posted 04-30-99 05:09 PM ET        

1) Less bulky interface! I hate the time menu items take to pop up and I hate the way you click on one city improvement and another is chosen.

2) The ablility to have many more factions, 20+ for a huge map of the planet.

3) More distinguishable units, in Civ the units were completely unmistakeable, now I have to guess on whether I am atacking an AAA unit with my plane or not or I have to set 'Confirm Odds' on so I don't get shallacked, etc. And if they units can't become more unmistakable then atleast make it so I can scroll over them with my mouse and I get told what they are.

4) (I just had to add one more) The ablity to demand a leader who is begging for a blood truce give you something, the way it is now you either have to say no and hope he'll offer or accept the truce and then ask and hope he'll give you what you want. Also, you should be allowed to ask for more than one thing at a time when trading or demanding tribute, i.e. somegreattech for somelittletech1 & someotherlittletech.

posted 04-30-99 08:09 PM ET            

Actually, I thought these have always been conspicuously missing from Civ2 and Civ2 Gold;

1) Airmobility. There should be a large, expensive aircraft capable of carrying two vehicles (i.e rovers) or four infantry. These should be long-ranged AND drop-infantry should be able to drop out of it anywhere. This game is supposed to be set in the future, why did this feature get overlooked? Why must paratroopers land within 12 squares of a friendly base/airbase?

2) If there are orbital defence pods, capable of destroying incoming missiles or other satellites, doesn't it stand to reason that a possibly more expension, harder to build satellite would be capable of ground attack? Don't give me that weather-blocking-coherent-light arguement either. The Pentagon was researching kenetic orbital weapons as far back as the 60's. Load up a satellite with scores of aerodynamic, fin-steered metal rods and simply drop them at a target. Simple physics do the rest. This leads me to my last entry.

3) Individual facilities and special projects, as well as items under construction (especially special projects) should be able to be targeted by "cruise" missiles. We have this technology now, or haven't you been watching the news? Orbital ground attack satellites would be able to achieve this as well.
Think about the incredible dynamic this would create. If an enemy faction were building a special project you were also building, launch a pre-emptive strike, costing them a certain percentage of minerals, based on the amount of damage incurred. Destroy psych facilities to send enemy bases into drone riots, take out industry...the possibilities are endles...and surgical. Multiplayer threats would get VERY interesting as well.

Just a few thoughts, but I believe them to be integral to the next generation of this game and I cannot see how they were left out to begin with.

By the way, I want a job in game design.

posted 05-05-99 04:34 AM ET            

-- Fixed defense installations, such as coastal defenses and fixed SAM sites.

-- Spy planes, satellites, AWACS, this sort of advanced electronic/computer systems.

-- Base defenses vs missiles and PBs. No, not just the defense pods. I'm taking about ground based laser defenses.

-- Giant robots

-- Space bases

-- Make Nessus available to exploration and settlement.

-- Weather weapons

-- Mine laying (perhaps by specialist combat engineer units)

-- More diversified tech tree: perhaps the tech available to a faction is influenced by its social choices, say, Centauri Psi only available to Green factions.

-- Custom factions

-- MoO type research

posted 05-05-99 08:42 AM ET            

BTW, I think, Nexxus could have been the place, the alien race went to when leaving the planet. Perhaps we met them there? ,-)

posted 05-06-99 01:47 AM ET            

(1) Diplomacy Additions/AI
(a) reserach bans (not allowing research of certian topics)
(b) multiple world governments
(c) bottom-up attrocitys
start with 'limited' attrocitys charter
add too the charter as new attrocitys become possible
(d) shareing effects of wonders.
(e) 'open tech' option, techs automaticly propigate accross special treaties
(f) proxy war support
(g) kill planet victory option.

(2) Military.
(a) space based weapons, THOR, CPAW,ect
(b) zero-movement units
-reduced cost
-allows custom sensors, SAMs, ect
(c) low-yield WoMDs: tak-nukes, neutron-bombs, ect
(d) reverse-engineer captured units
(3) Gameplay.
(a) off-planet maps. Moons/astaroids. This might require the addition of a spacecraft chassis. The main goal of this would be to move satalites over to micromangement.. instead of just having a Nessus mining station, you have to build a city with special terrian improvements that act like the classic satalites.
The 'lanch cost' would be the pure cost of moving a unit from ground to orbit, so your first unit would probably be a scout, followed by a colony pod and a terreforming unit, and maybe severl supply crawlers. First cities would have to build 'local' improvements, such as food supplies, THEN build the speical improvements that effect all cities /w an aerospace complex.

posted 05-06-99 01:23 PM ET         

The ability to start a game about midway through.

I usually play with the 'fast start' option on, which fast-forwards the game and starts you with about 3 bases, and miscellaneous tech and units. I love this, and I'd love to see it applied on an even larger scale. I'd love to be able to select, say Miriam, and jump inot a game where all 7 factions have already got 6-10 bases, various tech 4s and special projects, etc. It would make a really fun and unique challenge to pick up a game halfway like that.

If I had my complete druthers, I'd make it so you could choose how late in the game you wnated to play. You'd select 'start game' and you'd enter the MY you wanted to start at. The AI would run a quick simulation up to that date, and you'd start in an unpredictable situation and have to make the best of it!

It'd bascially be like you were the 2nd generation leader; you were the Son of Dierdre, or what have you, taking over where they left off; either having to clean up the mess they made, or being able to enjoy the riches they built up. When looked at from this perspective, it sounds so appealing to me that I wouldn't even mind the inevitable irrationalities that would pop up; I'm sure the AI would do things like have completely indefensible cities, or really backwards social engineering choices. But the clean-up would be part of the fun!

posted 05-06-99 01:45 PM ET            

1)

It really bothers me in SMAC (and CIV2) that it takes 1 WHOLE YEAR for an infantry unit to move one lousy terrain square. I know each turn is a year, but why can't units move faster (it doesn't mean they can attack more, even though a tank unit CAN attack more than once a year)? Even with roads, an infantry unit can't travel between two cities in his "nation" (my second gripe, see below). I understand that with magtubes movement is nothing, but I have played many games and have never had the time to implement "nation-wide" magtubes. So, what I'm saying is that the units move remarkable slow, especially for advanced technology like fission or fusion (not to mention singularity!). Adding thousands of turns is not the answer, adding movement points to units is. I know I can do this on my own, but do you people think? Have you ever thought of this before?

SO, what I want to see is more realistic movement of units.
---------------------------------------------
2)

The other gripe/question I have has to do with the "collection of city-states" that makes up a faction. I fully agree with the other suggestions of interdependence of cities and such. However, I play the game to feel as if I'm in control of a real nation. Unfortunately, I do not get this feeling in SMAC mostly because of the fact that I have not seen the AI actually pay attention to my borders. Therefore, SMACX needs stationary defenses (say border posts, like in the real world) that can provide some (even if meager) defense.
---------------------------------------------
3.

I brought this up during the chat with Brian Reynolds about a month ago, so here it is again. The game claims that you can design thousands of unit types. THis is a fine thing, but when it really gets down to it, I feel as if there are more units in Civ2 (even restricting it to modern times.) What SMACX needs is AT LEAST ONE MORE CHASSIS. Some suggestions are a mech-type unit, a type of infantry that DOESN'T use those stupid pintle mounts (those things look so bad), or a dedicated transport unit chassis (not a "Transport Gravtank").
---------------------------------------------

posted 05-07-99 01:24 AM ET            

2) Approx double the current number of chassis, and eliminate the big infantry/ small infantry effect. Better looking jets are a priority - how about Needle shaped ones, instead of the current chunky number.

3) Revamped weapons system/combat animations/weapons sounds. Current system of armour for defense/weapon for attack/one scene fits all is a real step backwards when compared to the sophisticated system in CivII (which was more in depth, despite Brian's attempts to say otherwise).

Other improvements:
Better world maker.
Further Faction Balancing.

This is why I'm prejudiced against SMACX - they can't make any major changes to the game, just cosmetic addons like more projects and chassises. But SMAC *needs* those changes.

posted 05-07-99 10:10 AM ET            

1.) Improved AI, especially improved AI offenses.

2.) Ortillery units or satellites, with configurable payload.

3.) Mimicry ability - disguise your troups as if belonging to another faction.

posted 05-07-99 11:01 AM ET         

The dates when SPs were completed, when vendettas were called, bases founded / destroyed / conquered, pacts signed, major techs discovered... Surely this wouldn't be to hard, Firaxis ?

posted 05-07-99 03:40 PM ET            

2) I'd also like a small moon to discover and colonize as well as a few more chassis types. Space battles would be great.

posted 05-08-99 03:45 AM ET            

1) Allow all players to see the social engineering of the other players. The AI bases its relations towards players on their social engineering, and human players should be able to see them as well. One's political structure (police state/democracy/theocracy) and economic structure (free market/planned/green) should be obvious, even without spying, and values should be fairly apparent after a quick review of the culture. This is especially maddening in MP when it is not readily apparent that Yang is running a police state/free market/wealth (!) combo.

2)Revamp the whole unit construction menu. It is terribly cumbersome, and when one defines units as obsolete, the wrong units are sometimes removed from the menu. Perhaps a better system would be to seperate it into two menus (units and facilities/projects) and leave out any unit that has not been constructed yet (most players are aware of tech advances that allow them to construct new units, and don't need to have their screen cluttered up with units that they never plan to construct.

posted 05-08-99 11:51 PM ET            

Cities with lots of units inside are very expensive to take over. Besides, why don't you have any defenses against probe teams? The simpliest one is to stick a bunch of your own probe teams in all your cities. They cost nothing to maintain, so just have a couple of your cities in the back to churn them out.

Another way is to stack a couple of your units on any roads that lead into your cities. Stacks of military units cannot be bribed, and even the wimpiest military units can wipe out probe teams (strength of 0.01) before breakfast.

Then there's the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm.

posted 05-09-99 05:54 AM ET            

2. Aliens! Give 'em a new tech tree, a different interface, seven new factions, New chasses, anything.

posted 05-11-99 09:10 AM ET            

1) A "Goal" button like we had in Civilization II, that would allow me to choose which tech to research in order to reach a certail "goal" tech.

2) A faster interface... I could fall asleep with the speed that the units move at...!! Mag tubes and all, it's still very slow motion...

3) That was it, for now!!

posted 05-11-99 09:24 AM ET         

It's proving a pain at the moment as I have one of these, a couple of those, etc. And if I don't read the warning windows properly the !�%"$ game will throw away my valuable units.

posted 05-11-99 01:58 PM ET         

2. hire some artists to make the graphics better.

posted 05-11-99 02:59 PM ET            

A vastly improved Map editor: The current version is next to impossible to use.

Ocean Sonar Buoys: The water equivalent to the Sonar Array.

AT-AT -like Walker chassis (The two legged walker featured mainly in Return of the Jedi): Movement> 1, Treats all squares as road squares.

posted 05-11-99 03:23 PM ET            

I believe what we need is more control over formers. I have more formers than I do military units throughout much of my games. If I have a dozen formers on one square who just finished making a borehole, then I should be able to group them together in a 'select all' command and send all of them to a certain square to build, instead of ordering them one by one.

I also think we should be able to program formers several task in advance. Select where you want all the roads around your bases to be, where you wish the boremines and farm/condenser/soil enrichers to be, etc. After building one thing, they would go to the next one to complete. When they were finished with everything, they could build a road to the nearest base and help complete their que.

"The terraforming action would destroy the forest, are you sure you want to continue?" That message should appear only once, not before every former tries to help build a bore mine on that same square. They already fixed the continous confirm menu with some other terraform actions. If alreadyasked == 1(yes) then ask=0(no)

posted 05-11-99 04:52 PM ET            

1) Group attacks. The ability to send in complimenting units to attack together (ie a plane, an impact infantry and a quick rover), the more harmonious the attack, the more damage done. They have this in Civ III, why can't they have it in SMACX? It would add a lot more strategy.

2) Allow the human to demand to the AI everything the AI can demand to the human. How come Yang can call up and tell me our treaty is terminated but when I want to do it to him he doesn't want to speak to me and I have to remain in the treaty? Also, the player should be allowd to ignore threats made by the computer unless they have something important to say (ie if Santiago wants to interupt and tell me our treaty is off fine, but I don't want her telling me she will crush me for my crimes everytime I take over a city).

3) Make everything customizable, everyone wants to make different changes but you can't make everyone happy unless you let everything be customizable and people can do whatever they want. Also, I saw TheScientist suggest scripts. Scripts for everything would be good, scripts for cities, scripts for formers, scripts for patrolers, etc. You could include ready made standard scripts but then everyone who knows how could write their own scripts for different occasions. I know Firaxis probably doesn't want to create a whole programming language but still, scripts would be a good idea to allow automation of things that the AI might not be able to guess what the human player wants.

4) Allow more realistic moving. I know it is a just a game and not everything can be realistic but how come a plane can fly out, attack, wait one year in the middle of no where and then return for refueling? I propose that a new added specification be added to the current attack/defense/movement rating: a moves-per-turn rating. So a unit with a rating 3/1/2/1 would move two spaces, once a turn, but a unit with a rating 3/1/2/2 would move two spaces twice a turn, or attack twice, or move then attack. But because it is all the same turn they are never regaining strength until the turn is over. Early game units would have a moves per-turn-unit of 1 to show the unfamiliarness with the land and surroundings and also so that Miriam can't just find everyone in two minutes and take them over. Later in the game, units could have a moves-per-turn rating of 2 or 3 to speed things up. Planes could be given a high moves-per-turn rating because they are used to make quick, repetitive attacks.

5) Lastly, I don't think you should be able to use a mag-tube unless it is yours or your allies'. I don't know what a mag-tube is supposed to be but I know in Civ2 I always thought it was stupid when an enemy used my rail roads. How would they get a train on my rail roads? Enemy units should have to treat mag-tubes as regular roads.

posted 05-11-99 06:54 PM ET            

If you need the resources to support your units for that base, then someone stands there for a turn, then you lose those minerals and several of your units can disband without you being able to do anything to stop it.

This is probably why the AI doesn't make bore mines. You could just have a jet fly over and wait there a turn, and all the units being supported would disband, then the jets returns home victorious without even having to fire a shot.

Why can't we save up minerals like energy? It would take longer to transfer minerals from one base to another which needed them, unless you had mag tubes or something, however it should be possible. It would make bases less like independant city states, and more like part of an empire/nation.

posted 05-16-99 03:06 AM ET            

1. Flawed Doctrines/Theories - Ever noticed that everyone does intelligent stuff and develops workable theories? Surely they would follow a rabbit trail once in a while...

This would essentially be a military problem, to reflect historical doctine flaws in militaries. Each faction would have a special flaw all their own and could also fall prey to others.

I've written most of these out, but will spare you the reading. Here are two examples:

Doctrine Flaws By Faction (One Example)

Peacekeepers Flaw: Preserve Soldiers Lives - This goes to one of the primary goals of present UN forces - not to die in the line of duty. UN cannot build units with less than the best defenses without suffering a morale penalty.

General Doctrine Flaw: Suspicious Leaders- Units will not hold elite status for more than 2 turns. This reflects the rulers suspicion that a successful unit commander of elite troops could sieze power, and thus they are reassigned to other units. Peacekeepers, Gaians less susceptible to this flaw.

Also, there could be military equipment developed that may not work as advertised - think current anti-missile systems.

2. Easy to use faction maker - allows you to make both balanced and unbalanced new factions, and assign them to the computer or yourself. Even allows you to generate psuedo wise sayings for your new factions...

3. Splinter Groups - Sometimes cities experiencing a drone riot for a certain number of turns will break away and form an independent faction. They will be described in ways such as - ultra militant gaians, environmental capitalists, pacificist christians, isolationist hive cities(i.e. no contact possible), wealth seeking spartans and so forth. They will go about their business as a new faction, with slightly different goals. They may vote to reintegrate on certain terms, and will be easy to pact bond with if you are the original faction.

3. "Heroes" - These are special units that are produced at random, or upon achievement of certain criteria. They can be special governors or military leader units. They give bonuses to production, morale, attack, defense, resource use and so on. But they may be harder to control - i.e. a ruthless governor who squeezes the most out of a city may nerve staple without being ordered to do so. If you try to remove such a leader, the city may go into revolt and become a splinter faction (see above).

posted 05-16-99 11:44 AM ET         

Newbie? do you really think I would use my real account...nope. Even if I was, what difference would that make? 10 intelligent post > 1000 dumb posts, but that's just my opinion.

No, stacking up your total post by posting stupid posts is not fun. YOU WILL NOT GET A PRICE FOR HAVING MOST POSTS IN THE FORUM. Why don't you post you dumb posts in the MISC section not in the game section...jez!

I wish there was an IQ test that people would have to take in order to sign up for this forum.

So...think through before you post. I only got aggrivated because you called someone a "dumb SoB", I don't come here to read crap like that.

posted 05-16-99 11:57 AM ET         

Anyway, to all other people on this forum, I apologize for taking your time, I will no longer post about Singularity. But if anyone is to pass a judgement on any of us, go see the "call me stupid..." for the reason of my anger towards the "154" boy.

posted 05-21-99 09:24 PM ET            

1.) Mag tubes over/under water.. They're tubes, right?

2.) Hovercraft chassis.. If foils can't transverse land and water, what good are they?