Unit design is too boring... - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Unit design is too boring...

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Unit design is too boring...

Centaurion posted 05-26-99 09:14 AM ET
I dont think that the designshop offers enough difference in the weapons and armours. The only balance is cost vs. power. The game would be much more fun if certain lasers didn�t work againt certain shields and so on....
When you�ve acquired all the techs you simply put the best weapon or armour (or both) and thats it. The special abilities help a little but just not enough
Gixxer posted 05-26-99 10:43 AM ET
Look in the book in the unit design section or maybe the tables. They list the details of each weapon and armor. I don't have the book right here, but there are two classes of weapons: energy and not (I don't remember the exact term). The armor is classified as good against energy, good against the other(?), and good against both.
I don't know exactly how this affects combat, but it is there.
Cameleon posted 05-26-99 10:51 AM ET
Yeah, in alpha.txt there is a specification whether a weapon is energy-based, missile-based or of some third type which I forgot. I am very curious if, and how this affects the game. I hope it does, but in that case they should have made it clearer.
cousLee posted 05-26-99 11:03 AM ET
it's my understanding, that that feature was removed in one of the patches. Too much micromanagement. It's all numbers now.
Darkstar posted 05-26-99 11:05 AM ET
That Energy vs Matter was dropped as too complicated.
Unit Design is cost versus capability. That's just unit design decisions. What I don't understand is why Miriam gets music in the Unit Workshop, and noone else does...
-Darkstar
Aredhran posted 05-26-99 11:14 AM ET
I think this is all BLAH.
I mean, features that were supposed to be in the game, but that Firaxis did not implement, or removed before the final release. The theory certainly is valid, as some of the weapons and armor names clearly have an "energy" versus "impact" ring to them, but I definitively have never seen any difference between the various weapons.
I must say that I'm not a big fan of editing the TXT files (I like to play games "plain vanilla", just as the designers made them), so maybe it's something that could be activated with a simple tweaking... I'll leave that to the experts.
maybe we'll get this in SMACX
Aredhran
Aredhran posted 05-26-99 11:19 AM ET
Damn. The phone rings, I answer, and by the time I wrap up my message and press Submit, two people beat me to it...
Actually, just to set this straight, I hope we *won't* get this in SMACX... Plain numbers is fine.
Aredhran
Darkstar posted 05-26-99 11:24 AM ET
Well, if you did, then everyone would make a bee-line for Plasma (both) and those other (BOTH) weapons. I forget what they are, but with PSI combat in the game, I don't see a need to FURTHER complicate the crappy combat system. I mean, Armor = Defensive Counter Attack rating! Give me a break!
-Darkstar
Goobmeister posted 05-26-99 11:28 AM ET
It could be more fun to have diff, capabilities of weapons, or diff. combinations on the same design. (More like MOO) That most likely would be a whole new game. I do find however that I have quite a few decisions to make in this game without worrying about weapon/armor combinations to a large extent.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy micromanagement when micromanagement makes the end result better. In this case however the combat system itself is so simplistic that adding complexity to unit design would add little if anything to the end result of combat.
I want true combined arms battles...
Goob
Goobmeister posted 05-26-99 11:29 AM ET
Amen, Brother Darkstar.
K posted 05-26-99 01:02 PM ET
The energy vs. imapct weapons and armor do have one little effect: the little explosion graphic is different when you damage and are damaged(After I first noticed it, I promptly began ignoring it, so don't ask me what the graphic differences are.
And I like Psi attacks and defences, except for the fact that they are attached to worms for 4/5th of the game when I'm going for a TRanscend victory, and i never reach them on any other kind of victory. They're a great equalizer, which is great when your behind in tech and dangerus when you're ahead in tech.
(I've been considereding making a "fun faction" that gets Centauri Psi or Eudaimonia and -2 Econ, -2 Growth, -2 Research and +2 Probe, with a no on Knowlege, and maybe extra Drones. Probably Centauri Psi, since Eudaimonia allows for Telepathic Matrix SP and Eudaimonia social choice, and that would ruin the fun. Centauri Psi only allows Psi attack and removes some fungus restrictions. I'd call them the Lords of Chaos, after the Warp Demons from Warhammer 40K.)
Any comments would be appreciated on the playability of such a Faction?
tfs99 posted 05-26-99 02:30 PM ET
Yeah! The little graphics are different!
Only, as someone has pointed out somewhere prior to this, the graphics are reversed!
It seems that the graphic that is displayed is based upon the attack weapon of the unit being fired upon. Another little amusing "feature".
However, just so The One, The Only, da da da dum!!! V I C T O R ... G A L I S can have some ammunition:
-----
Firaxis! This reversed attack graphic bug is a show stopper for me! The graphics suck as it is and not being able to enjoy seeing my advanced weapons hit the enemy troops is the last straw! I am taking SMAC off of my hard drive. I hope you all rot in h*ll and that Civ3 is the biggest financial disaster in history!
And to all of you who read this:
Don't buy SMAC!! It is full of bugs!!
-----
This dramatization has been brought to you by the RSAVG (Royal Society for the Adjustment of Victor Galis). Please give generously so the RSAVG can offer finishing school scholarships to Victor Galis and needy arrogant S.O.B.s worldwide.
SMAC n ... Ted S.
marc420w posted 05-26-99 03:03 PM ET
I saw where Firaxis was going to be doing Civ III, and eventually might be looking for ideas and suggestions. To me personally, this is one I'd like to see looked at. Having two or more classes of weapons or armor, and having different abilities (Shields stop lasers well, but missiles not so well) would be interesting.
You get a bit of that with the special abilities now. I tend to keep an ECM defender and a AAA defender stacked together. That way they can handle whatever attacks come in. With this sort of system you'd have an anti-missile defender and an anti-energy defender stacked together.
Of course, that's assuming your techs are both up together. This could lead to a situation where you have been fighting against a foe with missile techs, so you've researched your own anti-missile armor types. Then you run into another foe with energy weapons and say "Uh-Oh".
Could add some more options in strategy and research choices.....
Darkstar posted 05-26-99 03:40 PM ET
Tfs - LMAO!
-Darkstar
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: Unit design is too boring...
Centaurion	posted 05-26-99 09:14 AM ET I dont think that the designshop offers enough difference in the weapons and armours. The only balance is cost vs. power. The game would be much more fun if certain lasers didn�t work againt certain shields and so on.... When you�ve acquired all the techs you simply put the best weapon or armour (or both) and thats it. The special abilities help a little but just not enough
Gixxer	posted 05-26-99 10:43 AM ET Look in the book in the unit design section or maybe the tables. They list the details of each weapon and armor. I don't have the book right here, but there are two classes of weapons: energy and not (I don't remember the exact term). The armor is classified as good against energy, good against the other(?), and good against both. I don't know exactly how this affects combat, but it is there.
Cameleon	posted 05-26-99 10:51 AM ET Yeah, in alpha.txt there is a specification whether a weapon is energy-based, missile-based or of some third type which I forgot. I am very curious if, and how this affects the game. I hope it does, but in that case they should have made it clearer.
cousLee	posted 05-26-99 11:03 AM ET it's my understanding, that that feature was removed in one of the patches. Too much micromanagement. It's all numbers now.
Darkstar	posted 05-26-99 11:05 AM ET That Energy vs Matter was dropped as too complicated. Unit Design is cost versus capability. That's just unit design decisions. What I don't understand is why Miriam gets music in the Unit Workshop, and noone else does... -Darkstar
Aredhran	posted 05-26-99 11:14 AM ET I think this is all BLAH. I mean, features that were supposed to be in the game, but that Firaxis did not implement, or removed before the final release. The theory certainly is valid, as some of the weapons and armor names clearly have an "energy" versus "impact" ring to them, but I definitively have never seen any difference between the various weapons. I must say that I'm not a big fan of editing the TXT files (I like to play games "plain vanilla", just as the designers made them), so maybe it's something that could be activated with a simple tweaking... I'll leave that to the experts. maybe we'll get this in SMACX Aredhran
Aredhran	posted 05-26-99 11:19 AM ET Damn. The phone rings, I answer, and by the time I wrap up my message and press Submit, two people beat me to it... Actually, just to set this straight, I hope we won't get this in SMACX... Plain numbers is fine. Aredhran
Darkstar	posted 05-26-99 11:24 AM ET Well, if you did, then everyone would make a bee-line for Plasma (both) and those other (BOTH) weapons. I forget what they are, but with PSI combat in the game, I don't see a need to FURTHER complicate the crappy combat system. I mean, Armor = Defensive Counter Attack rating! Give me a break! -Darkstar
Goobmeister	posted 05-26-99 11:28 AM ET It could be more fun to have diff, capabilities of weapons, or diff. combinations on the same design. (More like MOO) That most likely would be a whole new game. I do find however that I have quite a few decisions to make in this game without worrying about weapon/armor combinations to a large extent. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy micromanagement when micromanagement makes the end result better. In this case however the combat system itself is so simplistic that adding complexity to unit design would add little if anything to the end result of combat. I want true combined arms battles... Goob
Goobmeister	posted 05-26-99 11:29 AM ET Amen, Brother Darkstar.
K	posted 05-26-99 01:02 PM ET The energy vs. imapct weapons and armor do have one little effect: the little explosion graphic is different when you damage and are damaged(After I first noticed it, I promptly began ignoring it, so don't ask me what the graphic differences are. And I like Psi attacks and defences, except for the fact that they are attached to worms for 4/5th of the game when I'm going for a TRanscend victory, and i never reach them on any other kind of victory. They're a great equalizer, which is great when your behind in tech and dangerus when you're ahead in tech. (I've been considereding making a "fun faction" that gets Centauri Psi or Eudaimonia and -2 Econ, -2 Growth, -2 Research and +2 Probe, with a no on Knowlege, and maybe extra Drones. Probably Centauri Psi, since Eudaimonia allows for Telepathic Matrix SP and Eudaimonia social choice, and that would ruin the fun. Centauri Psi only allows Psi attack and removes some fungus restrictions. I'd call them the Lords of Chaos, after the Warp Demons from Warhammer 40K.) Any comments would be appreciated on the playability of such a Faction?
tfs99	posted 05-26-99 02:30 PM ET Yeah! The little graphics are different! Only, as someone has pointed out somewhere prior to this, the graphics are reversed! It seems that the graphic that is displayed is based upon the attack weapon of the unit being fired upon. Another little amusing "feature". However, just so The One, The Only, da da da dum!!! V I C T O R ... G A L I S can have some ammunition: ----- Firaxis! This reversed attack graphic bug is a show stopper for me! The graphics suck as it is and not being able to enjoy seeing my advanced weapons hit the enemy troops is the last straw! I am taking SMAC off of my hard drive. I hope you all rot in h*ll and that Civ3 is the biggest financial disaster in history! And to all of you who read this: Don't buy SMAC!! It is full of bugs!! ----- This dramatization has been brought to you by the RSAVG (Royal Society for the Adjustment of Victor Galis). Please give generously so the RSAVG can offer finishing school scholarships to Victor Galis and needy arrogant S.O.B.s worldwide. SMAC n ... Ted S.
marc420w	posted 05-26-99 03:03 PM ET I saw where Firaxis was going to be doing Civ III, and eventually might be looking for ideas and suggestions. To me personally, this is one I'd like to see looked at. Having two or more classes of weapons or armor, and having different abilities (Shields stop lasers well, but missiles not so well) would be interesting. You get a bit of that with the special abilities now. I tend to keep an ECM defender and a AAA defender stacked together. That way they can handle whatever attacks come in. With this sort of system you'd have an anti-missile defender and an anti-energy defender stacked together. Of course, that's assuming your techs are both up together. This could lead to a situation where you have been fighting against a foe with missile techs, so you've researched your own anti-missile armor types. Then you run into another foe with energy weapons and say "Uh-Oh". Could add some more options in strategy and research choices.....
Darkstar	posted 05-26-99 03:40 PM ET Tfs - LMAO! -Darkstar