Author Topic: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs  (Read 496 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Hans Lemurson

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2020, 08:24:48 AM »
I really liked constant pop rows in CivEvo, but every civ there is guaranteed to have early access to some grassland, or food resource tiles.
In SMAC the faction that would start close to a lot of rainy terrain would dominate the game, so increasing cost of pop growth limits this runaway effect, I didn't think about it.
So not so sure about it anymore, but I'd still be curious about testing it in smac, at worst it would work fine on maps with dense cloud at least.
I too think that C-Evo did a good job of limiting the potency of ICS.
-Growth cost is constant, so larger developed cities grow population faster than small ones
-No free resources from city center.  If you don't provide the city with any farmland, it simply will not grow.
-Cities can't contribute gold/science to the empire until they complete a building

More cities were always better, but they were much slower to pay off and so you had to be smart about when and where you founded them.

You're right though that Planet's uneven rainfall could define the "winners" and "losers" a little sooner than we'd like.  C-Evo's terrain distribution was a little more even-handed.
Termination of specimen advised.

Offline Nexii

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2020, 07:18:43 PM »
I too think that C-Evo did a good job of limiting the potency of ICS.
-Growth cost is constant, so larger developed cities grow population faster than small ones
-No free resources from city center.  If you don't provide the city with any farmland, it simply will not grow.
-Cities can't contribute gold/science to the empire until they complete a building

More cities were always better, but they were much slower to pay off and so you had to be smart about when and where you founded them.

You're right though that Planet's uneven rainfall could define the "winners" and "losers" a little sooner than we'd like.  C-Evo's terrain distribution was a little more even-handed.

Yea I tried similar modding, nerfing down the city tile production. Found you were too much at the mercy of the terrain. I'm not convinced ICS is all that overpowering in AC anyways, between B-drones and commerce effects. Some of it I'd say is overcosted facilities, reducing cost and maintenance encourages vertical development. Can also try with colony pod module costing more.

After putting borehole & condensor at Advanced Ecological Engineering, I found that sea tiles really dominated in SMAX. 3/0/3 and easily going to 4/0/4 with aquafarm and thermocline. Though it's a good point that they are a terrain equalizer. I kind of like the idea of sea being good for nutrients. It's just a little too good compared to solar on land...

Offline Nexii

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2020, 05:46:39 PM »
What's strange with the satellite bug is putting the techs back to default doesn't seem to fix the crashing once Orbital Spaceflight is discovered. There seems to be something more going on somewhere.

Offline Hagen0

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2020, 08:20:26 PM »
Vanilla forests are too good in the early game, late game with tree farms and hybrid forest they are arguably weaker than advanced terraforming. If you remove the utility of forests in the early game they simply are not an option anymore since the Condenser/Boreholes will now be even more superior since you'd need to replace you existing terraforming on top of the gigantic opportunity cost of building the forest facilities.

I like the suggestions in the OP. However, mechanics like pop booming, satellites, +2 Economy make Smac what it is. Pop booming is clearly stupid but removing it will remove some of what make Smac a unique game. I see two options, nerf/remove all the overpowered options and what you get will be quite similar to the gameplay of Civ3 or Civ4, say, with some unique flavour. This is not bad, those are good games. If you want to keep Smac's unique gameplay you will have to accept that the economy of the leading human player in SP or MP will go off through the stratosphere at some point.

Offline Nexii

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #19 on: May 20, 2020, 09:26:14 PM »
Yea for a similar reason I was less concerned with fungus being overpowered. Because you'd have to redo all your terraforming. Although 6 turns per tile is fast.

One aspect to Forests is their upgrade facility doesn't really come at a sunk cost like upgrading Farm/Solar. Or Thermocline/Trunkline on sea. Tree Farm is worth it for the ECON/PSYCH alone. Hybrid Forest maybe less so, but still, the ecodamage reduction is helpful.

Myself I'm all for pop booming and satellites etc. Some of these things I just think didn't require quite enough tech was all. Part of the problem is external to economic growth, 50% of the tech tree or more is conquer techs that weren't all that efficient in providing a military advantage. A lot of the time those flashy military upgrades weren't worth the extra cost. Exceptions being the needlejet and copter chassis. So beelines to the economic techs then became the optimal way to play.

I think it was mentioned the advanced terraforming should be toned down a bit in productivity. I suppose another option would be to make it pollute a lot more. It's a fine line though, which if crossed means Green economics is necessary and +2 ECON isn't a strategy anymore.

Offline Hagen0

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2020, 10:04:36 PM »
One aspect to Forests is their upgrade facility doesn't really come at a sunk cost like upgrading Farm/Solar. Or Thermocline/Trunkline on sea. Tree Farm is worth it for the ECON/PSYCH alone. Hybrid Forest maybe less so, but still, the ecodamage reduction is helpful.

You think so? 12 rows is a lot. Building them definitely put me behind vs my advanced terraforming rival in one of the few pbems I played. However, that was with 5 row crawlers. Since formers and colony pods are also more expensive in the mod maybe the trade-off is different.

Offline Nexii

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2020, 10:16:47 PM »
It's close, I think T-hawk said they were marginally not worth it if you aren't running Forests. I had them at 10/2 and crawlers at 50. Just because I was simplifying most facilities to cost multiples of 5, for some reason. I may revisit the facility costing. I've also been modding to make ecodamage relevant, so thats a consideration too.

Offline Tayta Malikai

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2020, 11:10:30 PM »
Anecdotally, Tree Farms become a lot less OP when they don't come at the same tech that lifts the energy cap. At B6 and no other changes, I never bother to build them. Though maybe I should anyway just for the energy bonuses :V

Offline Hagen0

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2020, 12:00:22 AM »
It's close, I think T-hawk said they were marginally not worth it if you aren't running Forests. I had them at 10/2 and crawlers at 50. Just because I was simplifying most facilities to cost multiples of 5, for some reason. I may revisit the facility costing. I've also been modding to make ecodamage relevant, so thats a consideration too.

That's intriguing. Where did he say that?

Offline Nexii

Re: Population growth model and terrain rebalance/nerfs
« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2020, 12:04:12 AM »
It's in the speed run details over in the AAR forum. For awhile the fastest run did use them, but a recent faster run did not

 

* User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?


Login with username, password and session length

Select language:

* Community poll

SMAC v.4 SMAX v.2 (or previous versions)
-=-
18 (6%)
XP Compatibility patch
-=-
9 (3%)
Gog version for Windows
-=-
76 (29%)
Scient (unofficial) patch
-=-
28 (10%)
Kyrub's latest patch
-=-
14 (5%)
Yitzi's latest patch
-=-
85 (32%)
AC for Mac
-=-
2 (0%)
AC for Linux
-=-
5 (1%)
Gog version for Mac
-=-
10 (3%)
No patch
-=-
12 (4%)
Total Members Voted: 259
AC2 Wiki Logo

* Random quote

Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
~Sister Miriam Godwinson 'But for the Grace of God'

* Select your theme

*