posted 06-28-99 11:42 PM ET        

Anyway... MtG is CMNing a new PBEM game where we players weren't sure whether we wanted a scratch start (slow but precise) or an accelerated start - SMACpoints or played by CMN (quick but less player control). A good compromise was found in MtG's idea of starting from scratch, but giving each player (including the AI) 6 colony pods, 4 formers and 4 scout patrols, except for Santiago (AI) who starts with one scout patrol, since she gets her normal rover, and the AI has production and map knowledge cheats. Each faction starts with 40 energy instead of the normal 10, except for Morgan, who has 130 instead of the normal 100. All other faction advantages/disadvantages are the same as normal.

So far, only a couple of turns have been played, but it seems to be a very interesting way to start... it speeds up the early game (no more "load game, move Scout Patrol, Turn Complete") and avoids any problems with players not liking the choices made by the CMN during a CMN-accelerated start. It also makes for some very interesting early decisions, as to whether to go for six small bases, three medium ones or one or two bigger ones.

Anyway, it seems a good answer to the perennial problem of the slow scratch start.

posted 06-28-99 11:57 PM ET            

In another variation of accelerated starts, check out Bingmann's method of independent single player hotseat games. The CMN merges the game when contact seems imminent. He posted the concept here somewhere before he started. I think he's up to four Bing Challenges now.

This is a great system for the players; hard as nails on the CMN, I would think.

posted 06-29-99 02:25 AM ET            

Three cheers for Bingmann!
Hip, hip, hurrah!
Hip, hip, hurrah!
Hip, hip, hurrah!

posted 06-29-99 09:09 AM ET            

I don't want to steal MtG's and Nell's thunder - I'll start my own thread when I'm ready to relate my CMN experiences. (First, I'm putting together a "How To" web site detailing the procedures that seem to work best and what to avoid.)

MtG's method sounds like a good and easy way to accelerate a game. I like the fact that it puts the player in control from the start while still accelerating the game immensely. My only concern is that this is a significant departure from how single player SMAC starts, so you have to watch out for things that might be unbalanced. The first few techs have a very low cost, so with 6 bases, those techs will be discovered in very rapid succession. That's not so much of a problem in itself, but it makes the Beleiver's "no tech until 2110" a huge disadvantage - they are losing 6 bases x 10 turns of research instead of 2 bases x 10 turns of research. Maybe bumping up the starting turn to 2106 would help.

posted 06-29-99 10:59 AM ET            

Bingmann, your point about the Believers' tech disadvantage is a good one, and starting the game a few years into the scenario would certainly help with this. As it happens, it's not so much of a problem in our particular game, as we are allowing full diplomatic contact from the start, so the Believers can trade tech freely. Whether or not it leads to game imbalance is another interesting point... we'll have to play some more turns and see how things pan out.

Thanks for the comments, guys, and if anyone wants to contribute more, that would be great... finding the perfect method of starting PBEM games is a tricky problem! I'd quite like to start a game or two of my own, once I build up the courage (and find the time), so all suggestions and comments are very welcome.

Cheers,
Nell

posted 06-29-99 12:12 PM ET            

Just kidding.

The Bing method does seem to be "sound as a pound, baby" at least for the players. And mainly for those that want full control. This may have been addressed elsewhere, but what stops the player from using an alternative save file and "scouting out the terrain"? This seems to be untraceable.

As for the MtG method, it is a great easy way to jump start the game, but has Bingmann pointed out it is an alteration from the SP way of starting and could create balance problems.

Even the SMAC points idea could create balance problems and of course it is a departure from the norm.

The original way provides little control for the player.

The various methods then should be made available by the CMN community as a whole, and players can choose a creation method based on their own preferences.

Control over the creation process, when I am a player, means little to me. I am much more interested at this point in getting a game where I can jump right in and start interacting with my Chiron friends (and enemies)

Looking back at all that I have just said I see that it is more pointless than normal so I guess I will just hit the submit button and be done with it.

posted 06-29-99 01:38 PM ET            

1. If the colony pods all start in the same square so that they have to spend time moving and spreading out, then start the game at 2104. If the colony pods start spread out in good base locations, then start the game at 2106. This makes the Believer's "no tech before 2110" about the same as SP.

2. Give the Hive an extra colony pod. In SP, the extra units would have to be built and the bases grow enough to have population for more colony pods. The Hive, with Industry +1 and Growth +1, will have made more than the other factions in the same amount of time.

3. Adjust the Spartan package to 6 colony pods, 3 formers, 2 scout rovers. This adjusts the mineral worth of the starting package down 10%, matching the Spartan Industry -1. The Spartans produce less than the other factions in the same amount of time.

4. Adjust initial energy reserves to 30 for Hive (+20), 140 for Morgan (+40), 40 for the rest (+30). In the very early game, 1 energy per base is worth about 1/3 of the total energy. If it is desired to have 40 be the minimum, then change it to 40/160/55.

posted 06-29-99 04:27 PM ET            

With MtG's method, no bases exist at setup. Hence, no bases to assign the units to.

Now, you could argue that one base should be granted at start, say with a pop of two, so that it could support most of the units, leaving some independent, and then the units could reassign when the new bases are established.

Still, I think this method needs some polishing and balancing to address some the of the concerns that Bingmann has brought up.

No, I'm not brown-nosing the CMN in my games. If you saw my powergraphs, you'd know it was unnecessary.

posted 06-30-99 05:01 PM ET            

I say,
hoooray!

About MtG method, I understand Bing's concerns: by a given MY, with a certain amount of bases and units, there would be some significant differences if the faction all had started the normal way. I'd further add that to address the specific pros'n'cons of each faction, the use of proper buildings in bases is intrinsic to an adequate development, and that couldn't be just balanced with unis or money.
But you could also see it all as a balanced start multiplied x6, as if each faction started with 6 escape pods instead of 1. I don't see the sheer need to normalize as if it had started with the usual scale factor. The main parameter I see affected by number of bases, is the drone penalty, that would come into effect from the start, thus penalizing the efficiency impaired factions (PK): Lal could tho group the C-pods, building less, bigger bases, as in his style.

Goob, you did made a point, but I feel differently: I like to confront with opponents, but I like to ghet to the contact properly prepared, and not no_matter_how.

In the end I agreed to take part in a couple of warped PBEMs: after a dozen of turns, even if challenged with tactical & strategical issues, it's hard to feel envolved in the game, it's like you're a governor, not the leader, and you have to deal with poorly placed bases, and have do do with a useless SP while others thrive thanks to WP or HG.