SMAC Faction Conflicts - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  SMAC Faction Conflicts

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   SMAC Faction Conflicts

DJ RRebel posted 11-13-98 10:42 AM ET
I just had an interesting thought !!!
Is it just me, or will battle be completely different with human opponant that we can communicate with with real text (as opposed to the standard replies like in Civ2) .. I think it'll make things tons more interesting !!!
For example, you might start a fight, but then offer the other side a peace treaty all of a sudden if they get off your continent!!!
You might make a friend and save some resources if you can fake the upper hand !!!
Imagine if the other person bumped into a small but powerful grouping of you army !!! He/she would turn and run (and maybe offer you technoligy or creadits) if they could because they would think that your entire territory is like that, and that you could destroy them with but a thought !!!
Roland posted 11-13-98 10:45 AM ET
On the other hand, human players may not fall for such a bluff that easy, but may be ready to take a gamble ?
DJ RRebel posted 11-13-98 10:58 AM ET
Good point .. I guess it'll depend on the player !!! I wonder if our true personalities will characterize our gameplay, or will it be our evil subconscious who takes command ???
Roland posted 11-13-98 11:20 AM ET
Dnalor the Destroyer, my evil side, may control my acts in a multiplayer game, if I'd play one. He should be preatty easy to beat in the beginning, as he takes a lot of risk, but once he has established himself, it's not a pretty sight, I can tell you!
jfrazier posted 11-13-98 01:46 PM ET
DJR Rebel: Don't you find when playing games, especially Civ II, that it is the mood you are in that dictates the strategy? I find that if a neighbor starts being aggressive and does outright attacks or squirmashes, that after a while, I want to just go in and smash the tar out of that nation, civilization, etc. I think alot of the strategy depends on how strong or weak our defensive/offensive situation stacks up, our diplomatic style, our alliances, etc.
some games seem better played when doing the Machiavellian style, as opposed to the Ghandi. What's your feel on that?
Jeff
Ceasar of the Stars
DJ RRebel posted 11-13-98 01:53 PM ET
Jeff .. you're completely right !!!
I'm in the middle of a Civ2 game right now, and I was content at being at peace with most of my neighbors, but then all of a sudden a couple of them started putting cities right in my face, and now I'm almost fighting the entire planet !!! Good thing I'm at 80 - 90 cities, but the timing was all off .. unfortunately, I just got too frustrated at those darn French and Spanish .. too bad they had alliences with the English, Sioux, Chinese and the Babylinians !!! Let's just say I was happy to have the United Nations wonder !!! lol
DJ RRebel posted 11-16-98 02:17 PM ET
lol .. does anyone else suffer from this split personality syndrome when gaming ???
Q Cubed posted 11-16-98 10:36 PM ET
mps? always happens anyway. is anyone isolationist/expansionist/perfectionist?
i mean, when i play civ2, i explore my continent and crush the other civs early on so i get the continent to myself, then expand like crazy while having the trade/knowledge improvements and wonders built. it's fun, especially when you have cruise missiles, nukes, stealth fighters, howitzers and all compared to a few puny musketeers.
Dcreeper posted 11-16-98 10:41 PM ET
I never thought about it, but my current mood has alot to do with how play war strads
Dcreeper posted 11-16-98 10:44 PM ET
I never thought about it, but my current mood has alot to do with how play war strads
(if the above lines post twice then I beg yer pardon.. pressed tab instead of caplocks then hit enter :P )
When I'm angry I tend to crush anything that comes within sights.. course in civ 2 this did not always workout so well and my empire crumbles and then I get angrier :P

Arnelos posted 11-16-98 11:06 PM ET
Um, not really with the split personality.
I find that in Civilization II, you have to constantly make a choice of focus, war or development. You can't do both at the same time. You can either build tanks or banks, and certainly not effectively both at once. If you try to balance too much, you get crushed in war and are underdeveloped.
I find that it is almost always better to concentrate on development rather than warfare. Consequently, I always have a humongous and well developed civilization with many AI players signing those damn "Warsaw Pact" like things against me. This, of course, was a part of the AI built into the system. So the AI players become increasingly annoying as you grow more powerful (you'd think it would be the other way around, being more obsequious as you grow more powerful, but the AI was specifically designed to aide game balance, even when balance is impossible with all players allied against one. In such a real world situation, the benifits of allying oneself with the hegemon far exceed the benifits of oppossing the hegemon, but the AI isn't designed to take that into consideration unless you have nuclear weapons.)
I think this is precisely the dilemna you all are discussing. That you normally would focus on development (it's the better focus to take), but the sheer incesantly annoying actions of the minor powers manage to piss you off enough to go stomp them into the ground (and you'd think the AI should have been designed to be more intelligent).
I normally only perform minimal military action for the purpose of de-militarization of my oponents. The way it works is that you wipe out all defence forces in several cities and then continuously bomb them and destroy the troops he keeps building with your forces. You don't actually take over any cities, you just destroy any military units you see. Eventually, the AI player sues for peace and is completely devoid of any military. The complicate his problems, he spent his entire treasury on buying military units and spent the whole time on military build-up rather than development. Meanwhile, after you had already gained the upper hand, you were keeping him busy wasting his money and time while you switched your entire civilization back to development.
So the end situation is that every time the computer declares war on you, they just push themselves farther and farther behind while you continue to develop unhindered if you are the hegemon. Everyone once in awhile, I might actually take over a city (a lone one on "my" continent perhaps) to further reduce the player's influence, but rarely do I go for the elimination of a player (I like keeping a lot of players in the game so they can bicker amongst each other rather than fighting me. It's to my advantage to provide the AI players with alternate targets). As the AI players become very far behind, they're relations with you actually improve. Once you get nuclear weapons, ALL of the AI players just fall all over you. The more Nukes you have, the nicer they are (this is a secret that is not well published, but the designers aparently made each nuclear missle worth a whole lot on the power factor of the civiliation, so you can gain overwhelming power in the eyes of the AI just by building a bunch of nukes in the city you have Shakespeare's Theatre in, so they don't cause unrest).
I hope the AI in SMAC is a little more realistic and intelligent, perhaps even acting like state-actors really do in the international relations. If the gamespot preview is any indication, perhaps these hopes will be realized.
SnowFire posted 11-16-98 11:35 PM ET
A standing army will be far more neccesary. In most games you can concentrate on economic strength, and if attacked, translate it into military strength and attack. Against humans there may not be enough time to wait for the war, and then build armies strategy; because the human opponent may have already stockpiled a huge force. So keeping a standing army becomes more important.
DJ RRebel posted 12-19-98 06:35 AM ET
Does anybody know if Multi will be in the demo ???
If so, who will your alter ego be ??? LOL
How do you think real-time communication will affect the game ???
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: SMAC Faction Conflicts
DJ RRebel	posted 11-13-98 10:42 AM ET I just had an interesting thought !!! Is it just me, or will battle be completely different with human opponant that we can communicate with with real text (as opposed to the standard replies like in Civ2) .. I think it'll make things tons more interesting !!! For example, you might start a fight, but then offer the other side a peace treaty all of a sudden if they get off your continent!!! You might make a friend and save some resources if you can fake the upper hand !!! Imagine if the other person bumped into a small but powerful grouping of you army !!! He/she would turn and run (and maybe offer you technoligy or creadits) if they could because they would think that your entire territory is like that, and that you could destroy them with but a thought !!!
Roland	posted 11-13-98 10:45 AM ET On the other hand, human players may not fall for such a bluff that easy, but may be ready to take a gamble ?
DJ RRebel	posted 11-13-98 10:58 AM ET Good point .. I guess it'll depend on the player !!! I wonder if our true personalities will characterize our gameplay, or will it be our evil subconscious who takes command ???
Roland	posted 11-13-98 11:20 AM ET Dnalor the Destroyer, my evil side, may control my acts in a multiplayer game, if I'd play one. He should be preatty easy to beat in the beginning, as he takes a lot of risk, but once he has established himself, it's not a pretty sight, I can tell you!
jfrazier	posted 11-13-98 01:46 PM ET DJR Rebel: Don't you find when playing games, especially Civ II, that it is the mood you are in that dictates the strategy? I find that if a neighbor starts being aggressive and does outright attacks or squirmashes, that after a while, I want to just go in and smash the tar out of that nation, civilization, etc. I think alot of the strategy depends on how strong or weak our defensive/offensive situation stacks up, our diplomatic style, our alliances, etc. some games seem better played when doing the Machiavellian style, as opposed to the Ghandi. What's your feel on that? Jeff Ceasar of the Stars
DJ RRebel	posted 11-13-98 01:53 PM ET Jeff .. you're completely right !!! I'm in the middle of a Civ2 game right now, and I was content at being at peace with most of my neighbors, but then all of a sudden a couple of them started putting cities right in my face, and now I'm almost fighting the entire planet !!! Good thing I'm at 80 - 90 cities, but the timing was all off .. unfortunately, I just got too frustrated at those darn French and Spanish .. too bad they had alliences with the English, Sioux, Chinese and the Babylinians !!! Let's just say I was happy to have the United Nations wonder !!! lol
DJ RRebel	posted 11-16-98 02:17 PM ET lol .. does anyone else suffer from this split personality syndrome when gaming ???
Q Cubed	posted 11-16-98 10:36 PM ET mps? always happens anyway. is anyone isolationist/expansionist/perfectionist? i mean, when i play civ2, i explore my continent and crush the other civs early on so i get the continent to myself, then expand like crazy while having the trade/knowledge improvements and wonders built. it's fun, especially when you have cruise missiles, nukes, stealth fighters, howitzers and all compared to a few puny musketeers.
Dcreeper	posted 11-16-98 10:41 PM ET I never thought about it, but my current mood has alot to do with how play war strads
Dcreeper	posted 11-16-98 10:44 PM ET I never thought about it, but my current mood has alot to do with how play war strads (if the above lines post twice then I beg yer pardon.. pressed tab instead of caplocks then hit enter :P ) When I'm angry I tend to crush anything that comes within sights.. course in civ 2 this did not always workout so well and my empire crumbles and then I get angrier :P
Arnelos	posted 11-16-98 11:06 PM ET Um, not really with the split personality. I find that in Civilization II, you have to constantly make a choice of focus, war or development. You can't do both at the same time. You can either build tanks or banks, and certainly not effectively both at once. If you try to balance too much, you get crushed in war and are underdeveloped. I find that it is almost always better to concentrate on development rather than warfare. Consequently, I always have a humongous and well developed civilization with many AI players signing those damn "Warsaw Pact" like things against me. This, of course, was a part of the AI built into the system. So the AI players become increasingly annoying as you grow more powerful (you'd think it would be the other way around, being more obsequious as you grow more powerful, but the AI was specifically designed to aide game balance, even when balance is impossible with all players allied against one. In such a real world situation, the benifits of allying oneself with the hegemon far exceed the benifits of oppossing the hegemon, but the AI isn't designed to take that into consideration unless you have nuclear weapons.) I think this is precisely the dilemna you all are discussing. That you normally would focus on development (it's the better focus to take), but the sheer incesantly annoying actions of the minor powers manage to piss you off enough to go stomp them into the ground (and you'd think the AI should have been designed to be more intelligent). I normally only perform minimal military action for the purpose of de-militarization of my oponents. The way it works is that you wipe out all defence forces in several cities and then continuously bomb them and destroy the troops he keeps building with your forces. You don't actually take over any cities, you just destroy any military units you see. Eventually, the AI player sues for peace and is completely devoid of any military. The complicate his problems, he spent his entire treasury on buying military units and spent the whole time on military build-up rather than development. Meanwhile, after you had already gained the upper hand, you were keeping him busy wasting his money and time while you switched your entire civilization back to development. So the end situation is that every time the computer declares war on you, they just push themselves farther and farther behind while you continue to develop unhindered if you are the hegemon. Everyone once in awhile, I might actually take over a city (a lone one on "my" continent perhaps) to further reduce the player's influence, but rarely do I go for the elimination of a player (I like keeping a lot of players in the game so they can bicker amongst each other rather than fighting me. It's to my advantage to provide the AI players with alternate targets). As the AI players become very far behind, they're relations with you actually improve. Once you get nuclear weapons, ALL of the AI players just fall all over you. The more Nukes you have, the nicer they are (this is a secret that is not well published, but the designers aparently made each nuclear missle worth a whole lot on the power factor of the civiliation, so you can gain overwhelming power in the eyes of the AI just by building a bunch of nukes in the city you have Shakespeare's Theatre in, so they don't cause unrest). I hope the AI in SMAC is a little more realistic and intelligent, perhaps even acting like state-actors really do in the international relations. If the gamespot preview is any indication, perhaps these hopes will be realized.
SnowFire	posted 11-16-98 11:35 PM ET A standing army will be far more neccesary. In most games you can concentrate on economic strength, and if attacked, translate it into military strength and attack. Against humans there may not be enough time to wait for the war, and then build armies strategy; because the human opponent may have already stockpiled a huge force. So keeping a standing army becomes more important.
DJ RRebel	posted 12-19-98 06:35 AM ET Does anybody know if Multi will be in the demo ??? If so, who will your alter ego be ??? LOL How do you think real-time communication will affect the game ???