Aviagion	posted 05-12-99 01:43 PM ET I'm pretty sure that talents are worth two points while workers and drones are worth one.
OncFellow	posted 05-12-99 02:34 PM ET I have a problem with the game... it gets hideously tedious to manage more than say 20 cities. I am aware of the "F" key to look at the cities, but you still have to click back and forth to each control panel to do anything. Is there a way to go to the "build" screen and change the orders without going back and forth to EVERY city you have? I mean, it must take an HOUR to simply order your cities to do anything with 300!