Author Topic: Changes to the Social Engineering models  (Read 12977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nexii

Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2014, 10:11:43 PM »
  • Publish
  • True, though note only Miriam and Roze can get +3 PROBE until Thought Control.  Still I do agree that +PROBE needs to be more offensive in nature.  +PLANET and +MORALE work more offensively.  Even the high probe factions should want HSA.

    I think that mostly -ECON wasn't put on any SEs as a penalty because it becomes insignificant later in the game.  They probably didn't want a go-to SE.  Though it sometimes feels otherwise with techs like Cloning Vats 8).  For the same reason I'd rank Yang well above other factions with the drone fixes.  PS/Planned for Yang is just as good for growth as options like Demo/Planned or Demo/FM on others, because of the drone control and free support.  The only hard part is no easy pop booms but you can usually ride the momentum wave to victory.  Wealth just goes in too well completely negating -2 ECON.  It's hard to argue that -1 ECON wasn't well thought out.

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #16 on: February 27, 2014, 12:29:49 AM »
  • Publish
  • True, though note only Miriam and Roze can get +3 PROBE until Thought Control.

    No, only Miriam and Roze can get a faction-wide +3 PROBE until Thought Control.  Anyone can get it on a base-by-base basis once they get PSA.

    Quote
    Still I do agree that +PROBE needs to be more offensive in nature.  +PLANET and +MORALE work more offensively.

    Actually, PLANET's effect on ecodamage is more defensive in nature, and the ability to capture worms is really strongest for hybrid style players.  MORALE is also of both offensive and defensive use, though it's better for offensive styles.

    As for making PROBE more offensive in nature, it makes more thematic sense, based on where it comes from, for it to give mainly defensive bonuses.

    Quote
    I think that mostly -ECON wasn't put on any SEs as a penalty because it becomes insignificant later in the game.  They probably didn't want a go-to SE.  Though it sometimes feels otherwise with techs like Cloning Vats 8).

    The Cloning Vats do lend themselves well to certain social engineering choices...but that's only one faction.

    Quote
    For the same reason I'd rank Yang well above other factions with the drone fixes.  PS/Planned for Yang is just as good for growth as options like Demo/Planned or Demo/FM on others, because of the drone control and free support.  The only hard part is no easy pop booms

    Also poor energy; not only can Yang not make use of FM, but he's also almost always got +0 EFFIC, which does affect energy production in a large empire substantially.

    Also, keep in mind that Yang is stronger at higher difficulty; a Librarian vs. Librarian vs. Librarian etc. game might turn out very different than a Transcend vs. Transcend vs. Transcend etc. game.  The drone fixes were based on the assumption that "standard" play should be Librarian difficulty, and Transcend should be for people who want a real challenge or are really good.

    Quote
    but you can usually ride the momentum wave to victory.

    Yes, Yang is strong with momentum, but that's part of the faction's style.  If Yang's your neighbor, you just need to make sure to invest substantially in defense.

    Quote
    Wealth just goes in too well completely negating -2 ECON.  It's hard to argue that -1 ECON wasn't well thought out.

    Yang still ends up with energy output ranging from poor to meh.  And Wealth means -2 MORALE; that is what was really poorly thought out; if creches halved MORALE penalty rounding the penalty up instead of down, it'd come out to -1 morale or -2 with a command center, meaning that Yang's troops when running Wealth would be too weak to ride the momentum wave that easily.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #17 on: March 03, 2014, 07:00:43 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea, doing some more testing with Yang.  He might not be quite as strong as I first thought in a typical game.  His big problem is lack of tech.  In a player vs player game on Transcend, he can't get both Planned (+Wealth) and Impact (+Rovers) very fast.  Once he gets there though, it's downright scary.  Not really convinced anyone can stand up to him in a ground war.  +3 IND, +3 GROW, +2 SUP, +2 POLICE.  -2 MORALE isn't a huge deal as long as the target faction isn't making Elites.

    I'm not sure I understand the part about morale with Creche+CC+Wealth.  I wasn't aware that Creches affected the morale of troops produced at that base if that's what you are implying?  At -2 MORALE SE and CC it should be Green troops (-1 rank from SE, +1 from CC since halved at -2 MORALE SE).  Will have to test tonight

    Offline Geo

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #18 on: March 03, 2014, 07:12:14 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea, doing some more testing with Yang.  He might not be quite as strong as I first thought in a typical game.  His big problem is lack of tech.  In a player vs player game on Transcend, he can't get both Planned (+Wealth) and Impact (+Rovers) very fast.  Once he gets there though, it's downright scary.  Not really convinced anyone can stand up to him in a ground war.  +3 IND, +3 GROW, +2 SUP, +2 POLICE.  -2 MORALE isn't a huge deal as long as the target faction isn't making Elites.

    I participated once in a game where AI Yang came to the brink of taking out a human-played Data Angels. Only the (rotor) intervention of initially my faction and later gifted Uni needlejets took the blunt out of the invasion.
    Needless to say, the Hive didn't live long thereafter. ;)

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #19 on: March 03, 2014, 07:29:51 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea, doing some more testing with Yang.  He might not be quite as strong as I first thought in a typical game.  His big problem is lack of tech.  In a player vs player game on Transcend, he can't get both Planned (+Wealth) and Impact (+Rovers) very fast.  Once he gets there though, it's downright scary.  Not really convinced anyone can stand up to him in a ground war.  +3 IND, +3 GROW, +2 SUP, +2 POLICE.  -2 MORALE isn't a huge deal as long as the target faction isn't making Elites.

    Firstly, a 2-point morale disadvantage (which, once the effect of creche is rebalanced, will be what it comes out to with CC) is fairly substantial.  Secondly, he is definitely hard to stand up to on a ground war...but on the other hand he'll have trouble dealing with the other five players who aren't busy defending against him and can get ahead of him that way.

    Quote
    I'm not sure I understand the part about morale with Creche+CC+Wealth.  I wasn't aware that Creches affected the morale of troops produced at that base if that's what you are implying?  At -2 MORALE SE and CC it should be Green troops (-1 rank from SE, +1 from CC since halved at -2 MORALE SE).  Will have to test tonight

    Creches halve morale penalties for units homed to that base, and the penalty is rounded down.  So they turn that -1 into -0.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #20 on: March 03, 2014, 09:15:37 PM »
  • Publish
  • Interesting re: Creches.  I'm not convinced Creches should halve MORALE penalties (even rounding up), since this isn't mentioned in game as a benefit?  Is this some sort of residual bug related to fixing their combat bonuses? 

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #21 on: March 03, 2014, 10:02:31 PM »
  • Publish
  • Interesting re: Creches.  I'm not convinced Creches should halve MORALE penalties (even rounding up), since this isn't mentioned in game as a benefit?  Is this some sort of residual bug related to fixing their combat bonuses?

    My guess is it's just a last-minute undocumented feature.  I don't really think it's such a problem if a creche gives an effective +1 MORALE when you have -3 or worse; it'll still be a substantial disadvantage.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #22 on: March 05, 2014, 06:33:42 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea only Gaia can get down to -3 MORALE anyways.  Well pre-Eud. 

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #23 on: March 05, 2014, 11:16:40 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea only Gaia can get down to -3 MORALE anyways.  Well pre-Eud.

    And they have another way to deal with it, and aren't going to be running market/wealth anyway.

    Offline Geo

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #24 on: March 06, 2014, 07:59:44 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yeah, the second (nasty) tier of Planet combat! ;lol

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #25 on: March 11, 2014, 09:03:08 PM »
  • Publish
  • The main problem you'll find is that -2 ECON on PS and Power would make them scale too powerfully.  I think they would both become a sort of 'always go-to SE'.  -2 EFFIC / -2 IND sting a lot more.  Running negative ECON SE isn't all that harmful since it only hits the base square.  Now before you get bigger bases, yes -ECON does really hurt.  PS and Power (as they are) I feel are underrated by many players - both are very good.  Yes you will fall behind techers running Demo/FM/Wealth(or Knowledge).  But you can pressure & expand so well running PS/Green/Power - stealing techs is not that difficult after Doctrine:Flex.  You also end up saving a lot of units that would be otherwise killed by native life.  The benefit here is double also as you gain energy and mindworms from every kill.

    I've thought a lot on Fundamentalism lately - by far this is my least used SE.  In fact I often thought it was pretty much inferior to Police State in every way.  Now to convert to it and still maintain Drone control there are two options: Fund+FM (PSY) or Fund+Planned/Green(PSpheres).  Now early-mid game war is all about churning Elites.  From Green to Elite is +5 ranks.  +4 on land if you have a Monolith handy, which in a typical game you will get one.  So Fund is +1, Power +1, CC +2, and Trained mod +1.  This means pre-Power only Fund can get Elite without Trained.  Also they can get Elite without Trained after Power whereas PS cannot.  On the downside as your bases grow the 2 drones controlled by NLM aren't sufficient.  PS will make 2 sentries at 20 minerals whereas Fund then has to run PSpheres to control (100 minerals).  So that 80 minerals is the difference.  Trained is only +10-20 minerals per troop so I see Fund falling off then.  Although for Naval/Air the count is +5.  So PS can't even get Elite until BioCenters.  After BioCenters, AC+BC+Power is the +5 needed.  Granted at this point BC cost a lot more than Fund+Power+AC+Trained option.  No way a momentum gets CBF over a builder anyways or it's already over.  I could also see Fund being decent once you exceed pop:6 in your bases.  Sentry control only goes to this size at +2 POLICE whereas PSpheres negate any number of drones.  As well Fund gets more Energy than PS due to PS -2 EFFIC.  The goal may be to pop-boom like crazy then switch to Fund.

    I may try a few games with Fund+FM+Wealth for fun.  This means probe only war, but also a lot of money and high morale probes.  I think perhaps if Elite probes got a cost reduction on actions, this would help Fund a lot.  The base costs are high for a human player.  In addition the infiltrate options would put Fund on par with PS for war.

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #26 on: March 11, 2014, 10:10:25 PM »
  • Publish
  • The main problem you'll find is that -2 ECON on PS and Power would make them scale too powerfully.  I think they would both become a sort of 'always go-to SE'.  -2 EFFIC / -2 IND sting a lot more.  Running negative ECON SE isn't all that harmful since it only hits the base square.  Now before you get bigger bases, yes -ECON does really hurt.  PS and Power (as they are) I feel are underrated by many players - both are very good.  Yes you will fall behind techers running Demo/FM/Wealth(or Knowledge).  But you can pressure & expand so well running PS/Green/Power - stealing techs is not that difficult after Doctrine:Flex.  You also end up saving a lot of units that would be otherwise killed by native life.  The benefit here is double also as you gain energy and mindworms from every kill.

    PS actually doesn't help you win battles; I think it's less for tough wars and more for digesting conquests.

    Quote
    I've thought a lot on Fundamentalism lately - by far this is my least used SE.  In fact I often thought it was pretty much inferior to Police State in every way.

    It's really for full wartime, where +1 MORALE and near-immunity to subversion is well worth the cost.

    Quote
    Now to convert to it and still maintain Drone control there are two options: Fund+FM (PSY) or Fund+Planned/Green(PSpheres).

    Or Fund+Planned/Green and just devote a substantial portion of your existing energy to psych; sure, your research will suffer, but you were probably planning on stealing and/or extorting other people's research anyway.  Or get specialists for psych, though that comes at a cost to productivity.

    Quote
    Now early-mid game war is all about churning Elites.  From Green to Elite is +5 ranks.  +4 on land if you have a Monolith handy, which in a typical game you will get one.  So Fund is +1, Power +1, CC +2, and Trained mod +1.  This means pre-Power only Fund can get Elite without Trained.  Also they can get Elite without Trained after Power whereas PS cannot.

    Look at your calculations again.  Without trained or power, Fund is +1, CC is +2, that's +3 and you need +4.  To get Elite, you need three out of the four (Fund/Power/Trained/Monolith), or a bioenhancement center (plus CC and any one of the four), or to play as Spartans or Usurpers (Usurpers need only two out of Power/Trained/Monolith, or Fund/Power, or a CC+bioenhancement center, and Spartans need only Power, or two out of Fund/Trained/Monolith, or CC+bioenhancement.)

    Quote
    No way a momentum gets CBF over a builder anyways or it's already over.

    What's CBF?  Also, nothing says you can't switch in between for a tough war or whatever.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #27 on: March 13, 2014, 03:26:15 AM »
  • Publish
  • Yea typo there (calcs were ok), I meant Fund can get Elite with* Trained and/or Power.  PS needs both Trained and Power.  For land pre-BC.

    CBF = CyBorg Factory...maybe theres a more common acronym (CF?)

    I think the problem with subversion is the extremely high cost.  PROBE could also be useful if that was lowerable by variable somewhat, and/or make unit stacks subvertable.  It's just not reliable even in a defensive war.  Though one can sort of say the same with native life (generally weak for cost until late-game). 

    PS won't win wars for sure, not like Fund can.  But to get up a good sized army first PS is much superior.  +2 SUP is huge as is the +2 POLICE.  Fund I think generally isn't something that's viable to run for long.  Fund+FM could be ok if probing wasn't overly expensive.

    Offline Dio

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #28 on: March 13, 2014, 03:44:48 AM »
  • Publish
  • I can see that this topic has sparked a long running discussion. Simply put, I feel as though certain social effects are over represented on the social table relative to their effect scaling. I also think this goes the other way with certain social effects being under represented relative to their effect scaling. For example, you can get up to -8 Police from Social Engineering alone. Conversely, you can get up to +6 Efficiency. This ,plus the fact that the Growth bonuses are highly segemented, can combine to create a very stale playing enviroment. Perhaps we should brainstorm some ideas for drafting new social model effects and combinations?

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #29 on: March 13, 2014, 03:58:21 AM »
  • Publish
  • CBF = CyBorg Factory...maybe theres a more common acronym (CF?)

    Ah.  Well, actually there is are five ways that a momentum-style player can get the cyborg factory and it's not already over.  One is that he was a builder-style player earlier, and then switched to a more momentum-based style to either capitalize on his tech advantage or respond to pressure from someone else.  There's no need to follow a single strategy throughout the game.

    The second way is that all the builders got knocked out of the game (or are effectively out), but there are multiple momentum players (who may at some point switch to builder) fighting for victory.

    The third way is that a momentum and builder teamed up and are going for a cooperative victory.  Generally doesn't happen because it's seen as cheap, but in a team game where everyone does it, or those who don't have another advantage to compensate (such as being Earthmichael and/or playing on a lower difficulty), or the game is in the context of a larger system with an appropriate cost to teaming up, it would not be cheap and might be done.  (And this is a good thing, because it makes for a richer game to have team-ups be possible but at a meta cost.)

    The fourth way is that a builder got MMI first, but a momentum player stole the tech and went on to build the project before the builder could.  (Most likely with some variant rules to make it harder to finish projects very quickly after getting the tech.)

    The fifth way is that a builder did build the CF first, but then a momentum player conquered the base it was in.

    Quote
    I think the problem with subversion is the extremely high cost.

    It's not that high when the target is far from their territory.  Which is exactly the situation a momentum player's troops are often in.

    Quote
    and/or make unit stacks subvertable.

    It's on the list.

    Quote
    PS won't win wars for sure, not like Fund can.  But to get up a good sized army first PS is much superior.  +2 SUP is huge as is the +2 POLICE.

    Yes, PS is good for building up.

    Quote
    Fund I think generally isn't something that's viable to run for long.

    I think it's designed for when you need the edge against a closely matched opponent whom you're fighting a full war with.  So not something that's going to be run for long unless you need it to survive.

     

    * 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)
    -=-
    14 (6%)
    XP Compatibility patch
    -=-
    7 (3%)
    Gog version for Windows
    -=-
    45 (22%)
    Scient (unofficial) patch
    -=-
    22 (10%)
    Kyrub's latest patch
    -=-
    14 (6%)
    Yitzi's latest patch
    -=-
    78 (38%)
    AC for Mac
    -=-
    2 (0%)
    AC for Linux
    -=-
    5 (2%)
    Gog version for Mac
    -=-
    7 (3%)
    No patch
    -=-
    9 (4%)
    Total Members Voted: 203
    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

    *

    Facebook Comments