Alpha Centauri Design Comments - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Alpha Centauri Design Comments

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Alpha Centauri Design Comments

Cricel posted 11-25-98 11:14 AM ET
First of all, allow me to say that I am
looing forward more to AlphaCentauri (or
SMAC as you so entertainingly call it) than any othergame coming out in the next year.
I have a few questions though:
- Will/can play-by-email be supported? I rarely have the time to sit through an entire game of Civ2 and if Alpha Centauri is so
much significantly shorter than I would probably be somewhat disappointed. In other
words, if Alpha Centauri is anywhere near as
long as I hope it will be then playing solid
is going to become somewhat difficult.
Saving a multiplayer game is an absolute
necessity and play-by-email would be greatly
appreciated.
- Design your own factions eh?
I hope that won't mean I can design some outrageously powerful faction that
slaughters everyone with ease while at the
same time making friends with the wildlife
easily...
- Also, I would very much prefer it if there
was some option to return to the main menu
and thereby start a new game without having
to quit thegame first (like in Civ2).
- In looking at the new basewin design, I
find one annoyance: the rename button is
massive. I'm afraid I don't change my city
names so often that I need that button to
be that visible.
- The idea of underwater colonies is just
plain BEAUTIFUL. I love it.
Thank you so much for your time in putting up
a forum like this where we can express our
thoughts on the game.
Have fun.

DJ RRebel posted 11-25-98 11:23 AM ET
The whole question of multi-player is raised in the thread: "SMAC Multi-player .. How ???"
There have been many ideas so far ... the truth is, no-one really knows !!! (Unless they designed the game or have the BETA !!!)
So either way, we'll have to wait until the release !!!
I assume they'll probably have an e-mail multi though !!! But I can't say for sure !!!
CClark posted 11-25-98 11:34 AM ET
Don't know about PBE-mail, but I think the answer is probably going to be "NO". It was stated (somewhere) previously that they would NOT have Hotseat play because the multiplayer is going to be implemented by simaltaneous turns. Everyone will be moving at the same time. They've done this to reduce teh "sit and twiddle your thumbs for 5 minutes while the other players take their moves" syndrome. Since PBE doesn't really work well with simaltaneous turns, I'm guessing it won't be in the game.
The "good news" is that Firaxis has said they will be putting in options like "quick research tree" and "quick build times" to make the game go faster. I seem to recall reading that they will also have an option for a time limit, with the most powerful faction at that time being the winner. (I'm assuming that Power will be measured by the faction dominance graph.)
Hope that answers some of your questions.
DJ RRebel posted 11-25-98 11:38 AM ET
Actually, e-mail play would really be like solo play, but with two players .. each taking turns .. this would be ultra easy to implement .. I don't see why they would leave it out !!! To me, that's true multi-turn-based anyways .. this same time turns is more like real-time !!! Both offer different +'s & -'s !!!
Gord McLeod posted 11-26-98 05:56 AM ET
I'm guessing that even in solo play you'll have simultaeous moves, with the computer playing at the same time you do. If it were ultra-easy to implement, hot-seat play would never have been a problem... they've said it's a BIG problem, and play-by-mail has never been a very big option, so I seriously doubt it'll be available. The last game I remember seeing it in was Empire, eons ago.
Spoe posted 11-26-98 06:02 AM ET
IIRC, MoO2 had a PBEM option, as did the Steel Panthers series. Panzer General did as well.
DJ RRebel posted 11-26-98 07:15 AM ET
Eeeemmmmmpiiiiirrreeee !!!
Gord ... that was a great game for its time !!!
DJ RRebel posted 11-26-98 07:16 AM ET
oh yeah ... as for the solo play, I hope it is purely turn based !!!
Cricel posted 11-26-98 01:34 PM ET
As for PBE, have any of you ever played Stars! It's a great game and PBE is just about the only way that it can be played. Try it out, it is really good if you enjoy involving strategy games and it does PBE by sending only the changes from last turn thereby making it very simple and effective.
Check it out for fun:
http://beast.webmap.com/stars/
Gord McLeod posted 11-26-98 02:56 PM ET
I don't see why they would make solo play purely turn based, since that would essentially mean developing two separate game engines to handle the two modes. We'll probably have simul-play in both, or if there IS a turn-based option, it will BE an option, as it was in CivNet...
Spoe: I'm pretty certain MoO2 didn't have PBeM, but I can't say about the others as none of them are games I had much interest in playing. :-)
Imran Siddiqui posted 11-26-98 03:11 PM ET
Gord, I do disagree. I think the solo player will be turn based. It has to be!! In the tradition of Civ2. Also, PC Gamer and others have said that SMAC is one the huge parts of the new turn-based revolution in strategy gaming. There is no doubt in my mind that SMAC is turn-based. No doubt!
Imran Siddiqui
Patriot
Titan posted 11-26-98 04:50 PM ET
How could the single player could be real time. The computer would move al its units at the beginnig and therefore forbid you to go to key position on the borders, if I understood the lock thing correctly. Another fact is that that kind of play would drasticly influences the minimum requirements to play the game since the computer could have to play up to seven player at the same time, developping techs and moving units. With the lock system how could he decide wich faction he controls move the first and therefore locks the other's unit. It has to be turn base. otherwise the computer opponbents will be either too strong or too weak.
Gord McLeod posted 11-26-98 04:59 PM ET
When I say not turn-based, I'm speaking in the same sense that multiplayer will be turn-based but simultaneous movement. There will be turns, during which you and the computer move at the same time... it just doesn't make any sense to me to have a completely different scheme for multiplayer and singleplayer - after all, it's very likely we'll have computer-controlled factions mixed in with human players during mulitplayer games, so they're going to have to have the computer running one or more factions in that style already anyway.
Titan posted 11-26-98 05:11 PM ET
You have a good point Gord, but I'd prefer it to be all turn-based. In multi-player it's okay for me that we move all together, but in single I'd rather have alternate movemenr. If I want a RTS, I'll play Starcraft. What SMAC is suppose to be is a TBS. The hybrid could be good in multiplay since it saves time, but the time saved would me nothing in soloplay, since the stop between each turn would be as long as it would take to the computer to move for all their factions at this point.
AUH20 posted 11-26-98 07:26 PM ET
Firaxis has stated that solo is pure turned-base, while multi-player is simaltaneous. I wouldn't buy SMAC if it were real-time, probably.
Remember boys and girls-Real time is evil!
Death to Starcraft!
Death to Tiberium Sun!
Viva la SMAC!
Gord McLeod posted 11-26-98 08:13 PM ET
Real time is not evil. Granted, I do prefer turn-based. But where did Firaxis say that singleplayer is pure turn-based?
MikeH II posted 11-27-98 07:48 AM ET
Real time and turn based are different. There is no better or worse. A bad turn based game won't be better than a good real time game. I don't really agree with the argument that you need the time to think that a turn based game gives you. For me the challenges involved in turn based and real time games are both different and both can have great results if they are implemented right.
Cricel posted 11-27-98 01:30 PM ET
Allow me to summarize what I consider to be the main points of this issue:
First of all, I do NOT WANT to play single player simultaneous. Why? Because then 3 problems would result: I would have to wait for the comp if the comp took longer than me which, while it seems unlikely, might happen if the comp is controling _6_ factions simultaenously. Also, I want to play my turn with a reasonable amount of speed. If the comp is trying to determine unit movements, research control, unit designs, city build orders, etc. all for _6_ factions, it will become VERY hectic and I doubt my comp (a P200 w/ 32 Mb) could handle it. If that is the case, that is BAD. Firaxis would never be so stupid. Finally, if the comp is playing simultaneously with me and he moves faster than me, he moves all his units, blocking off my routes, builds his cities before me, effectively he moves before me.
And then of course, I would absolutely refuse to have a time limit on my turns while playing with the computer who could do the turn a million times faster than me.
Note though that I do not care if it is human players playing simultaneous with me becasue then part of the skill is knowing how to do your turn as fast as possible. That is good.
HOWEVER, the above assumes that when Firaxis says "simultaneous" they mean, play at the same time. It could be that they mean you do your turns separately and then the actions of the turn all come together at once. I VERY much doubt that this is the case. That would mean that there could be conflicts when I try to move a unit to the same square as that of someone I have a cease fire with and all of sudden we are attacking each other when I wanted to make peace. That would not work.
So then, if multiplay is simultaneous, it should be too much of a hassle for Firaxis to make single play happen in separate turns ala Civ2 right? Not so. If they do it right, it should be a fairly simple matter actually. And if they make single play turn based, it is a very simple matter to allow Play-By-Email.
I might also point out that multiplayer had better be savable anyway since if it isn't that would mean that games could be at the most 2-3 hours absolute max and I know that I would be loathe to sit on the modem that long for one game. If it's going to be simultaneous like that and a 2-3 hour game I can play Age of Empires. And if I'm going to play then Age of Empires I'd rather play Starcraft and thus we have come to the point where if Alpha Centauri plays quickly (as it must for an unsavable simultaneous multiplayer game) then I might as well play an RTS. Threfore Alpha Centauri must be done like a STRATEGY game where I can expect the game to last an absolute bare minimum of 10 hours hopefully more like 20-40 even. I do not play strategy games so that they end before they've even begun. And thus, if that were the case, there is NO CHANCE IN HELL of me sitting on the modem for even 10 hours straight let alone 20-40. There MUST be an option to save multiplayer games. If there is such an option then PBE is not so far stretched anyway since it is a similar concept (play a piece, wait a bit, play some more, wait and then play, etc).
In short, I truly believe that not only should there be PBE, I believe that it will not be hard to implement and in fact will be very important. If it isn't there, I have a very hard time seeing myself playing Alpha Centauri.
Have fun.
dushan posted 11-27-98 01:50 PM ET
It's funny how these things keep coming back. Well, we'll see soon enough.
On the last board, if I remember well, I've argued for the support of PBM.
I agree with Cricel that if in the single player game the turns are taken sequentially then PBM is a question of just implementing some safeguards against cheating (as without specific support you can just save the game after you've finished your turn and email the save game to the next player). However I think Firaxis made it clear that there is no PBM support, which might suggest that the turns are taken simulatneously. This worries me a great deal as I'd hate each turn to be a mad rush against the clock. I wish Firaxis would set the record straight on this issue.
Old_Guy posted 11-27-98 03:45 PM ET
We all want to know what's up with multiplayer. As good as the recent previews in Gamespot and IGN have been, they've barely touched on how multiplayer will work. I think PCGamer brought up the 'record locking' issue, but that hasn't been fully explained yet.
I'm not a wargamer, but I think a lot of wargames use simultaneous turns. Any wargamers have some explanation for how simultaneous turns could work?
AUH20 posted 11-27-98 07:08 PM ET
The reason I, personally, dislike real-time is exactly because they ARE different. Real-time tends to entail tactical development, while turn-based is strategic, and I personally feel that strategic is much more challenging and fun than build 50 Mammoth Tanks, send to enemy base, click on enemy base.
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: Alpha Centauri Design Comments
Cricel	posted 11-25-98 11:14 AM ET First of all, allow me to say that I am looing forward more to AlphaCentauri (or SMAC as you so entertainingly call it) than any othergame coming out in the next year. I have a few questions though: - Will/can play-by-email be supported? I rarely have the time to sit through an entire game of Civ2 and if Alpha Centauri is so much significantly shorter than I would probably be somewhat disappointed. In other words, if Alpha Centauri is anywhere near as long as I hope it will be then playing solid is going to become somewhat difficult. Saving a multiplayer game is an absolute necessity and play-by-email would be greatly appreciated. - Design your own factions eh? I hope that won't mean I can design some outrageously powerful faction that slaughters everyone with ease while at the same time making friends with the wildlife easily... - Also, I would very much prefer it if there was some option to return to the main menu and thereby start a new game without having to quit thegame first (like in Civ2). - In looking at the new basewin design, I find one annoyance: the rename button is massive. I'm afraid I don't change my city names so often that I need that button to be that visible. - The idea of underwater colonies is just plain BEAUTIFUL. I love it. Thank you so much for your time in putting up a forum like this where we can express our thoughts on the game. Have fun.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-25-98 11:23 AM ET The whole question of multi-player is raised in the thread: "SMAC Multi-player .. How ???" There have been many ideas so far ... the truth is, no-one really knows !!! (Unless they designed the game or have the BETA !!!) So either way, we'll have to wait until the release !!! I assume they'll probably have an e-mail multi though !!! But I can't say for sure !!!
CClark	posted 11-25-98 11:34 AM ET Don't know about PBE-mail, but I think the answer is probably going to be "NO". It was stated (somewhere) previously that they would NOT have Hotseat play because the multiplayer is going to be implemented by simaltaneous turns. Everyone will be moving at the same time. They've done this to reduce teh "sit and twiddle your thumbs for 5 minutes while the other players take their moves" syndrome. Since PBE doesn't really work well with simaltaneous turns, I'm guessing it won't be in the game. The "good news" is that Firaxis has said they will be putting in options like "quick research tree" and "quick build times" to make the game go faster. I seem to recall reading that they will also have an option for a time limit, with the most powerful faction at that time being the winner. (I'm assuming that Power will be measured by the faction dominance graph.) Hope that answers some of your questions.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-25-98 11:38 AM ET Actually, e-mail play would really be like solo play, but with two players .. each taking turns .. this would be ultra easy to implement .. I don't see why they would leave it out !!! To me, that's true multi-turn-based anyways .. this same time turns is more like real-time !!! Both offer different +'s & -'s !!!
Gord McLeod	posted 11-26-98 05:56 AM ET I'm guessing that even in solo play you'll have simultaeous moves, with the computer playing at the same time you do. If it were ultra-easy to implement, hot-seat play would never have been a problem... they've said it's a BIG problem, and play-by-mail has never been a very big option, so I seriously doubt it'll be available. The last game I remember seeing it in was Empire, eons ago.
Spoe	posted 11-26-98 06:02 AM ET IIRC, MoO2 had a PBEM option, as did the Steel Panthers series. Panzer General did as well.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-26-98 07:15 AM ET Eeeemmmmmpiiiiirrreeee !!! Gord ... that was a great game for its time !!!
DJ RRebel	posted 11-26-98 07:16 AM ET oh yeah ... as for the solo play, I hope it is purely turn based !!!
Cricel	posted 11-26-98 01:34 PM ET As for PBE, have any of you ever played Stars! It's a great game and PBE is just about the only way that it can be played. Try it out, it is really good if you enjoy involving strategy games and it does PBE by sending only the changes from last turn thereby making it very simple and effective. Check it out for fun: http://beast.webmap.com/stars/
Gord McLeod	posted 11-26-98 02:56 PM ET I don't see why they would make solo play purely turn based, since that would essentially mean developing two separate game engines to handle the two modes. We'll probably have simul-play in both, or if there IS a turn-based option, it will BE an option, as it was in CivNet... Spoe: I'm pretty certain MoO2 didn't have PBeM, but I can't say about the others as none of them are games I had much interest in playing. :-)
Imran Siddiqui	posted 11-26-98 03:11 PM ET Gord, I do disagree. I think the solo player will be turn based. It has to be!! In the tradition of Civ2. Also, PC Gamer and others have said that SMAC is one the huge parts of the new turn-based revolution in strategy gaming. There is no doubt in my mind that SMAC is turn-based. No doubt! Imran Siddiqui Patriot
Titan	posted 11-26-98 04:50 PM ET How could the single player could be real time. The computer would move al its units at the beginnig and therefore forbid you to go to key position on the borders, if I understood the lock thing correctly. Another fact is that that kind of play would drasticly influences the minimum requirements to play the game since the computer could have to play up to seven player at the same time, developping techs and moving units. With the lock system how could he decide wich faction he controls move the first and therefore locks the other's unit. It has to be turn base. otherwise the computer opponbents will be either too strong or too weak.
Gord McLeod	posted 11-26-98 04:59 PM ET When I say not turn-based, I'm speaking in the same sense that multiplayer will be turn-based but simultaneous movement. There will be turns, during which you and the computer move at the same time... it just doesn't make any sense to me to have a completely different scheme for multiplayer and singleplayer - after all, it's very likely we'll have computer-controlled factions mixed in with human players during mulitplayer games, so they're going to have to have the computer running one or more factions in that style already anyway.
Titan	posted 11-26-98 05:11 PM ET You have a good point Gord, but I'd prefer it to be all turn-based. In multi-player it's okay for me that we move all together, but in single I'd rather have alternate movemenr. If I want a RTS, I'll play Starcraft. What SMAC is suppose to be is a TBS. The hybrid could be good in multiplay since it saves time, but the time saved would me nothing in soloplay, since the stop between each turn would be as long as it would take to the computer to move for all their factions at this point.
AUH20	posted 11-26-98 07:26 PM ET Firaxis has stated that solo is pure turned-base, while multi-player is simaltaneous. I wouldn't buy SMAC if it were real-time, probably. Remember boys and girls-Real time is evil! Death to Starcraft! Death to Tiberium Sun! Viva la SMAC!
Gord McLeod	posted 11-26-98 08:13 PM ET Real time is not evil. Granted, I do prefer turn-based. But where did Firaxis say that singleplayer is pure turn-based?
MikeH II	posted 11-27-98 07:48 AM ET Real time and turn based are different. There is no better or worse. A bad turn based game won't be better than a good real time game. I don't really agree with the argument that you need the time to think that a turn based game gives you. For me the challenges involved in turn based and real time games are both different and both can have great results if they are implemented right.
Cricel	posted 11-27-98 01:30 PM ET Allow me to summarize what I consider to be the main points of this issue: First of all, I do NOT WANT to play single player simultaneous. Why? Because then 3 problems would result: I would have to wait for the comp if the comp took longer than me which, while it seems unlikely, might happen if the comp is controling _6_ factions simultaenously. Also, I want to play my turn with a reasonable amount of speed. If the comp is trying to determine unit movements, research control, unit designs, city build orders, etc. all for _6_ factions, it will become VERY hectic and I doubt my comp (a P200 w/ 32 Mb) could handle it. If that is the case, that is BAD. Firaxis would never be so stupid. Finally, if the comp is playing simultaneously with me and he moves faster than me, he moves all his units, blocking off my routes, builds his cities before me, effectively he moves before me. And then of course, I would absolutely refuse to have a time limit on my turns while playing with the computer who could do the turn a million times faster than me. Note though that I do not care if it is human players playing simultaneous with me becasue then part of the skill is knowing how to do your turn as fast as possible. That is good. HOWEVER, the above assumes that when Firaxis says "simultaneous" they mean, play at the same time. It could be that they mean you do your turns separately and then the actions of the turn all come together at once. I VERY much doubt that this is the case. That would mean that there could be conflicts when I try to move a unit to the same square as that of someone I have a cease fire with and all of sudden we are attacking each other when I wanted to make peace. That would not work. So then, if multiplay is simultaneous, it should be too much of a hassle for Firaxis to make single play happen in separate turns ala Civ2 right? Not so. If they do it right, it should be a fairly simple matter actually. And if they make single play turn based, it is a very simple matter to allow Play-By-Email. I might also point out that multiplayer had better be savable anyway since if it isn't that would mean that games could be at the most 2-3 hours absolute max and I know that I would be loathe to sit on the modem that long for one game. If it's going to be simultaneous like that and a 2-3 hour game I can play Age of Empires. And if I'm going to play then Age of Empires I'd rather play Starcraft and thus we have come to the point where if Alpha Centauri plays quickly (as it must for an unsavable simultaneous multiplayer game) then I might as well play an RTS. Threfore Alpha Centauri must be done like a STRATEGY game where I can expect the game to last an absolute bare minimum of 10 hours hopefully more like 20-40 even. I do not play strategy games so that they end before they've even begun. And thus, if that were the case, there is NO CHANCE IN HELL of me sitting on the modem for even 10 hours straight let alone 20-40. There MUST be an option to save multiplayer games. If there is such an option then PBE is not so far stretched anyway since it is a similar concept (play a piece, wait a bit, play some more, wait and then play, etc). In short, I truly believe that not only should there be PBE, I believe that it will not be hard to implement and in fact will be very important. If it isn't there, I have a very hard time seeing myself playing Alpha Centauri. Have fun.
dushan	posted 11-27-98 01:50 PM ET It's funny how these things keep coming back. Well, we'll see soon enough. On the last board, if I remember well, I've argued for the support of PBM. I agree with Cricel that if in the single player game the turns are taken sequentially then PBM is a question of just implementing some safeguards against cheating (as without specific support you can just save the game after you've finished your turn and email the save game to the next player). However I think Firaxis made it clear that there is no PBM support, which might suggest that the turns are taken simulatneously. This worries me a great deal as I'd hate each turn to be a mad rush against the clock. I wish Firaxis would set the record straight on this issue.
Old_Guy	posted 11-27-98 03:45 PM ET We all want to know what's up with multiplayer. As good as the recent previews in Gamespot and IGN have been, they've barely touched on how multiplayer will work. I think PCGamer brought up the 'record locking' issue, but that hasn't been fully explained yet. I'm not a wargamer, but I think a lot of wargames use simultaneous turns. Any wargamers have some explanation for how simultaneous turns could work?
AUH20	posted 11-27-98 07:08 PM ET The reason I, personally, dislike real-time is exactly because they ARE different. Real-time tends to entail tactical development, while turn-based is strategic, and I personally feel that strategic is much more challenging and fun than build 50 Mammoth Tanks, send to enemy base, click on enemy base.