Anybody Build Non-Base Defenses? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Anybody Build Non-Base Defenses?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Anybody Build Non-Base Defenses?

Natguy posted 07-24-99 10:49 PM ET
I was watching the History Channel about WWII and got to thinking how real war is impacted very much by defenses, fortressess, and terrain. So what I want ot know is this: Does anybody build bunkers or form any non-bsae defensive system? I think if they were arranged correctly, bunkers, sensors, forest and fungus could be formed into an effective defense. Perhaps a line of forest, then fungus, then a line of bunkers, one every other square, another line the same but so the two lines form a checkerboard pattern of sorts, with sensors behind to aid the bubnker defenders, and some artillry as wll. Of course, something simpler or more complex could be used as well. Perhaps if you had the time you could even build a bunker in every suqare and stock it with clean units!
What my main question is is does anybody build non-city defenses, and are they worth it?
Krushala posted 07-24-99 10:53 PM ET
I never build them because I don't think they are worth it. My formers are always busy building other stuff. I rarely get large enough attacks on my territory to worry about it. I usually have some fast units rovers/hovertanks inside my cities to take care of units that might land inside my city radius. If combat in smac was realistic then yes building them would be worth it. Despite firaxis' intentions, coordinated attacks were never very well implemented in the smac ai.
laurens posted 07-24-99 11:34 PM ET
Really depends on the style of your play, and how you are going to win the game.
I don't build them, but it's feasible for these bunker-sensors arrangement to create a strong defence. But then, they won't be of much use in a 70%-90% ocean-covered map.
Plato90s posted 07-24-99 11:55 PM ET
There are 3 main types of defenses. Preclusive defense, elastic defense, and defense-in-depth. Each type has its own uses and depends on both your security needs and the forces you have available.
Preclusive defense is when you are trying to prevent any enemy troops from penetrating your lines. To accomplish this level of security usually involves 2 kinds of deployment. Forward-deployed forces which interdict enemy forces before they reach the line or strong defenses deployed all along the frontier to present a solid line of defense. If you have lots of valuable assets, but relatively immobile forces, this is the way to go.
Elastic defense is a more flexible scheme in which you don't attempt to maintain a border. Invading forces are met by your own forces as they arrive and become available. In the meantime, valuable real estate may be given up temporarily because no local forces are available. This is the kind of defense which employs a mobile force unable to patrol a large frontier but capable of destroying enemy forces in detail.
Defense-in-depth means a layered defense. Relatively weak forces hold the frontier to detect invasions and to slow the enemy down. Strong forces are held in nodal concentrations behind the line and respond in force to any incursions. Assets are not as vulnerable as an elastic defense, but requires a larger investment in forces to maintain.
In SMAC terms, preclusive defense means sensor towers all around your perimeter and forces in either cities or bunkers close enough to hit the enemy as soon as he gets close. Elastic defense means you connect your cities with roads/magrails and react to enemy attacks only when they are getting close to your valuable areas. Defense-in-depth means bunkers with cheap defense-only units scattered around your perimeter and powerful attack forces grouped behind them. You sacrifice the defensive units in order to slow the enemy long enough for the attack units to arrive.
Chronomog posted 07-25-99 12:14 AM ET
Sadly I rarely build non base defenses. Perhaps the only thing i could call non base defenses is my airbases i use on the border with Nerve gas bombers and standard missiles.
The other rare thing is the time i encounter an enemy unit on the way to the enemy base with a probe team.
Sadly TBS games don't usually have very many non base defenses. None but RTS really have all the non base defenses.
Koshko posted 07-25-99 02:19 AM ET
I build Sensors. That's about it. I never thought anything else was necessary.
Zoetrope posted 07-25-99 11:38 PM ET
In SMAC the factions are often looking for an excuse to go to war. It's rare to have most of the world at peace. Indeed, it's hard to keep your friends from periodically going at each other's throats.
This may be because negotiations are bilateral; there are no real multilateral peace deals.
But if the Council were designed to intervene in costly wars, imposing meaningful sanctions not only against atrocities, but also against stubborn belligerents, SMAC would play out rather differently.
Sanctions hardly matter in SMAC, because peace does not offer a significant gain over war. This is because most factions' economies don't need trade. Morgan is the exception, which is all the worse for him.
If the value of trade were increased to over 50% of a typical faction's economy, then they'd need a strong reason to go to war with a valuable trading partner.
Also, resources are rarely as uniformly distributed as they are in SMAC. On Earth, different nations have oil, industrial and strategic metals, labor, capital, and technical expertise, to name some classes of essential economic inputs.
This makes the world economy very differentiated, and the nations mutually dependent.
It also means that if one nation invades another in order to gain a stranglehold on the majority of an essential resource, then other nations will bring pressure to prevent this.
Another consequence is that nations don't generally go to war just for more territory, cities or population, and rarely will they do it for the sole purpose of spreading their philosophy unless they see their opponents as being currently very weak.
Most large-scale wars are fought because one or more major nations are running short of a resource, so they go out and take it. For example, pre-1945 Germany because its population was fast exceeding what its land could support, and WW2 Japan because its oil supplies had been restricted.
Smaller conflicts, like the US-Vietnam and Gulf wars, are fought because one side perceives the other's actions as a danger to the continuing flow of the first nation's vital imports. When this affects many nations, they act as a bloc.
You don't see these kinds of strategic considerations in Civ2 or SMAC, precisely because in those games no nation or faction has a concentration of any resource.
Historically, what constitutes an economically essential good, varies as technology progresses. Once, jewels and gold, silk and spices were among the most valued commodities. Nowadays, it's more likely to be oil, titanium, and uranium, for example.
Civ2 had the right general idea, but it lacked two things: (1) the geographic concentrations of materials, and (2) national economies. Instead, each city, regardless of where it was situated, had three random tradeable items in unit quantity, and three random items it needed, regardless of its size and what buildings it had.
In SMAC, the economy is even more generalised, so every faction has access to all the food, minerals, and energy it needs: rocky, rainy, high squares and rivers are all over the planet, anyone can build a forest, a mine, a farm, a solar collector.
So what is there to trade? So why do we need trading partners? So why would we want peace?
But if Miriam had iron, and Zak had oil, then peace and trade would deliver regular annual supplies, whereas war would cause many lean years for both factions while they desperately attempt to secure each other's sources by conquest.
In that model of the world, only the most desperate outcast, or the most economically backward land-grabbing faction (Genghis Khan, anyone?), would consider war as their first option.
This is because, for every normal situation, war would cost a faction more in the medium term than it could hope to recoup in the long term.
And while some factions were bleeding themselves dry by warring instead of trading, the peaceful traders would be strengthening each other's civil and military industries, and then woe betide any tired warmonger that stepped on their toes.
For example, even in the Middle Ages, the Mongols ran out of puff eventually, and then all their conquests were rolled back by the more industrial nations, and Mongolia was partitioned. Likewise WW2 Germany.
The lesson is: in order to prosper long-term, you need steady trade. Unfortunately, SMAC does not model that, which is why even the Builder factions are easily tempted to war.
Zoetrope posted 07-25-99 11:59 PM ET
Moreover, it's hard to plan a strategic defence when attacks can come from any faction any time.
Inix posted 07-26-99 01:15 AM ET
zoe,
The "problems" u r perciving about this game come from a differing opinion on what should and should not be possible within the context of the game. U seem like u do not want it to be possible for a single faction to "go it alone" make war on one faction after another gaining submissives along the way (and maby perhaps a near-equal partner along the way) twords the ultimate goal of planetary conquest. If the game were deisgned alone the lines u speak of, all conquering factions would suck, all builder factions would have a dandy ole time, and the overal complexety and variety of gameplay and game STYLES would be reduced. In its present state, SMAC offers all possible roads to victory. U can be peacefull and make treaties with as many people as u possibly can, pacts with the rest. Supporting your allies and trading with them to mutual benefit while the warmongers duke it out toe to toe. However, if this play style doesnt suit u, u can instead aggress anyone and everyone u come into contac with, probing them and stealing thier techs when your not activily invading them. IMHO, SMAC is a great game percisly because it doesnt emulate the real world in the manner of witch u speak, alowing each faction relative independance to make thier choices about how to proceed as they c fit. If instead it emulated the real world in its present state, the interdependant impierialistic economies of the well-off countries exploiting anyone they can get thier tendrils into, builder factions would rein supreme and the gameplay would be nessasserily limited. As a totally different game, one based on the principals outlined in your above post, might indeed be intresting, but i think it would be out of place in SMAC, and it would certainly decrease its versatility in terms of how u can effectively play. As a final note, it is my personal belief, that in the same way that technology alowed the isolationist economy of the US to bloom into the monstrosity that it now is, technology of the future may alow a faction independance, especially consider how advances would be made in the early years of SMAC. Isolated colonist would have to figure out alterante energy/power sources, invent new matierials or new ways to use old ones, and so on. It is not unfeasable that developing in such a vacume, with advanced technology and the exelerated reaserch that these colonists would be performing ( i am operating under the assumption that only the cream of the crop would have been alowed on this journey and as such they would be supirior in most respects), it may be assumed that although one faction might have more of one reasource than does another of the same matierial, each faction would have adapted and changed to use their avalible reasources and put them to whatever uses they must. The combined net effect off all of the factions doing this would generally put each on equal footing exepting those that landed in particualarly rich areas (thus the garland crater, uranium flats ect). Remember that nessessity is the mother of invention.
Lambo posted 07-26-99 01:30 AM ET
I try to build at least one sensor within 2 spaces of a base because then they provide a 25% def bonus but bunkers are basically useless because they can be captured by enemy forces. Airbases i have never built at all. I never seem to have the need to use them and never seen AI use them either
mcostant posted 07-26-99 05:17 AM ET
My defensive building outside of bases:
1) At least one Sensor in a forest two square far from a base (better two in opposite side of base);
2) when I build magtube (I use them a lot because I like to keep "fast response forces" for elastic defence) I try to build at least a bunker on the line between every cities, because if an enemy force try to use the magtube to intrude deeply into my empire, the first unit must stop when "capture the - empty - bunker".
Because I "terraform into forest" a lot (so I gain a lot of resources building tree farm and hybrid forest), I have a collateral defense against enemy rush. Well, nothing new, you see, but may be it can help any new player has it helped me reading similar hints at this forum some months ago.
Bye
Series II posted 07-26-99 08:49 AM ET
Sanctions hardly matter in SMAC??????
I beg to differ. I Have my research slide bar at 100% and am paying all my maintenance cost (with 100-200 profit) each turn with trade commerce. My empire is HUGE about 100 cities.
Trade is a big part of my strategy. I am playing the Giains so I am getting high effiecncy and normal science.
Natguy posted 07-26-99 09:11 AM ET
I wholeheartedly agree. I love trade. Its the reason I don't commit atrocities.
Plato90s posted 07-26-99 10:40 AM ET
Bunkers are very useful, especially once you have mag-rail. When an enemy unit moves into an empty bunker on your territory, it has to stop for the turn in order to "capture" the bunker. By putting bunkers along your road/magrail network, you prevent enemy units from freely using your transport network to invade.
And Zoetrope... the Mongol empire didn't "run out of puff". They were simply assimilated into the various empires they conquered. By the time the Mongol khans were defeated and overthrown, they were a very different kind of people than when Ghenghis Khan was in charge. Even then, it took the better part of a century for the Mongol empire to really start to fall apart, and remnants of the empire remained over 2 centuries after Ghenghis.
Series II posted 07-26-99 01:06 PM ET
Plato, neat bunker strategy. I had noticed that when I took bunkers, but never developed it into a defensive strategy. Of course only the first unit has to capture the bunker. Units after the first can move right through.
I also use forest as a base defense. I put a line of them right in front of my 'border' cities. The forests srop enemy units and allow you to get the first attack.
MajiK6pt5 posted 07-27-99 12:26 AM ET
if one of your cities is about to be attacked by one of your enemies who is close, and there is a land bridge connecting your city and the enemy (or something of a similar nature) I put a bunker and one or more defense units on the square between your base and your enemy
that way they will be significantly weakened (unless they have a HUGE force) before they hit your base, and you will have more time to rush attackers over there
of course, you must also put a sensor near the bunker and base
sandworm posted 07-27-99 09:27 AM ET
I often use sensors, and once in a great while I'll build an airbase with a few interceptors near a group of supply rovers to defend them from air attacks. I've only built bunkers when my formers run out of things to do and I don't want to disband them.
Series II posted 07-27-99 10:54 AM ET
I build cities at those choak points/land bridges.
I build cities instead of airbases (usually using drop colony pods). Having a city makes it easier to use the 'go to' function than having an airbase.
sandals posted 07-29-99 03:57 PM ET
I find that bunkers are only useful as 'speed bumps' in a road/tube network. The basic reason is that a city/PD/sensor has better defense than a bunker. The bunker/sensor still doesn't provide enough bonus to overcome the usual 2:1 Weapon:armor ratio that is common through most of the game.
I do the foresting too, but that is just because I like forests, not really for defense. My best defensive technique is to patrol with rovers or choppers.
ViVicdi posted 07-30-99 03:49 PM ET
I build sensors religiously ~5 squares apart. I like bunkers on chokepoints and rocky terrain. I like airbases on coasts. I like fungus to stop enemy movement (forest won't stop an elite probe team; fungus will), but only if I have The XenoDome.
I have not confirmed whether the "forced pitstop" bunker trick works against enemy probes.
MrDuck posted 08-04-99 10:11 AM ET
Too much time wasting with defenses. If you have set up a close border wiith another faction and have not gone too war i might be worth it, if attack from the oppisite site will come, (which lets face it is enevitable).
ViVicdi posted 08-04-99 12:03 PM ET
The bunker trick doesn't work on probes.
Zakharov_54 posted 08-04-99 02:22 PM ET
The thing about the bunker trick and probe teams is that you can always put your own probe team in with bunker and any other units you might have there. As to building bunkers and airbases, I generally don't simply because when I go to war I use mind control to take over a city. Just don't try it early in the game (unless you cheat and set your energy reserves to the max).
AlexDePol posted 08-05-99 05:29 AM ET
When at war with the Believers, I usualy send in a rover former or two together with my mil units. The formers build sensors to help offset the Believers 25% attack bonus.
Natguy posted 08-06-99 02:41 PM ET
Yeah, I always send a former out with the army when its a nearby war (with faraway invasions, I don't waste the transport space. If I need one, I'll build it there) I have found them useful not only at the various land-raising tricks but also with such things as building roads to get your troops there quickly, perhaps if the enemy road is defended or if you see a faster way, tearing up enhancements so you can use every unit you've got at fighting, and terraforming the conquered bases so as to be able to have them help out in the war. Anybody else use terraformers offensively, or have any other strategies for "attack" terraformers?
ViVicdi posted 08-07-99 02:02 AM ET
My "Engineer" units (Rover or Hover Drop Superformer) are helpful close to the front in building roads, sensors, and bunkers. Forests will transform The Killing Fields into Afghanistan, and if you throw a bunker on top of it it makes anything from Plasma Steel on up very inconvenient.
While building bunkers on rocks is safer and provides the ultimate defense (if rocky terrain is available use it!), forests have the added benefit of being usable by conquered bases.
Incidentally, if I get the XenoDome my combat engineers are far less likely to keep up with the regular army. Choppers cut down the effectiveness of combat engineering as well; a couple of Garden Weasels [Plasma Shard Choppers] can pretty much clear out any wandering troops, largely freeing your infantry from harassment as they assault the base itself.
(Ever notice that the plasma shard looks like a lawn & gardening tool?)
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: Anybody Build Non-Base Defenses?
Natguy	posted 07-24-99 10:49 PM ET I was watching the History Channel about WWII and got to thinking how real war is impacted very much by defenses, fortressess, and terrain. So what I want ot know is this: Does anybody build bunkers or form any non-bsae defensive system? I think if they were arranged correctly, bunkers, sensors, forest and fungus could be formed into an effective defense. Perhaps a line of forest, then fungus, then a line of bunkers, one every other square, another line the same but so the two lines form a checkerboard pattern of sorts, with sensors behind to aid the bubnker defenders, and some artillry as wll. Of course, something simpler or more complex could be used as well. Perhaps if you had the time you could even build a bunker in every suqare and stock it with clean units! What my main question is is does anybody build non-city defenses, and are they worth it?
Krushala	posted 07-24-99 10:53 PM ET I never build them because I don't think they are worth it. My formers are always busy building other stuff. I rarely get large enough attacks on my territory to worry about it. I usually have some fast units rovers/hovertanks inside my cities to take care of units that might land inside my city radius. If combat in smac was realistic then yes building them would be worth it. Despite firaxis' intentions, coordinated attacks were never very well implemented in the smac ai.
laurens	posted 07-24-99 11:34 PM ET Really depends on the style of your play, and how you are going to win the game. I don't build them, but it's feasible for these bunker-sensors arrangement to create a strong defence. But then, they won't be of much use in a 70%-90% ocean-covered map.
Plato90s	posted 07-24-99 11:55 PM ET There are 3 main types of defenses. Preclusive defense, elastic defense, and defense-in-depth. Each type has its own uses and depends on both your security needs and the forces you have available. Preclusive defense is when you are trying to prevent any enemy troops from penetrating your lines. To accomplish this level of security usually involves 2 kinds of deployment. Forward-deployed forces which interdict enemy forces before they reach the line or strong defenses deployed all along the frontier to present a solid line of defense. If you have lots of valuable assets, but relatively immobile forces, this is the way to go. Elastic defense is a more flexible scheme in which you don't attempt to maintain a border. Invading forces are met by your own forces as they arrive and become available. In the meantime, valuable real estate may be given up temporarily because no local forces are available. This is the kind of defense which employs a mobile force unable to patrol a large frontier but capable of destroying enemy forces in detail. Defense-in-depth means a layered defense. Relatively weak forces hold the frontier to detect invasions and to slow the enemy down. Strong forces are held in nodal concentrations behind the line and respond in force to any incursions. Assets are not as vulnerable as an elastic defense, but requires a larger investment in forces to maintain. In SMAC terms, preclusive defense means sensor towers all around your perimeter and forces in either cities or bunkers close enough to hit the enemy as soon as he gets close. Elastic defense means you connect your cities with roads/magrails and react to enemy attacks only when they are getting close to your valuable areas. Defense-in-depth means bunkers with cheap defense-only units scattered around your perimeter and powerful attack forces grouped behind them. You sacrifice the defensive units in order to slow the enemy long enough for the attack units to arrive.
Chronomog	posted 07-25-99 12:14 AM ET Sadly I rarely build non base defenses. Perhaps the only thing i could call non base defenses is my airbases i use on the border with Nerve gas bombers and standard missiles. The other rare thing is the time i encounter an enemy unit on the way to the enemy base with a probe team. Sadly TBS games don't usually have very many non base defenses. None but RTS really have all the non base defenses.
Koshko	posted 07-25-99 02:19 AM ET I build Sensors. That's about it. I never thought anything else was necessary.
Zoetrope	posted 07-25-99 11:38 PM ET In SMAC the factions are often looking for an excuse to go to war. It's rare to have most of the world at peace. Indeed, it's hard to keep your friends from periodically going at each other's throats. This may be because negotiations are bilateral; there are no real multilateral peace deals. But if the Council were designed to intervene in costly wars, imposing meaningful sanctions not only against atrocities, but also against stubborn belligerents, SMAC would play out rather differently. Sanctions hardly matter in SMAC, because peace does not offer a significant gain over war. This is because most factions' economies don't need trade. Morgan is the exception, which is all the worse for him. If the value of trade were increased to over 50% of a typical faction's economy, then they'd need a strong reason to go to war with a valuable trading partner. Also, resources are rarely as uniformly distributed as they are in SMAC. On Earth, different nations have oil, industrial and strategic metals, labor, capital, and technical expertise, to name some classes of essential economic inputs. This makes the world economy very differentiated, and the nations mutually dependent. It also means that if one nation invades another in order to gain a stranglehold on the majority of an essential resource, then other nations will bring pressure to prevent this. Another consequence is that nations don't generally go to war just for more territory, cities or population, and rarely will they do it for the sole purpose of spreading their philosophy unless they see their opponents as being currently very weak. Most large-scale wars are fought because one or more major nations are running short of a resource, so they go out and take it. For example, pre-1945 Germany because its population was fast exceeding what its land could support, and WW2 Japan because its oil supplies had been restricted. Smaller conflicts, like the US-Vietnam and Gulf wars, are fought because one side perceives the other's actions as a danger to the continuing flow of the first nation's vital imports. When this affects many nations, they act as a bloc. You don't see these kinds of strategic considerations in Civ2 or SMAC, precisely because in those games no nation or faction has a concentration of any resource. Historically, what constitutes an economically essential good, varies as technology progresses. Once, jewels and gold, silk and spices were among the most valued commodities. Nowadays, it's more likely to be oil, titanium, and uranium, for example. Civ2 had the right general idea, but it lacked two things: (1) the geographic concentrations of materials, and (2) national economies. Instead, each city, regardless of where it was situated, had three random tradeable items in unit quantity, and three random items it needed, regardless of its size and what buildings it had. In SMAC, the economy is even more generalised, so every faction has access to all the food, minerals, and energy it needs: rocky, rainy, high squares and rivers are all over the planet, anyone can build a forest, a mine, a farm, a solar collector. So what is there to trade? So why do we need trading partners? So why would we want peace? But if Miriam had iron, and Zak had oil, then peace and trade would deliver regular annual supplies, whereas war would cause many lean years for both factions while they desperately attempt to secure each other's sources by conquest. In that model of the world, only the most desperate outcast, or the most economically backward land-grabbing faction (Genghis Khan, anyone?), would consider war as their first option. This is because, for every normal situation, war would cost a faction more in the medium term than it could hope to recoup in the long term. And while some factions were bleeding themselves dry by warring instead of trading, the peaceful traders would be strengthening each other's civil and military industries, and then woe betide any tired warmonger that stepped on their toes. For example, even in the Middle Ages, the Mongols ran out of puff eventually, and then all their conquests were rolled back by the more industrial nations, and Mongolia was partitioned. Likewise WW2 Germany. The lesson is: in order to prosper long-term, you need steady trade. Unfortunately, SMAC does not model that, which is why even the Builder factions are easily tempted to war.
Zoetrope	posted 07-25-99 11:59 PM ET Moreover, it's hard to plan a strategic defence when attacks can come from any faction any time.
Inix	posted 07-26-99 01:15 AM ET zoe, The "problems" u r perciving about this game come from a differing opinion on what should and should not be possible within the context of the game. U seem like u do not want it to be possible for a single faction to "go it alone" make war on one faction after another gaining submissives along the way (and maby perhaps a near-equal partner along the way) twords the ultimate goal of planetary conquest. If the game were deisgned alone the lines u speak of, all conquering factions would suck, all builder factions would have a dandy ole time, and the overal complexety and variety of gameplay and game STYLES would be reduced. In its present state, SMAC offers all possible roads to victory. U can be peacefull and make treaties with as many people as u possibly can, pacts with the rest. Supporting your allies and trading with them to mutual benefit while the warmongers duke it out toe to toe. However, if this play style doesnt suit u, u can instead aggress anyone and everyone u come into contac with, probing them and stealing thier techs when your not activily invading them. IMHO, SMAC is a great game percisly because it doesnt emulate the real world in the manner of witch u speak, alowing each faction relative independance to make thier choices about how to proceed as they c fit. If instead it emulated the real world in its present state, the interdependant impierialistic economies of the well-off countries exploiting anyone they can get thier tendrils into, builder factions would rein supreme and the gameplay would be nessasserily limited. As a totally different game, one based on the principals outlined in your above post, might indeed be intresting, but i think it would be out of place in SMAC, and it would certainly decrease its versatility in terms of how u can effectively play. As a final note, it is my personal belief, that in the same way that technology alowed the isolationist economy of the US to bloom into the monstrosity that it now is, technology of the future may alow a faction independance, especially consider how advances would be made in the early years of SMAC. Isolated colonist would have to figure out alterante energy/power sources, invent new matierials or new ways to use old ones, and so on. It is not unfeasable that developing in such a vacume, with advanced technology and the exelerated reaserch that these colonists would be performing ( i am operating under the assumption that only the cream of the crop would have been alowed on this journey and as such they would be supirior in most respects), it may be assumed that although one faction might have more of one reasource than does another of the same matierial, each faction would have adapted and changed to use their avalible reasources and put them to whatever uses they must. The combined net effect off all of the factions doing this would generally put each on equal footing exepting those that landed in particualarly rich areas (thus the garland crater, uranium flats ect). Remember that nessessity is the mother of invention.
Lambo	posted 07-26-99 01:30 AM ET I try to build at least one sensor within 2 spaces of a base because then they provide a 25% def bonus but bunkers are basically useless because they can be captured by enemy forces. Airbases i have never built at all. I never seem to have the need to use them and never seen AI use them either
mcostant	posted 07-26-99 05:17 AM ET My defensive building outside of bases: 1) At least one Sensor in a forest two square far from a base (better two in opposite side of base); 2) when I build magtube (I use them a lot because I like to keep "fast response forces" for elastic defence) I try to build at least a bunker on the line between every cities, because if an enemy force try to use the magtube to intrude deeply into my empire, the first unit must stop when "capture the - empty - bunker". Because I "terraform into forest" a lot (so I gain a lot of resources building tree farm and hybrid forest), I have a collateral defense against enemy rush. Well, nothing new, you see, but may be it can help any new player has it helped me reading similar hints at this forum some months ago. Bye
Series II	posted 07-26-99 08:49 AM ET Sanctions hardly matter in SMAC?????? I beg to differ. I Have my research slide bar at 100% and am paying all my maintenance cost (with 100-200 profit) each turn with trade commerce. My empire is HUGE about 100 cities. Trade is a big part of my strategy. I am playing the Giains so I am getting high effiecncy and normal science.
Natguy	posted 07-26-99 09:11 AM ET I wholeheartedly agree. I love trade. Its the reason I don't commit atrocities.
Plato90s	posted 07-26-99 10:40 AM ET Bunkers are very useful, especially once you have mag-rail. When an enemy unit moves into an empty bunker on your territory, it has to stop for the turn in order to "capture" the bunker. By putting bunkers along your road/magrail network, you prevent enemy units from freely using your transport network to invade. And Zoetrope... the Mongol empire didn't "run out of puff". They were simply assimilated into the various empires they conquered. By the time the Mongol khans were defeated and overthrown, they were a very different kind of people than when Ghenghis Khan was in charge. Even then, it took the better part of a century for the Mongol empire to really start to fall apart, and remnants of the empire remained over 2 centuries after Ghenghis.
Series II	posted 07-26-99 01:06 PM ET Plato, neat bunker strategy. I had noticed that when I took bunkers, but never developed it into a defensive strategy. Of course only the first unit has to capture the bunker. Units after the first can move right through. I also use forest as a base defense. I put a line of them right in front of my 'border' cities. The forests srop enemy units and allow you to get the first attack.
MajiK6pt5	posted 07-27-99 12:26 AM ET if one of your cities is about to be attacked by one of your enemies who is close, and there is a land bridge connecting your city and the enemy (or something of a similar nature) I put a bunker and one or more defense units on the square between your base and your enemy that way they will be significantly weakened (unless they have a HUGE force) before they hit your base, and you will have more time to rush attackers over there of course, you must also put a sensor near the bunker and base
sandworm	posted 07-27-99 09:27 AM ET I often use sensors, and once in a great while I'll build an airbase with a few interceptors near a group of supply rovers to defend them from air attacks. I've only built bunkers when my formers run out of things to do and I don't want to disband them.
Series II	posted 07-27-99 10:54 AM ET I build cities at those choak points/land bridges. I build cities instead of airbases (usually using drop colony pods). Having a city makes it easier to use the 'go to' function than having an airbase.
sandals	posted 07-29-99 03:57 PM ET I find that bunkers are only useful as 'speed bumps' in a road/tube network. The basic reason is that a city/PD/sensor has better defense than a bunker. The bunker/sensor still doesn't provide enough bonus to overcome the usual 2:1 Weapon:armor ratio that is common through most of the game. I do the foresting too, but that is just because I like forests, not really for defense. My best defensive technique is to patrol with rovers or choppers.
ViVicdi	posted 07-30-99 03:49 PM ET I build sensors religiously ~5 squares apart. I like bunkers on chokepoints and rocky terrain. I like airbases on coasts. I like fungus to stop enemy movement (forest won't stop an elite probe team; fungus will), but only if I have The XenoDome. I have not confirmed whether the "forced pitstop" bunker trick works against enemy probes.
MrDuck	posted 08-04-99 10:11 AM ET Too much time wasting with defenses. If you have set up a close border wiith another faction and have not gone too war i might be worth it, if attack from the oppisite site will come, (which lets face it is enevitable).
ViVicdi	posted 08-04-99 12:03 PM ET The bunker trick doesn't work on probes.
Zakharov_54	posted 08-04-99 02:22 PM ET The thing about the bunker trick and probe teams is that you can always put your own probe team in with bunker and any other units you might have there. As to building bunkers and airbases, I generally don't simply because when I go to war I use mind control to take over a city. Just don't try it early in the game (unless you cheat and set your energy reserves to the max).
AlexDePol	posted 08-05-99 05:29 AM ET When at war with the Believers, I usualy send in a rover former or two together with my mil units. The formers build sensors to help offset the Believers 25% attack bonus.
Natguy	posted 08-06-99 02:41 PM ET Yeah, I always send a former out with the army when its a nearby war (with faraway invasions, I don't waste the transport space. If I need one, I'll build it there) I have found them useful not only at the various land-raising tricks but also with such things as building roads to get your troops there quickly, perhaps if the enemy road is defended or if you see a faster way, tearing up enhancements so you can use every unit you've got at fighting, and terraforming the conquered bases so as to be able to have them help out in the war. Anybody else use terraformers offensively, or have any other strategies for "attack" terraformers?
ViVicdi	posted 08-07-99 02:02 AM ET My "Engineer" units (Rover or Hover Drop Superformer) are helpful close to the front in building roads, sensors, and bunkers. Forests will transform The Killing Fields into Afghanistan, and if you throw a bunker on top of it it makes anything from Plasma Steel on up very inconvenient. While building bunkers on rocks is safer and provides the ultimate defense (if rocky terrain is available use it!), forests have the added benefit of being usable by conquered bases. Incidentally, if I get the XenoDome my combat engineers are far less likely to keep up with the regular army. Choppers cut down the effectiveness of combat engineering as well; a couple of Garden Weasels [Plasma Shard Choppers] can pretty much clear out any wandering troops, largely freeing your infantry from harassment as they assault the base itself. (Ever notice that the plasma shard looks like a lawn & gardening tool?)