Author Topic: Changes to the Social Engineering models  (Read 12197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nexii

Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2014, 05:12:19 AM »
  • Publish
  • Yea at higher levels, there isn't really one 'builder' or 'momentum' style.  Going extreme one way or the other usually won't work.  It's really more a game about diplomacy and trading for tech (as with all Civ series) than one of playstyle.  Any of the original 7 can really play either style. 

    I feel the HQ-distance formula is decent, but PROBE is much worse vs a close land enemy.  Early wars are actually very often against close enemies (for land) not far ones (as this takes sea units).  Granted PROBE would be hard to balance if made much better.  It could get to a point where subverting units is more cost effective than making your own.

    Re: more viable SE combinations.  I think this would only really come into play if higher/lower SE effects were put in place.  That is, making +5 POLICE do something beneficial for example.  Or allowing new #SOC** effects though I'm not sure modding this is very easy either.  So you might be limited to making up new SEs or changing the bonuses/penalties of existing SEs.   There would be less capping out I believe if each SE gave smaller amounts of bonus/penalty across more SE categories.  Or smaller bonuses and penalties, though this might imbalance certain factions.  The big breakpoints of power like mentioned with GROWTH would still exist.

    I also believe that SE changing should cost more for bigger empires.  In Civ there was a real cost to switching governments on the fly.  In SMAC there isn't much of a cost aside from energy.  40/135/etc is a static amount...scaling this with population might have been better.  But again maybe not a huge priority...it just often feels like SE changing is really steep early.  And the energy cost is inconsequential later game.  This is one of the big reasons for SE-changing abuse (little cost to get those breakpoints on a whim).

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social engineering models.
    « Reply #31 on: March 13, 2014, 11:31:02 AM »
  • Publish
  • Yea at higher levels, there isn't really one 'builder' or 'momentum' style.  Going extreme one way or the other usually won't work.  It's really more a game about diplomacy and trading for tech (as with all Civ series) than one of playstyle.

    Trading or (in the case of a momentum player) extorting...

    Quote
    I feel the HQ-distance formula is decent, but PROBE is much worse vs a close land enemy.  Early wars are actually very often against close enemies (for land) not far ones (as this takes sea units).

    True; in early wars, Fund is probably more for the MORALE boost.

    Quote
    Re: more viable SE combinations.  I think this would only really come into play if higher/lower SE effects were put in place.  That is, making +5 POLICE do something beneficial for example.  Or allowing new #SOC** effects though I'm not sure modding this is very easy either.  So you might be limited to making up new SEs or changing the bonuses/penalties of existing SEs.   There would be less capping out I believe if each SE gave smaller amounts of bonus/penalty across more SE categories.  Or smaller bonuses and penalties, though this might imbalance certain factions.  The big breakpoints of power like mentioned with GROWTH would still exist.

    Most combinations do have some use (though it may be rare), and those that don't aren't such a big deal.

    Quote
    I also believe that SE changing should cost more for bigger empires.  In Civ there was a real cost to switching governments on the fly.  In SMAC there isn't much of a cost aside from energy.  40/135/etc is a static amount...scaling this with population might have been better.  But again maybe not a huge priority...it just often feels like SE changing is really steep early.  And the energy cost is inconsequential later game.  This is one of the big reasons for SE-changing abuse (little cost to get those breakpoints on a whim).

    It's an idea.  I'll add it to the list.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #32 on: March 13, 2014, 01:06:55 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea re: to DIO

    Examining the representation of +/- SEs (SE, range, choices):

    ECONOMY  -3,+5 (+2 FM, +1 WE, +2 EU)
    EFFIC     -4,+4 (+2 DE, +2 GR, +1 KN, +2 CY, -2 PS, -2 PL)
    SUPPORT  -4,+3 (+2 PS, +2 PO, -2 DE, -3 TC)
    TALENT        (NOT REPRESENTED)
    MORALE   -4,+4 (+1 FU, +2 PO, +2 TC, -2 WE, -2 EU)
    POLICE   -5,+3 (+2 PS, +2 TC, -5 FM, -3 CY)
    GROWTH   -3,+6 (+2 DE, +2 PL, +2 EU, -2 GR)
    PLANET   -3,+3 (+2 GR, +2 CY, -3 FM)
    PROBE  -2, +3 (+2 FU, +2 TC, -2 KN)
    INDUSTRY -3,+5 (+1 PL, +1 WE, +2 EU, -2 PO)
    RESEARCH -5,+5 (+2 KN, +2 CY, -2 FU)

    All SEs have a negative represented other than ECON.  EFFIC is the most represented and it's also tied for most in excess of the SE cap (3, as +7 is possible).  POLICE can also go 3 beyond (-8, 3 beyond -5).  The rest are actually pretty good although a few can go in excess by 1 (POLICE, MORALE, PLANET, PROBE all on the + side, SUPPORT by 1 on either side).  RESEARCH strikes me as one that isn't well represented (can only get within 1 of + cap, and 3 of - cap).  Similar for INDUSTRY but not as extreme.

    Summing all SE caps we get a range of 77.  For negative SEs, 34 and positive SEs 43.  The current SE choices sum to 32 and 47 respectively.  So overall if you were to represent everything to the cap, SEs would have slightly more drawbacks than they do currently (mainly stemming from -ECON not represented, and +EFFIC going so high)
    « Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 01:27:51 PM by Nexii »

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #33 on: March 13, 2014, 02:15:45 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea re: to DIO

    Examining the representation of +/- SEs (SE, range, choices):

    ECONOMY  -3,+5 (+2 FM, +1 WE, +2 EU)
    EFFIC     -4,+4 (+2 DE, +2 GR, +1 KN, +2 CY, -2 PS, -2 PL)
    SUPPORT  -4,+3 (+2 PS, +2 PO, -2 DE, -3 TC)
    TALENT        (NOT REPRESENTED)
    MORALE   -4,+4 (+1 FU, +2 PO, +2 TC, -2 WE, -2 EU)
    POLICE   -5,+3 (+2 PS, +2 TC, -5 FM, -3 CY)
    GROWTH   -3,+6 (+2 DE, +2 PL, +2 EU, -2 GR)
    PLANET   -3,+3 (+2 GR, +2 CY, -3 FM)
    PROBE  -2, +3 (+2 FU, +2 TC, -2 KN)
    INDUSTRY -3,+5 (+1 PL, +1 WE, +2 EU, -2 PO)
    RESEARCH -5,+5 (+2 KN, +2 CY, -2 FU)

    ECON can actually take any decrease, though to make -4 or lower different than -3 you need to mod to increase base energy or recycling tanks energy.
    EFFIC actually can benefit from any amount of increase, though past +4 there's no new name and no effect on the penalty for having different ECON and LABS settings.
    PLANET actually can be affected by any amount; the ecodamage effect is limited to +3/-2 (by default; it can be changed in alphax), and fungus production and worm capture effects are capped at -3/+3, but the effect on psi combat is unlimited.

    And you didn't list faction and project bonuses/penalties.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #34 on: March 13, 2014, 04:27:32 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea that's the tough part - faction and facilty specific bonuses.  If anything you can argue though that they compound it.

    That's interesting re: ECON.  Actually worse ECON ratings also affect bases on energy bonus squares (like rivers, Uranium Flats).  So uninuitively it is better to build off these types of squares if at -3 ECON and below.

    Here's a SE set you can play around with.  Everything can go from the SE min to the SE max, with a default faction like the Firaxians.

    #SOCIO
    ECONOMY, EFFIC, SUPPORT, TALENT, MORALE, POLICE, GROWTH, PLANET, PROBE, INDUSTRY, RESEARCH
    ECONOMY, EFFIC, SUPPORT, TALENT, MORALE, POLICE, GROWTH, PLANET, PROBE, INDUSTRY, RESEARCH
    Politics, Economics, Values, Future Society
    Frontier,        None,
    Police State,    DocLoy,  +POLICE,  ++SUPPORT, --GROWTH
    Democratic,      EthCalc, +EFFIC,  +RESEARCH, +ECONOMY, --POLICE
    Fundamentalist,  Brain,  +MORALE,  +GROWTH, +PROBE,  --RESEARCH
    Simple,          None,
    Free Market,     IndEcon, ++ECONOMY, ---PLANET, --SUPPORT
    Planned,         PlaNets, ++GROWTH,  +INDUSTRY,--EFFIC
    Green,           CentEmp, +++PLANET,  ++EFFIC,  ---INDUSTRY
    Survival,        None,
    Power,           MilAlg,  ++MORALE,   +SUPPORT, ---ECONOMY
    Knowledge,       Cyber,   ++RESEARCH, --PROBE
    Wealth,          IndAuto, ++INDUSTRY, -MORALE, --EFFIC
    None,            None,
    Cybernetic,      DigSent, +EFFIC,  ++INDUSTRY,  ++RESEARCH, --SUPPORT, ---POLICE
    Eudaimonic,      Eudaim,  +++GROWTH, ++ECONOMY, ---MORALE
    Thought Control, WillPow, ++POLICE, ++PROBE, +MORALE, -GROWTH, ---RESEARCH

    Might require some tweaking...I'll try a few games with the SEs equally represented.

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #35 on: March 13, 2014, 05:50:28 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea that's the tough part - faction and facilty specific bonuses.  If anything you can argue though that they compound it.

    That's interesting re: ECON.  Actually worse ECON ratings also affect bases on energy bonus squares (like rivers, Uranium Flats).  So uninuitively it is better to build off these types of squares if at -3 ECON and below.

    Here's a SE set you can play around with.  Everything can go from the SE min to the SE max, with a default faction like the Firaxians.

    #SOCIO
    ECONOMY, EFFIC, SUPPORT, TALENT, MORALE, POLICE, GROWTH, PLANET, PROBE, INDUSTRY, RESEARCH
    ECONOMY, EFFIC, SUPPORT, TALENT, MORALE, POLICE, GROWTH, PLANET, PROBE, INDUSTRY, RESEARCH
    Politics, Economics, Values, Future Society
    Frontier,        None,
    Police State,    DocLoy,  +POLICE,  ++SUPPORT, --GROWTH
    Democratic,      EthCalc, +EFFIC,  +RESEARCH, +ECONOMY, --POLICE
    Fundamentalist,  Brain,  +MORALE,  +GROWTH, +PROBE,  --RESEARCH
    Simple,          None,
    Free Market,     IndEcon, ++ECONOMY, ---PLANET, --SUPPORT
    Planned,         PlaNets, ++GROWTH,  +INDUSTRY,--EFFIC
    Green,           CentEmp, +++PLANET,  ++EFFIC,  ---INDUSTRY
    Survival,        None,
    Power,           MilAlg,  ++MORALE,   +SUPPORT, ---ECONOMY
    Knowledge,       Cyber,   ++RESEARCH, --PROBE
    Wealth,          IndAuto, ++INDUSTRY, -MORALE, --EFFIC
    None,            None,
    Cybernetic,      DigSent, +EFFIC,  ++INDUSTRY,  ++RESEARCH, --SUPPORT, ---POLICE
    Eudaimonic,      Eudaim,  +++GROWTH, ++ECONOMY, ---MORALE
    Thought Control, WillPow, ++POLICE, ++PROBE, +MORALE, -GROWTH, ---RESEARCH

    Hmm...
    -Until the late game there would be (without relevant faction bonuses or penalties) no pacifism, no pop booming unless you can pull off a golden age at 0 efficiency with 1 police unit or 1 efficiency with no police, and no subversion immunity.
    -Police state would be fairly good for momentum, especially ICS momentum.
    -Democratic would be extremely strong for an energy-focused builder; once you had decent psych multipliers the loss of a single police unit would be far more than outweighed by the extra energy to psych.
    -Green would pretty much require you to go for a captured-worm-heavy approach.
    -Power would be quite strong for wartime; -ECONOMY is fairly mild.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #36 on: March 13, 2014, 06:33:06 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea good comments.  I too think Power might play out a bit strong.  What if PS and Power penalties were instead swapped?  ---ECON would be a huge hit to PS ICSing.  Also --GROWTH is more crippling with harder pop booms.  I find the current PS (+2 POL, +2 SUP, -2 EFF) very strong for ICSing too...but that's kind of its purpose (expansion/control).  You can control 6 superdrones (9 as Sparta) easily, and get 4 units supported per base.  The energy is poor but you can steal techs with minerals only (probe team).

    Green might be a bit weak, but with ecodamage being relevant it's your only choice unless you build eco damage reducers and go light on minerals.  It's strong early with the captures.  Where Green falls off is that produced MWs are weak, due to high cost, slow movement, and countered by Empath/Trance).  Taking MWs down to 20 minerals, Spore Launchers/Isles to 30, and Locusts to 40 would help balance that out.  Then for a Green player the cost is still fairly high (+30% on these values).

    I'll have to see for Demo.  The bonuses seem rather mild.  I think on Transcend --POLICE is about as bad as --SUPPORT was.  At least early until you get excess energy reserves - the second worker needs a Rec Commons.  On the other hand, getting the 10 minerals from a new base means it only costs 30, and will support you up to size 3.  Early game -2 SUP does sting, that's -1 mineral a base which is ~2 energy.  Could be really strong for Spartans & Morgan though.  Maybe no worse than PS currently for Sparta or Wealth for Morgan.
     
    To make early game pacifism, more -POLICE would have to go to Demo or FM again.  Thus Cyber would need an alternative penalty.  To get early game subversion, PROBE would have to go into the first three tiers only.  Not sure what would replace PROBE in Thought Control thematically.  Never found complete subversion immunity was a huge thing to go for, it's already super costly at +1/+2 PROBE.

    Making early game pop booms harder might not be such a bad thing really.  That would make it less beneficial to sit on small bases that then boom with Creche+TF.  More difficulty in booming up captured bases for a momentum style might be okay.  It should take significant energy/psych to take your worker cost from 30-70N down to just 2.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #37 on: March 13, 2014, 06:38:57 PM »
  • Publish
  • <deleted quote>

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #38 on: March 13, 2014, 07:48:29 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea good comments.  I too think Power might play out a bit strong.  What if PS and Power penalties were instead swapped?  ---ECON would be a huge hit to PS ICSing.  Also --GROWTH is more crippling with harder pop booms.

    Could work, though you still end up that a large portion of the range of SE settings simply can't be used until the late game.

    Quote
    I find the current PS (+2 POL, +2 SUP, -2 EFF) very strong for ICSing too...but that's kind of its purpose (expansion/control).  You can control 6 superdrones (9 as Sparta) easily, and get 4 units supported per base.  The energy is poor but you can steal techs with minerals only (probe team).

    If techsteal had an energy cost, though...

    Quote
    Green might be a bit weak, but with ecodamage being relevant it's your only choice unless you build eco damage reducers and go light on minerals.

    You wouldn't have to go that light if you've got formers and empath troops to troubleshoot.

    (I also forgot to mention: Wealth looks extremely powerful.)

    Quote
    I'll have to see for Demo.  The bonuses seem rather mild.

    +RESEARCH is not mild, and with Market and a bunch of pact brothers, neither is +ECONOMY.

    Quote
    Maybe no worse than PS currently for Sparta or Wealth for Morgan.

    Wealth doesn't boost RESEARCH; in fact, it comes at the cost of the only midgame way to boost RESEARCH.
     
    Quote
    To make early game pacifism, more -POLICE would have to go to Demo or FM again.  Thus Cyber would need an alternative penalty

    Or just reduce it.  But yes, that's the problem of your idea here: By limiting the total available with future society to a fairly moderate range, what's available without future society (i.e. most of the game) is a very narrow range, meaning that a substantial portion of what's available is simply not used for most of the game.

    Quote
    Making early game pop booms harder might not be such a bad thing really.  That would make it less beneficial to sit on small bases that then boom with Creche+TF.  More difficulty in booming up captured bases for a momentum style might be okay.  It should take significant energy/psych to take your worker cost from 30-70N down to just 2.

    True.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #39 on: March 13, 2014, 08:25:38 PM »
  • Publish
  • Quote
    Or just reduce it.  But yes, that's the problem of your idea here: By limiting the total available with future society to a fairly moderate range, what's available without future society (i.e. most of the game) is a very narrow range, meaning that a substantial portion of what's available is simply not used for most of the game.

    Yes - unless your faction has an innate bonus.  Another (perhaps better?) way to do it would be to lessen the overall impact of the Future Society SEs, since they factor in very late anyways.  Instead giving them more mild bonuses/penalties.  We can slot the top 3 modifiers (+GROWTH/+IND/+ECON) to each.  Now of course some of this will require a re-interpretation of the SE to real-life/game theme. This is more an experiment to see how the gameplay might turn out if a 0 SE faction could not go over/under cap...not saying this is really better.  Maybe just something different that allows more combination but also makes each SE choice less impactful.

    The Morgan ref was that you could run Green+Wealth for the +2 ECON, giving overall good research.  All around it's generally better than FM+Knowledge/Wealth.  Wealth has a lot less downside than FM.

    +GROWTH is definitely the hardest SE to balance out.  I noted that Yang can now easy-boom with Fund+Planned.  Also, Morgan cannot boom even with GA due to PLANNED aversion.  I was trying to limit +GROWTH to +3 in the first tier, and +2 for Yang.  So pretty much Demo needs to have +GROWTH, and the other +2 GROWTH has to be split amongst two other SEs.  This would give more options to the factions with all 3 available but also make it more difficult.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #40 on: March 13, 2014, 09:16:49 PM »
  • Publish
  • Police State,    DocLoy,  ++POLICE, +SUPPORT, --GROWTH
    Democratic,      EthCalc, ++EFFIC,++GROWTH, +ECONOMY, -----POLICE
    Fundamentalist,  Brain,  ++MORALE,++PROBE, ---RESEARCH
    Simple,          None,
    Free Market,     IndEcon, ++ECONOMY, ---PLANET, --SUPPORT
    Planned,         PlaNets, +GROWTH,+INDUSTRY,+SUPPORT,--EFFIC
    Green,           CentEmp, +++PLANET, +EFFIC,  ---INDUSTRY
    Survival,        None,
    Power,           MilAlg,   ++MORALE,+SUPPORT, ---ECONOMY
    Knowledge,       Cyber, +++RESEARCH, --PROBE,-MORALE
    Wealth,          IndAuto, ++INDUSTRY, --EFFIC, --RESEARCH
    None,            None,
    Cybernetic,      DigSent, ++RESEARCH,+EFFIC,--SUPPORT
    Eudaimonic,      Eudaim, +++GROWTH, ++ECONOMY, ---MORALE
    Thought Control, WillPow, +POLICE, +PROBE, ++INDUSTRY, -GROWTH

    Generally toned down the lategame SEs in this set.

    Offline Dio

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #41 on: March 13, 2014, 09:52:38 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yea that's the tough part - faction and facilty specific bonuses.  If anything you can argue though that they compound it.

    That's interesting re: ECON.  Actually worse ECON ratings also affect bases on energy bonus squares (like rivers, Uranium Flats).  So uninuitively it is better to build off these types of squares if at -3 ECON and below.

    Here's a SE set you can play around with.  Everything can go from the SE min to the SE max, with a default faction like the Firaxians.

    #SOCIO
    ECONOMY, EFFIC, SUPPORT, TALENT, MORALE, POLICE, GROWTH, PLANET, PROBE, INDUSTRY, RESEARCH
    ECONOMY, EFFIC, SUPPORT, TALENT, MORALE, POLICE, GROWTH, PLANET, PROBE, INDUSTRY, RESEARCH
    Politics, Economics, Values, Future Society
    Frontier,        None,
    Police State,    DocLoy,  +POLICE,  ++SUPPORT, --GROWTH
    Democratic,      EthCalc, +EFFIC,  +RESEARCH, +ECONOMY, --POLICE
    Fundamentalist,  Brain,  +MORALE,  +GROWTH, +PROBE,  --RESEARCH
    Simple,          None,
    Free Market,     IndEcon, ++ECONOMY, ---PLANET, --SUPPORT
    Planned,         PlaNets, ++GROWTH,  +INDUSTRY,--EFFIC
    Green,           CentEmp, +++PLANET,  ++EFFIC,  ---INDUSTRY
    Survival,        None,
    Power,           MilAlg,  ++MORALE,   +SUPPORT, ---ECONOMY
    Knowledge,       Cyber,   ++RESEARCH, --PROBE
    Wealth,          IndAuto, ++INDUSTRY, -MORALE, --EFFIC
    None,            None,
    Cybernetic,      DigSent, +EFFIC,  ++INDUSTRY,  ++RESEARCH, --SUPPORT, ---POLICE
    Eudaimonic,      Eudaim,  +++GROWTH, ++ECONOMY, ---MORALE
    Thought Control, WillPow, ++POLICE, ++PROBE, +MORALE, -GROWTH, ---RESEARCH

    Might require some tweaking...I'll try a few games with the SEs equally represented.

    Some of the models are very similiar to some the ideas I had. Just be aware that having more than four different penalities/bonuses to a social model causes the icons to run outside the alloted space on the Social Engineering window.

    Offline Yitzi

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #42 on: March 13, 2014, 10:12:25 PM »
  • Publish
  • Yes - unless your faction has an innate bonus.  Another (perhaps better?) way to do it would be to lessen the overall impact of the Future Society SEs, since they factor in very late anyways.

    Not sure that's necessary; late-game SEs should be impressive.

    Also, let's look at what combinations are currently affected by the lack of cap:
    For ECONOMY, Morgan (or someone with golden ages everywhere) won't benefit as much from Market/Wealth/Eudaimonic.  If you're that late in the game, you probably don't want to run Market anyway due to ecodamage, especially if you aren't running Cybernetic (and therefore need Green to get +4 EFFIC).
    For EFFIC, it means that Police State/Planned is slightly less bad for the Pirates (who lose one of their downsides in the process).  It's still not something they're likely to run.  And if they have creches, even that doesn't apply.
    For SUPPORT, it means that if you're running Thought Control and not Police State or Power, you have less reason not to run Democracy (none for Morgan unless he plans to go Fund).  Thought Control without Power isn't too likely anyway.  It also (on the other end) means that running Police State and Power is more appealing to Morgan than it would otherwise be (it's still not something he's going to do often), and that if you are running both the Living Refinery won't do much for you unless you're also running Thought Control.  (Fairly limited situation.)  And that the Believers have much less reason to run both Police State and Power unless also running Thought Control (they probably prefer Fund pre-Thought Control anyway).  On the flip side, if they are running both Police State and Power, Thought Control is essentially free for them.
    For MORALE, it means that if you're running Power/Thought Control you have less reason to run Fund (somewhat significant), and that the Spartans have less reason to run both Power and Thought Control.  (This is also somewhat significant; Spartans may prefer to run a late-game Police State/Green/Power for conquest and not go with future society at all.)  It also means that the Gaians suffer less from Wealth/Eudaimonic...actually, they did anyway just because MORALE doesn't affect native life.
    For POLICE, it means that the Angels suffer less from Market (they were probably going to run it anyway; large armies outside their territory isn't their thing), that if you're going Market without Police State there's no reason not to go Cybernetic (not such a big problem; you'd probably go Cybernetic anyway just to mitigate the ecodamage somewhat).  On the other side, it means that the Spartans (or anyone with the Ascetic Virtues) have less reason to run Thought Control if already running Police State, and the Spartans running Police State have less benefit from Ascetic Virtues.  Only really significant thing there is that the Spartans once again don't like Thought Control.
    For GROWTH, it means that if you have creches and golden ages everywhere (or just creches and are running Eudaimonic) and are running Democracy, Planned loses much of its appeal.  The former is not such a major issue, as "golden ages everywhere" isn't that common; the latter is more significant.  The Hive and Usurpers also benefit less from Eudamonic/Planned (without Dem, which they can't run), but then that translates to -2 (-1 with Knowledge) efficiency in the late game so it's not something they're likely to do anyway.
    PLANET can go up or down indefinitely in its effect on psi combat...and if you've got very high or very low PLANET psi combat is going to be a significant consideration for you.
    For PROBE, it means the University can run Knowledge consequence-free if they're not planning to get covert ops centers anyway and aren't going Thought Control.  (Why would the University not get covert ops centers anyway to mitigate their probe vulnerability?)  It also means that the Believers and Angels have less benefit from Fund/Thought Control.  (But it can still be worth it if not going power, for the morale bonus.)
    For INDUSTRY, it means that if the Drones are running Eudaimonic there isn't as much reason for them to run both Planned and Wealth.  They would be going Dem anyway for EFFIC (-2 EFFIC is not what you want when you've got +3 ECONOMY), and we already know that that makes Planned fairly redundant.
    It has no effect for RESEARCH, as to get +5 you need +6 anyway.

    So the total actually significant effects of bypassing the caps are:
    -Power/Fund/Thought Control isn't such a good combination.  This is okay, as Police State/Power/Thought Control would probably be better anyway.
    -Police State/Power/Thought Control is really good for the Believers.  I don't think that's such a disaster; they could use a strong late-game strategy.
    -Spartans really don't like Thought Control.  This is a possible issue, though not that huge.
    -Dem/Planned/Eudaimonic is fairly weak unless you're expanding (in which case it gives you pre-creche pop booms).  Planned is fairly rare lategame anyway, I think.

    Quote
    The Morgan ref was that you could run Green+Wealth for the +2 ECON, giving overall good research.  All around it's generally better than FM+Knowledge/Wealth.

    Depends on your priorities and situation.  Morgan running Dem/Market/Knowledge with enough pact brothers and a global trade pact can out-tech the best Zak can do.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models.
    « Reply #43 on: March 14, 2014, 11:31:30 AM »
  • Publish
  • Quote
    Some of the models are very similiar to some the ideas I had. Just be aware that having more than four different penalities/bonuses to a social model causes the icons to run outside the alloted space on the Social Engineering window.

    Yea I noted this too, 5 SEs is a lot in the window unless most have just 1 for +/-.  Hence I reworked them such that they only get up to 4 +/- in the second set above. 

    One argument for a balanced SE set is that they make the factions feel more unique.  If your faction has a penalty then even with SE focus you can't hit the cap.  Granted some SPs and facilities help you overcome this but still, it might shift some faction-specific strategies. 

    I'll see if I can't write up some short flavor texts for my most recently posted set.  However going to balance test this a bit first.  I think Wealth might be somewhat weak compared to Knowledge?  Then again +2 IND is pretty strong for churning out facilities and SPs.  I could see more Knowledge/Wealth swaps based on need.

    Free Drones might be fun with the below - 5 IND early game seems so strong.  Then again, no Green is a much more painful aversion with +PLANET taken out of Cyber.

    Offline Nexii

    Re: Changes to the Social Engineering models
    « Reply #44 on: March 17, 2014, 09:06:44 PM »
  • Publish
  • Some first thoughts...

    The hardest thing to balance around is the -4 EFFIC penalty.  Right now in my set Planned+Wealth isn't viable.  In the default set PS+Planned has the same issue.  The goal here was to make more viable combinations of SEs.

    PS boosted to +2 POL, +2 SUP, -2 GROWTH - was a bit weak at just +1 SUP.  This strengthens PS later game but makes it worse earlier game.  Considered a PS <> Power penalty swap but I think it'd make Yang just way too good.
    Demo is a bit too good, changed to +1 EFFIC.  Still very solid since no defensive military downside.
    Fund seems about right.  With Trance at -1 cost, you can fight somewhat defensively against native life. 

    FM - about right, minerals cost is painful early.  later on the ecodamage makes it hard to manage, but the upside is really strong.  recommend something like 1000
    Planned was very weak, reduced penalty to -1 EFFIC
    Green a bit weak (even with native life recosting and ecodamage fixes), raised to +2 EFFIC

    Power to +2 MORALE, -3 ECONOMY (slight tonedown.  compared to Fund's downside it was too good)
    Knowledge - seemed okay
    Wealth - seemed okay

    TC to -1 EFFIC, -1 GROWTH (general distrust amongst citizens).  +2 IND is very strong combined with Planned/Wealth you can get +5 IND - halving mineral costs.  By late game you'll have Creches so this won't put you to -4 EFFIC anyways.

    Police State,    DocLoy,  ++POLICE,++SUPPORT,--GROWTH
    Democratic,      EthCalc, +EFFIC,++GROWTH,+ECONOMY,-----POLICE
    Fundamentalist,  Brain,   ++MORALE,++PROBE,---RESEARCH
    Simple,          None,
    Free Market,     IndEcon, ++ECONOMY,---PLANET,--SUPPORT
    Planned,         PlaNets, +GROWTH,+INDUSTRY,+SUPPORT,-EFFIC
    Green,           CentEmp, +++PLANET,++EFFIC,---INDUSTRY
    Survival,        None,
    Power,           MilAlg,  ++MORALE,---ECONOMY
    Knowledge,       Cyber,   +++RESEARCH,--PROBE,-MORALE
    Wealth,          IndAuto, ++INDUSTRY,--EFFIC,--RESEARCH
    None,            None,
    Cybernetic,      DigSent, ++RESEARCH,+EFFIC,--SUPPORT
    Eudaimonic,      Eudaim,  +++GROWTH,++ECONOMY,---MORALE
    Thought Control, WillPow, +POLICE,+PROBE,++INDUSTRY,-GROWTH,-EFFIC

    I think with +EFFIC being harder to get, you might see games go a bit later to conclusion with this set.  It isn't near as easy to hit +4 with a huge empire.

    I feel that with this set, you can go something other than Green with PS or Fund.  PS can go with FM or Planned as can Fundamentalism.  Power/Knowledge/Wealth now more strongly correlate to what they're intended to help (conquer, discover, build).
    « Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 11:51:01 PM by Nexii »

     

    * 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
    -=-
    13 (6%)
    Yitzi's latest patch
    -=-
    77 (38%)
    AC for Mac
    -=-
    2 (0%)
    AC for Linux
    -=-
    5 (2%)
    Gog version for Mac
    -=-
    7 (3%)
    No patch
    -=-
    9 (4%)
    Total Members Voted: 201
    AC2 Wiki Logo

    * Random quote

    And the Lord God said, 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever, we must send him forth.' Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
    ~The Conclave Bible

    * Select your theme

    *

    Facebook Comments