One BIG disappointment. - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  One BIG disappointment.

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   One BIG disappointment.

Asmodai posted 02-12-99 09:54 PM ET
Okay first of all before I get flamed I'm not refering to the game as a disappointment. Overall the game is great but I did have find one BIG disappointment in it. That would be the combat. Firaxis has gone so far as to let you customize your units but then and you do is run "stacks" into each other and *poof* one is dead. I realize this is great for multiplayer but in single player games I would REALLY have liked the option to turn on "tactical combat" much like how combat was done in Master of Magic. That way I could play with the units I spent so much time developing and toy with their special abilities. Again overall an outstanding game but the combat really was a disappointment for me. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but what heck. I though Firaxis might like to hear my opinion. Later.
IkshahI posted 02-14-99 12:29 AM ET
no one seemed to give this man the time of day, so i figured i would,
The reason it is not like MoM or MOO I/II is because this is multiplayer as well. Even throu simultaneous turns it would still suck to have it like that.
The real dissapointments people are experiencing is that game-hype . Everyone was expecting to be blown away by sound, graphics, and all else, if not publically, then mentally
The whole point of TBS is that you can run the games on any friggin computer built in the past 5 years! I just got out of a game of Colonization and went over to there forums.
[Colonization RULES, I don't care if the reviewers didn't like it, and Jeff Briggs, the music is soooooooo cool, I almost cried when I played it!]
mooman posted 02-14-99 12:37 AM ET
I agree. Colonizations is my all time favorite game. I was extremely dissapointed when my family got a new computer, and colonization did not work. Luckily though, I am off to college with a new laptop and Colonization works great!
TheClockKing posted 02-14-99 12:41 AM ET
The music in colonization is very good. SMAC is also one of the best games I have ever played. Graphics and Music do not make a strategy game, strategy does. SMAC offers some of the best strategy around. Especally great is the multiple paths you can take, this allows many different play styles which is vital for strategy games. The graphics and music are also good. This game I do not think would have worked well with tactical combat though. MoM tactical combat was required so as you could intervene with magic to aid you troops. I agree that it worked in MoM and MOO 1&2 these are also some of the greatest games ever but in these games military plays a much bigger part since you pretty much have to attack to win in these games in SMAC though you can play a whole game and perhaps never declare war on anyone and still have a realistic chance of winning. War in this game is now a certainty as it was in the other games and therefore does not warrent as complicated a system as these games.
PersonaNonGrata posted 02-14-99 12:44 AM ET
Once you have tactical combat as though you're really engaged in a battle like a field commander, it would open up an entire Pandora's Box.
I suppose SMAC just allows you to sit in the seat of the overall leader, the president, the CEO, chairman, whatever. The overall head of a "nation" does not walk into the battle control center (do they have Pentagon?) and tries to control every individual unit, every single rover.
These things are probably left to the Commander in Chief or Chief of Operations or even lower, the tactics are left to the discretion of the field commander how best to maneuver his troops against the enemy in a battle. The leader (you) probably get up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and have a status report of how well the battle went. Did we win the battle? What are the casualties? What is our battle effectiveness now? What new intelligence did we gather from the enemy?
The report the leader (you) get is very brief. A leader does not go try to play an active hand in commerce either. He just get a year to year of how well commerce did, how much did the annual GDP go, what facilties should the industry build and so on.
Asmodai posted 02-14-99 01:38 AM ET
Wow did you guys even read my message? I said tactical combat would suck in multiplayer but do you only play SMAC multiplayer? I don't. And I would definately have liked the -> OPTION <- to turn on tactical combat and actually control my units. Especially after I spent the time designing them. Furthermore I don't know where this graphics and sound stuff and this whole colinization thing came from but I said nothing about them. I did say overall I really enjoyed the game. I have no idea where the MoO references came from and I refered to MoM only as a possible way that the tactical combat OPTION could have been handled. I didn't make any broad comparison between SMAC and MoM. I think tactical combat could have been real fun and quite frankly I think it's a waste of time to design units if all it does is make slight modifications of calculations that I can't see anyway when enemy "stacks" hit each other. The special equipment ect. would have been real fun to play with in tactical combat but now it's all just a waste of time. I know this opinion isn't unique because I have read several reviews that said they recommend you just let the computer make the units because it's a waste of time. I'm sure most people disagree with me here in this forum though because you guys are the more fanatical Firaxis fans but I thought the developers might like to hear some other opinions. As for if the supreme leader gets to command individual units in the real world who cares? If you don't want to do it turn the freakin option off. I for one would have LOVED to run tactical combat IN SINGLE PLAYER GAMES and I think it's a shame I can't.
KJohnstone posted 02-14-99 02:04 AM ET
Well, I think I remember Brian Reynolds in some interview talking about this. See, with MOM, you had a party of sorts--a party of heroes and their troops. So it was based primarily around creating one (or 1-3) killer stack, then moving it around to engage in many battles and basically raise hell.
With SMAC or CIVII, you want to usually avoid a stack, and spread out your units tactically on the main map. In MOM you'd use your tactics in that seperate screen, here you must do tactics on the main map. It's all a difference of philosophy.
In a good game, towards the end, you could easily have fifty or more stacks scattered around the map in SMAC! It just would make the turns real real long! MOM just used fewer stacks, so it was okay there.
KJ
PersonaNonGrata posted 02-15-99 06:36 AM ET
Alrighty, so you would like more tactical combat for your configurable units. I guess that was the gist of your message. Come to think of it, I think there are games that allow you to configure your units from bottom up and have fun pitting them against the AI. Umm.. Cyberstorm? BattleZone also allows you to command troops behind a tank while you try to take over a city.
We all realize Firaxis can't create a game that pleases everyone. I don't think there are many here would be very enthusiastic if just adding more features some people wouldn't touch would delay the game by another 6 months. Just enjoy the game, ka?
Asmodai posted 02-15-99 06:33 PM ET
First of all my only complaint with SMAC is the combat. Cyberstorm and Battlezone aren't particularly similar kinds of games. Furthermore I don't have a 3D card and I HATE RTS games of which I think both of those are. (Not sure though haven't played them). I agree that everyone isn't going to like every aspect of a game. My point here is that I simply do not understand why you would bother to allow people to custom build units and then not let you play with the nifty little features you put on them. If they weren't going to allow for an OPTION of tactical combat it seems like allowing custom units is somewhat pointless. If you do allow for custom units then you should allow for the user to actually use the custom aspects of that unit. Not simply put slight modifiers to some equation that is computed when units attack. Now someone mentioned that being the leader means you don't get down and dirty with that sort of detail well I agree but the leader also doesn't design units. How many of the military vehicles in use today were designed by a head of state? I'd say extremely few, maybe even none. As for MoM being party based well that may be but I think custom units provides just as much of a reason for tactical combat as a party based game. I have agreed and continue to agree that tactical combat isn't suited for multiplayer because it takes too damn long but when one player is sitting in the Desing shop changing units is that much different? Furthermore I don't know about you but in single player I couldn't care less how long the turns take as long as I'm having fun.
Brother Greg posted 02-15-99 09:53 PM ET
Um, there is a tactical engine in there. It's called "Planet", and the pieces are your units. Why would you then want to go down to an even more detailed level, when all you need is right there in front of you?
Xentropy posted 02-15-99 11:59 PM ET
I agree with Brother Greg... SMAC's focus is on tactical combat *on the main map*... you spread your units out on the battlefield that is your continent and one by one attack... MOM's tactical view was the exact same thing, except it moved you to a separate map where, as you attacked the enemy, EQUATIONS YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE BEHIND THE SCENES determined if that enemy lived or died... meanwhile, your attention is drawn away from the main map and you come out of the battle forgetting what on earth you were doing... MOM's units also weren't balanced well at all, and a hero or two could just kinda sweep through everything... the AI sucked late game... MOM was great for a while, but definitely got old fast...
Main point: SMAC *does* include MOM-style combat, just not on a separate screen... from the main screen, you can do long range artillery strikes (read: MOM's fireballs), use nerve gas and the like, use psi attacks, or just use plain attacks... IT even goes one step beyond MOM and lets you *see* the calculations (read the battle report at the bottom of the screen.. every % modifier and the final resulting total strength is listed... The equation isn't behind the scenes and impossible to see... It's displayed for *all* to see)...
So, there ya go, Asmodai... SMAC includes MOM combat... It's in there... It's just all done on the same map...
Unit design is still a great feature, and very useful, as I like designing my own great heavy artillery unit (grand fireball wizard, whatever you want to call it to make the game your own personal Master of Magic), etc...
will posted 02-16-99 03:36 PM ET
Asmodai:
I agree that tactical combat would be fun in solo SMAC. I enjoyed it immensely in MoM and MOO2. (I thought it was kind of pointless in the original MOO.) But I disagree that unit design is only fun if you can play with the units in battle. I think several of the computer-generated units are worthless, and some of my favorite units don't appear on the computer's list. (I like to use the speeder chassis for defensive units, and use clean reactors on big-ticket units like planes and capital ships.)
Wen_Amon posted 02-16-99 04:23 PM ET
I dont think we could get a bit of tac combat as a patch, could we?
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: One BIG disappointment.
Asmodai	posted 02-12-99 09:54 PM ET Okay first of all before I get flamed I'm not refering to the game as a disappointment. Overall the game is great but I did have find one BIG disappointment in it. That would be the combat. Firaxis has gone so far as to let you customize your units but then and you do is run "stacks" into each other and poof one is dead. I realize this is great for multiplayer but in single player games I would REALLY have liked the option to turn on "tactical combat" much like how combat was done in Master of Magic. That way I could play with the units I spent so much time developing and toy with their special abilities. Again overall an outstanding game but the combat really was a disappointment for me. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this but what heck. I though Firaxis might like to hear my opinion. Later.
IkshahI	posted 02-14-99 12:29 AM ET no one seemed to give this man the time of day, so i figured i would, The reason it is not like MoM or MOO I/II is because this is multiplayer as well. Even throu simultaneous turns it would still suck to have it like that. The real dissapointments people are experiencing is that game-hype . Everyone was expecting to be blown away by sound, graphics, and all else, if not publically, then mentally The whole point of TBS is that you can run the games on any friggin computer built in the past 5 years! I just got out of a game of Colonization and went over to there forums. [Colonization RULES, I don't care if the reviewers didn't like it, and Jeff Briggs, the music is soooooooo cool, I almost cried when I played it!]
mooman	posted 02-14-99 12:37 AM ET I agree. Colonizations is my all time favorite game. I was extremely dissapointed when my family got a new computer, and colonization did not work. Luckily though, I am off to college with a new laptop and Colonization works great!
TheClockKing	posted 02-14-99 12:41 AM ET The music in colonization is very good. SMAC is also one of the best games I have ever played. Graphics and Music do not make a strategy game, strategy does. SMAC offers some of the best strategy around. Especally great is the multiple paths you can take, this allows many different play styles which is vital for strategy games. The graphics and music are also good. This game I do not think would have worked well with tactical combat though. MoM tactical combat was required so as you could intervene with magic to aid you troops. I agree that it worked in MoM and MOO 1&2 these are also some of the greatest games ever but in these games military plays a much bigger part since you pretty much have to attack to win in these games in SMAC though you can play a whole game and perhaps never declare war on anyone and still have a realistic chance of winning. War in this game is now a certainty as it was in the other games and therefore does not warrent as complicated a system as these games.
PersonaNonGrata	posted 02-14-99 12:44 AM ET Once you have tactical combat as though you're really engaged in a battle like a field commander, it would open up an entire Pandora's Box. I suppose SMAC just allows you to sit in the seat of the overall leader, the president, the CEO, chairman, whatever. The overall head of a "nation" does not walk into the battle control center (do they have Pentagon?) and tries to control every individual unit, every single rover. These things are probably left to the Commander in Chief or Chief of Operations or even lower, the tactics are left to the discretion of the field commander how best to maneuver his troops against the enemy in a battle. The leader (you) probably get up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and have a status report of how well the battle went. Did we win the battle? What are the casualties? What is our battle effectiveness now? What new intelligence did we gather from the enemy? The report the leader (you) get is very brief. A leader does not go try to play an active hand in commerce either. He just get a year to year of how well commerce did, how much did the annual GDP go, what facilties should the industry build and so on.
Asmodai	posted 02-14-99 01:38 AM ET Wow did you guys even read my message? I said tactical combat would suck in multiplayer but do you only play SMAC multiplayer? I don't. And I would definately have liked the -> OPTION <- to turn on tactical combat and actually control my units. Especially after I spent the time designing them. Furthermore I don't know where this graphics and sound stuff and this whole colinization thing came from but I said nothing about them. I did say overall I really enjoyed the game. I have no idea where the MoO references came from and I refered to MoM only as a possible way that the tactical combat OPTION could have been handled. I didn't make any broad comparison between SMAC and MoM. I think tactical combat could have been real fun and quite frankly I think it's a waste of time to design units if all it does is make slight modifications of calculations that I can't see anyway when enemy "stacks" hit each other. The special equipment ect. would have been real fun to play with in tactical combat but now it's all just a waste of time. I know this opinion isn't unique because I have read several reviews that said they recommend you just let the computer make the units because it's a waste of time. I'm sure most people disagree with me here in this forum though because you guys are the more fanatical Firaxis fans but I thought the developers might like to hear some other opinions. As for if the supreme leader gets to command individual units in the real world who cares? If you don't want to do it turn the freakin option off. I for one would have LOVED to run tactical combat IN SINGLE PLAYER GAMES and I think it's a shame I can't.
KJohnstone	posted 02-14-99 02:04 AM ET Well, I think I remember Brian Reynolds in some interview talking about this. See, with MOM, you had a party of sorts--a party of heroes and their troops. So it was based primarily around creating one (or 1-3) killer stack, then moving it around to engage in many battles and basically raise hell. With SMAC or CIVII, you want to usually avoid a stack, and spread out your units tactically on the main map. In MOM you'd use your tactics in that seperate screen, here you must do tactics on the main map. It's all a difference of philosophy. In a good game, towards the end, you could easily have fifty or more stacks scattered around the map in SMAC! It just would make the turns real real long! MOM just used fewer stacks, so it was okay there. KJ
PersonaNonGrata	posted 02-15-99 06:36 AM ET Alrighty, so you would like more tactical combat for your configurable units. I guess that was the gist of your message. Come to think of it, I think there are games that allow you to configure your units from bottom up and have fun pitting them against the AI. Umm.. Cyberstorm? BattleZone also allows you to command troops behind a tank while you try to take over a city. We all realize Firaxis can't create a game that pleases everyone. I don't think there are many here would be very enthusiastic if just adding more features some people wouldn't touch would delay the game by another 6 months. Just enjoy the game, ka?
Asmodai	posted 02-15-99 06:33 PM ET First of all my only complaint with SMAC is the combat. Cyberstorm and Battlezone aren't particularly similar kinds of games. Furthermore I don't have a 3D card and I HATE RTS games of which I think both of those are. (Not sure though haven't played them). I agree that everyone isn't going to like every aspect of a game. My point here is that I simply do not understand why you would bother to allow people to custom build units and then not let you play with the nifty little features you put on them. If they weren't going to allow for an OPTION of tactical combat it seems like allowing custom units is somewhat pointless. If you do allow for custom units then you should allow for the user to actually use the custom aspects of that unit. Not simply put slight modifiers to some equation that is computed when units attack. Now someone mentioned that being the leader means you don't get down and dirty with that sort of detail well I agree but the leader also doesn't design units. How many of the military vehicles in use today were designed by a head of state? I'd say extremely few, maybe even none. As for MoM being party based well that may be but I think custom units provides just as much of a reason for tactical combat as a party based game. I have agreed and continue to agree that tactical combat isn't suited for multiplayer because it takes too damn long but when one player is sitting in the Desing shop changing units is that much different? Furthermore I don't know about you but in single player I couldn't care less how long the turns take as long as I'm having fun.
Brother Greg	posted 02-15-99 09:53 PM ET Um, there is a tactical engine in there. It's called "Planet", and the pieces are your units. Why would you then want to go down to an even more detailed level, when all you need is right there in front of you?
Xentropy	posted 02-15-99 11:59 PM ET I agree with Brother Greg... SMAC's focus is on tactical combat on the main map... you spread your units out on the battlefield that is your continent and one by one attack... MOM's tactical view was the exact same thing, except it moved you to a separate map where, as you attacked the enemy, EQUATIONS YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE BEHIND THE SCENES determined if that enemy lived or died... meanwhile, your attention is drawn away from the main map and you come out of the battle forgetting what on earth you were doing... MOM's units also weren't balanced well at all, and a hero or two could just kinda sweep through everything... the AI sucked late game... MOM was great for a while, but definitely got old fast... Main point: SMAC does include MOM-style combat, just not on a separate screen... from the main screen, you can do long range artillery strikes (read: MOM's fireballs), use nerve gas and the like, use psi attacks, or just use plain attacks... IT even goes one step beyond MOM and lets you see the calculations (read the battle report at the bottom of the screen.. every % modifier and the final resulting total strength is listed... The equation isn't behind the scenes and impossible to see... It's displayed for all to see)... So, there ya go, Asmodai... SMAC includes MOM combat... It's in there... It's just all done on the same map... Unit design is still a great feature, and very useful, as I like designing my own great heavy artillery unit (grand fireball wizard, whatever you want to call it to make the game your own personal Master of Magic), etc...
will	posted 02-16-99 03:36 PM ET Asmodai: I agree that tactical combat would be fun in solo SMAC. I enjoyed it immensely in MoM and MOO2. (I thought it was kind of pointless in the original MOO.) But I disagree that unit design is only fun if you can play with the units in battle. I think several of the computer-generated units are worthless, and some of my favorite units don't appear on the computer's list. (I like to use the speeder chassis for defensive units, and use clean reactors on big-ticket units like planes and capital ships.)
Wen_Amon	posted 02-16-99 04:23 PM ET I dont think we could get a bit of tac combat as a patch, could we?