posted 02-18-99 06:11 PM ET        

1. Units should not be able to heal back up to full strength in the field. Typically with infantry, for instance, 2 out of 3 or so of the people that are put out of action are only wounded, but 1/3 are dead. Dead people do not come back to life(though argueable this is possible with nanotech, but this is not present early in the game). This should be represented in the game.

2. Morale and troop quality are quite different. Crack, elite, troops have always been formed in history by taking the best troops from throughout the military, the cream of the crop, and near elite troops are possible via this without combat experience, but it is nearly impossible for elite units to form, or very good ones, through just combat. Some people are naturally better than others. Morale is more of a fighting spirit. And typically 50% unit effectiveness/causalties will break a unit, though unit quality does effect this.

3. Government/Social systems are not as easy to change (or as difficult) as the game indicates. Going from a democracy to a police state or vice versa can often be quite difficult, look at the former Soviet Union for instance. Also, the faction benefits/hindrances would be more a result of social differences rather than inborn (and even that could be changed with genetic engineering). Values and similar features on the social screen should influence this, perhaps with the addition of genetic engineering, the factions are all human after all. Given the technology in the game, one should eventually be able to become exactly like another. (of course the leader -- you -- would influence this.

Those are some initial thoughts, of course it goes unmentioned that you are effectively a dictator despite what government you choose.

posted 02-18-99 06:23 PM ET         

Your points are very valid, but once you wipe away the academic accurateness of your statements one thing remains.... would making the game 100% realistic make it fun?

posted 02-18-99 06:36 PM ET            

As for realism being fun, I view it like this. The purpose of the game is to simulate controlling a culture, leading a civilization, and, of course, to have fun while doing so. Blatent unrealisms make the game less enjoyable for me. Realism adds strategy to the game. Additionally the game is meant to have a sense of realism, at least it appears so to me, so being as realistic as practical is good.

posted 02-18-99 06:40 PM ET         

Of course it isn't realistic that you can't make two, but that's what makes SPs so interesting! Not only does the faction itself, its leader, its government, its location and all that stuff contribute to the individuality of each faction but the ownership of Secret Projects as well.

posted 02-18-99 06:47 PM ET            

If u see the Forum which is loaded with attacks against me because of my view towards the realism of this game u would understand.

And what u said about governments u are absolutely correct.I myself when playing this game feel I am 99.9 percent of the time a dicatator.I don't feel the citizens I rule.I give them Democracy they don't show that symapthy I use to get from CIV2.

In CIV2 and 1 u were happy to be governing these people.But in SMAC which are factions not nations in my point of view doesn't give me the touch I well deserve.Between me and u I feel in this future on AC it sounds like we the humans or the minority on this planet.
Reminds me of TERMINATOR...

posted 02-18-99 07:03 PM ET            

That said, so far as I've been able to determine, the only way to heal a unit all the way in the field is to hit an obelisk. My units have never healed above 80% or so damage.

I agree with that morale is not what is really measured by what is deemed "morale". It is really experience. However, it is really more a case of misapplied terminology than a game-breaking issue.

The governments and secret projects, on the other hand, are gaming conventions. No matter how much we may want to do so, we can't have any simulation which is completely accurate to life. [I feel this is because life isn't completely accurate to life, but that's another philosophical issue altogether.]

posted 02-18-99 07:14 PM ET         

Me? I'll spend my days playing my unrealistic games, and reading unrealistic works of fiction, reading newspapers that are unrealistic because they are written from only one point of view, and then finally going to bed, where I can have unrealistic dreams about supermodels and pudding.

Sound good?

posted 02-18-99 07:53 PM ET            

Please show me any game that is 100% realistic. Any one, I don't care. But if you can show me even a single game that is realistic, then I'll eat my computer, piece by piece.

Until then, please leave computer games alone. If you don't like playing unrealistic games (which they all are), the do the following:

Turn the PC off. Exit the room. Exit the house. Look around. What you see is the only place you will ever see realism. Go out and enjoy it. Then if you want a little bit of fun, that is entirely unrealistic, come back and try a computer game.

Computer games are, in the end, about suspending reality, and imagining what may be. If you cannot suspend reality and enjoy a game for what it is, then may I humbly suggest that you are missing the whole point, and that maybe you should just go back to real life, as obviously that is the only thing realistic enough to fulfill you...

posted 02-18-99 09:02 PM ET            

The point is, even though Civ-type games are turn-based, strategy oriented and all, they can't be realistic. Rovers, which move 2sq/turn, "realistically" would be moving around 11-12 squares or more per turn. If this were the case, then it would be far less fun...you could easily reinforce a city for a turn with all of your units, seeing as infantry could move 3-5 squares, and the element of exploration and discovery would be over with within the first 100 turns or so.
"Realistically", to change social engineering, you would not have an immediate change, you would have a gradual change over several years...but then, you would have to wait a decade for the effects of {Future Society: Cybernetic} to take effect...and then, it won't even be that effective.
"Realistically", the first few units to be attacked by mindworms would be annhialated, because nobody would know how to fight back...and you'd need a tech advance to fight back.
"Realistically", you'd need to have a game that measured time in increments of weeks or months, and lasted at most 50-60 years, about the length of your reign...but then, how would you control the destiny of mankind?
"Realistically", the ascent into transcedance evolutionary step wouldn't happen for a long time, not within the 500 year game limit timeframe.
"Realistically", the AIs wouldn't sometimes expose themselves or overextend their empires foolishly...they'd be just as wily and evil as you.
"Realistically", it would be harder to maintain your control over your empire, as even if you were a ruler, there would be so much more micromanagement without a "Real" federal system working to keep the cities under control.
"Realistically", units with an attack factor of 0 should have a greater attack strength and be able to attack...a former can squish infantry, or bore a hole underneath them and bury them.
"Realistically", some of the technology of the game wouldn't even exist, simply because it is forbidden by the laws of the universe.
"Realistically", this game would stink.

I would like to see a "Realistic" game. A flight sim, perhaps? How realistic are those? The clouds don't look real. The engines don't sound real. The joystick doesn't fight as much as the real flight stick. And i have yet to find a good fog engine...FS98 still doesn't cut it. How about RTS? C&C and StarCraft don't seem too real. Neither do others, like TA. RPGs? How realistic is Parasite Eve? FF3? FF7? Illusion of Gaia?

posted 02-18-99 09:05 PM ET            

and with Fiction, you should always have...

WILLING SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF...

posted 02-18-99 09:06 PM ET            

Factions don't take turns to make their political, etc. moves.

posted 02-18-99 09:48 PM ET         

I never said realism="no fun" but rather your corrections for realism would REDUCE the fun.

If Secret Projects could be built by every faction, what would be the point? Everyone would build them, obviously. All the distinctiveness of each faction which lays claim to different SPs goes to hell in the name of realism.

If government/social systems took realistic upheavel, it would cut into the gameplay. For 10-20 turns a player would be crippled completly. Is that fun? Besides, SMAC does take place 100 years from now. Maybe they just nerve staple everybody and during the hangover they switch goverments

posted 02-18-99 09:53 PM ET            

And you fail on one other point too: SMAC does not try and be realistic. It tries to be one particular person's (or group of people's - read Firaxis) view of reality, abstracted in such a way as to be playable on a PC, and above all be FUN. Ask any developer what they'll chose if they have a choice between reality and FUN. They'll choose FUN every time. It is meant to be a game, not a simulation...

posted 02-18-99 09:55 PM ET            

For example, assume a totally realistic Civ-type game.
Squares would be about 100m on a side, or about 50 billion squares on a planet.

Turns would be about one week, through out the game.

There could be thousands of civilizations.

There could be millions of "cities"

Each "city" (which would actually be more of a region) would be producing hundreds of things at once.

All of those things would require at least 3 or four other things for their production. (i.e. a tank unit would require trained men, factory labor, and machine parts [which would require factory labor and various processed metals{which would require refinery labor and various ores (which would require mining labor and mines)}])

Also people would have a tendency to do things on their own so each "city" would have to store complete psychosocial information on the inhabitants to determine exactly how they would react to your decrees.

In essence the game would require 100 years of super computer time to do one turn.

So the reason that SMAC, or other Civ games, are simplified is not to make it more fun. Rather the reason they simplified the things they did was because the simplifications they made were the simplifications that
PRESERVED the fun/strategy/realism the most

Now while SMAC is not a great leap forward to the Sim-Civ game I described, it is a major step. The social engineering cost is good as is the incomplete repair.

posted 02-18-99 10:08 PM ET            

1. Posting on an open forum like this invites "discussion" or "attacks" (for Undertaker only ) so anyone who posts and then complains about replies should shut up. So there.

2. A computer game, like any other game, must abstract things. For example, time is segmented into turns each equalling a year or units have an Attack Value which represents their "offensive strength" or whatever. By its very nature SMAC is "unrealistic". Now I have never designed a game but I've played a lot of them so I fancy myself somewhat conversant in their construction. A game, computerized or not, must make tradeoffs in abstractions. Sure they could have made field repairs or some other thing "realistic" but then they wouldn't be designing a game or perhaps they would have unbalanced the gameplay etc.. (Nevermind that "realism" itself is a subjective thing... but I digress)

What I am trying to say then is that arguing "realism" in a game, though a proud tradition of gamers since the beginning of time, is a silly thing. More properly you should be attacking the abstractions/tradeoffs that Firaxis has made. YOU ARGUE PLAY BALANCE and FUN! That is what Firaxis has tried to create, a fun, well balanced game, not a depiction of reality. I believe, with all due respect, that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Perhaps more "realism" would make SMAC more fun for you but to each his own I suppose.

posted 02-18-99 10:34 PM ET            

Wissenshaft

posted 02-18-99 11:18 PM ET            

Again, realism does not effect balance. it effects FUN. Sure, realistically, a ruler would not tell every city what to build and when. Realistically, cities would not build one thing at once. Realistically, food has little to do in modern times with city growth - hell, look at Africa, where millions of babies are born, despite the fact they can't feed themselves. Realistically, building a Church doesn't instantly make people content. Realistically, trade doesn't just happen as soon as you make a treaty with someone. Realistically, a leader doesn't oversee every battle. Realistically, not all units of the same type have the same abilities, or power. Realistically, a ruler doesn't live for five thousand years (CIV), and should actually have to run for re-election, as should his great^infinity grandchildren. Shall I go on?

Now, all of these things would be realistic, or could be made more realistic. And according to your definition, therefore more fun. Well, I think they would all totally ruin the game. You may as well just turn on all of the auto governors, and let the game play itself, with you only giving broad based directions to your people.

posted 02-19-99 04:56 AM ET            

I have been lurking here for a few days and
I must say that the discourse on this forum
is the primary reason why I purchased SMAC.

Great game and I must compliment FIRAXIS on
the story leading up to the acutal release of
the game.

Two items: First, we are all participating
willingly in a SCI FI simulation. Suspend
your disbelief for a few hours, that's the
idea.

Secondly, right, wrong or totally wacko I
enjoy the "Devil's Advocate" Undertaker.

Any subject "U" comments on immediately
becomes controversial. Keep it up!

posted 02-19-99 10:09 AM ET            

A few comments, if I may:

1) Actually, there is a game such as you describe. The most advanced supercomputer ever made is computing the whole thing realtime, as we speak. (I think it was made by a bunch of mice to find some big question or something... but that's another story.)

Oh, it's quite real. Unfortunately, it just isn't that fun. In reality, neither of us is a world leader. We aren't immortal. When we turn cities into craters, we feel really bad. Tech advances are pretty slow (especially those first ones). It's not a flaw of the computer that our turns are so slow... that's just the design of reality. 'Fun' was not foremost in the designer's mind, I guess.

2) Chess, checkers, Go, Monopoly, Risk... these are all games I like. None of them are too realistic. If they were, they would all be the same, and as much fun as paying the phone bill.

3) I think we can agree that it is possible for a game to be TOO realistic. Thus, the question becomes, "Where do we draw the line?" It must differ for different games, of course (see 2), so who decides what is appropriate for each game? The designer does. Most likely he (Brian Reynolds in this case) has a better idea than most people on what the game "should strive to be" (Wissenshaft). It seems like it ought to be up to him to make that call. Civ-style games do NOT try to be realistic. Ask Sid and Brian. They try to be fun.

posted 02-19-99 10:17 AM ET            

This crazy game is quite unrealistic. Knights don't really jump over soldiers, making Bishops disappear when they land, right? Well, someone decided to make it a bit more complex and created, say, King's Table... and so on, and so on...

And that brings us to where we are today. Hot off the presses it's Alpha Centauri. Sure, it's unrealistic in places. What high tech wars last 80 years anyway? But it's fun.

I still play chess knowing that Knights never jumped over soldiers to kill royalty. I will play SMAC knowing that that you cannot magically transform huge amounts of energy into a space program in a singe year.

There is a limited amount of time and manpower that can go into each computer game that hits the shelves. Given another ten years, this game would include all kinds of features, but it still wouldn't be done. It is just another step on the road from Chess to... what? A game so real that it's... life.

posted 02-19-99 11:34 AM ET            

What I want to say is that we *shouldn't*, even if we could. Not only is it not realistic to expect that there will ever be a realistic game (ah, the irony), but it isn't even something we should strive for.

posted 02-19-99 12:05 PM ET            

Wissenshaft

*Making a strawman is when you misrepresent someone's arguements, wether or not it is on purpose, and then attack that view. Unfortuneately it doesn't say much for what the person origionally said.

**The slippery slope fallacy is when you claim that if one thing happens then other things will necessarily happen, though the connection is logically dubious.

posted 02-19-99 01:26 PM ET            

Drop the strawman argument, OK? You -- yes, you -- have made the claim that the Civ II class of games strive 'to be as realistic as possible'.

Prove it. I dare you.

The games try to be as *consistent* as possible, within the framework that the deisgners have chosen. The games try to be as *fun* as possible, within the framework the designers have chosen. The games try to be as *appealing* as possible to as many gamers as they can be. But realistic?

Not a chance.

In the real world, elephant cavalry *crushed* the opposition, but required tremendous support. Oops, Civ II didn't model that properly. In the real world, Leonardo da Vinci didn't have a workshop that automatically re-equipped Italian infantry. Oops, Civ II fell down on the job again. In the real world, *none* of the Wonders actually affected life as they did in Civ II.

And you know what? If they *had* tried to make the game that realistic, it wouldn't have been fun.

posted 02-19-99 02:14 PM ET            

Certainly it would be more realistic if decimating losses on a military unit affected its maximum ability to heal in the field, but in game terms this would mean that the player would be forced to retreat more often, which would simply extend the length of combat over hotly-contested regions of land. More realism, but more repetition. Is this realism which contributes to the playability of the game?

Likewise, it is plausible that Secret Project technology would be reproducible by other factions. However, in game terms, what would be the purpose of building such a project if the beneficial effects were available to the other factions (albeit at delayed, or perhaps increased cost) anyway? Secret Projects would become little more than very large city improvements, and the aspect of "rush to build improvements to deny them to your enemies" as well as "lay siege to an enemy colony which contains a much-needed Project" would be lost.

posted 02-19-99 02:25 PM ET            

In the defense of WS, I think alot of us try
to "tweak" those games as we play them to reflect our own realities or desire at realism: "free parking", generals and navies
in Risk. Games are at best an abstraction
designed to free us from some of the gritty
realities of life. That's it, enjoy these
diversions however realistic.

posted 02-19-99 02:50 PM ET            

a) You don't have to buy a 20 billion dollar plane and get approval from congress. You buy a 2000$ computer, a 50$ game and you get approval from microsoft 95.

b) You don't die when you drive the plane straight into the ground. Instead you just get a new plane.

c) Killing real people may cause moral problems. In a sim you have no moral problems other than that maybe you shouldn't be wasting your time.

d) You can fly on over Mars or Venusin an earthlike atm. or over Earth in a Martian atmosphere.

Ok so what would be the differences in a idealized social sim and reality

a) You start out as the leader of some people, no need to gather signatures, get on a soapbox or anything.

b) You don't die when you get shot, poisoned or nuked. Instead you just take control of a new leader.

c) The game, realtime or not, has a variable time control. WWII took ~6 years for Roosevelt, Churchill, etc. In a sim you could at least choose to do it in 3 minutes.

d) a repeat of flight sim's c) moral issue

e) You can play on a planet where N and S America don't exist, where there is only one small island, or in a universe where nuclear weapons are impossible.

The idea is a Simulation allows one to do something that in reality would be impossible/undesirable/too difficult. It isn't a substitute because it usually focuses on a particular thing.

I agree that a simulation that is totally realistic is not fun. Then it would just be a sim where you start out in control of a character sitting in front of a computer. However, in a simulation one starts out as whatever the simulation is set up as and one can (using scenario editors and cheats, (which I've noticed the game designer for this RealLife didn't put in)) make it less realistic for a game that one thinks is more fun.

Again, one of the reasons one lacks realism is computer problems, even the RealLife computer can only do one 10^-42 sec turn per 10^-42 sec. Therefore, there are tradeoffs made between realism and playability based on the computer. There are also trade offs between realism and playability based on programming time.

In any case, I agree that the goal of a game is fun, but maintain that realism is a major contributor to fun in a game like this.

posted 02-19-99 02:59 PM ET            

Wissenshaft

posted 02-19-99 03:10 PM ET         

AC takes place in a hard sci-fi world, yes, but that does not mean AC is trying to be a hard sci-fi realistic. AC is trying to be a plain old GAME. Not a hard-sci fi simulation or realistic in the least. Just because Civ took place in the real world, does not mean that the rules implied in the game were there for "realism." On the contrary, the rules of Civ, the rules of SMAC, and the "realistic" rules of any game are there for gameplay. It just so happens that the rules of the game fit in to realworld situations, but I can assure you, they were designed for gameplay, not realism.

For instance, you cannot take a rocket-launcher into the head in Quake, or other FPS games, this is not for realism, but because rocket-launchers are big guns, and hard to use, and the reward for a direct hit is an instant kill. The same applies for all games.

posted 02-19-99 03:13 PM ET            

*sigh*. You pretty much missed my point, completely.

You keep asserting that realism should be incorporated as much as possible. WHY?

I don't play games to submerge myself in the realism. I play games to indulge my bent for escapism. You're not providing any support for your assertion beyond 'That's my opinion'. That's fine, but at least accept that legions of us *don't* want what you want.

It's remarkably silly of you to keep ignoring this point. Realism is not -- repeat, not -- the goal of the Civ/Civ II/SMAC genre. Fun *is*.

posted 02-19-99 03:41 PM ET            

Wissenschaft

posted 02-19-99 03:58 PM ET            

I don't think that the suggestions about morale, etc. would make the game more fun/interesting. Mostly I think it would be more annoying.

If I could change anything (and to some extent you can) I would make unit costs make sense. Ships should be the most expensive things to build (or maybe gravships) followed by air units then hovertanks and rovers and finally infantry. It's silly to have a hovertank cost 3 times what a cruiser does.

Why does arty cost SO much for land units? You get it on the cheapo ships for free. That's not realistic either and is something I'd like to change. (Another trip to the rules file.)

The way the game is now even with some of my own mods I end up building lots of air units a very few ground units and a good number of ships. I'm not really asking Firaxis to change anything except I would like this stuff where I can get at it. I've found some of the items, but things like transport module distance penalties seem to be left out of our hands.

posted 02-19-99 04:28 PM ET            

Would I be correct in interpreting your position as one in which you find certain game abstractions as incompatible with other game abstractions? You are saying, for example, that given that SMAC is a "hard-sci-fi" game and given that Firaxis has done "X" and "Y", game feature/abstraction "Z" makes little sense?

In other words you find that the Secret Project implementation does not fit the intended game design right?

posted 02-19-99 05:07 PM ET            

"realism should be incorporated as much as it can without losing playability."
-Wissenschaft

Let us return to your first post:
1. Each unit is in the field for an entire year. This obviously represents a time in which reinforcements are sent to forward units. Dead people do not come back to life, but boot camp is only 6 months, so any unit should be able to receive new troops during a single game turn.

2. Trying to micromanage individual soldiers in units for a game on this scale is foolish. This definitely lies outside the realm of playability.

posted 02-19-99 08:35 PM ET         

Are you listening AT ALL to my or John's or other people's points?

You keep pressing this thing about realism being limited by technology, or by fun. But I, and others, have been trying to get the point across that games are designed to be fun, and realism is merely added as a condiment, so to speak.

SMAC is not trying to be believable, or hard sci-fi, a simulation of ruling an empire or plausable. It's just supposed to be an entertaining game. Nothing more.

posted 02-20-99 05:28 AM ET            

Wissenschaft

posted 02-20-99 11:31 AM ET            

You continue to make assumptions that are borne out by neither the game nor the developers. You have been told by Firaxis, in this very thread, that realism *is not the point*. Yet you continue to state that "Realism, and I think the very nature of the game supports me on this, is very close [t]o, if not part of, the heart of the game, and eliminating or even ignoring it makes the game lose something."

I disagree, strongly. Others have as well. Realism is *not* the heart of SMAC. Or Civ. Or Civ II. It's almost peripheral. For the last time -- because I'm getting really tired of repeating myself -- FUN is the point. If you think the game is inconsistent within the framework they have chosen, that's one thing. If you think that the game is consistent but not accurately modelling reality, that's quite another.

Hint: The first is what they have striven for, the second is unimportant.

posted 02-21-99 10:23 AM ET            

Wissenschaft

posted 02-22-99 01:03 AM ET            

In my perspective SMAC is an 75 percent unrealistic game.And CTP according to it's time lines and understandable not far-flung technologies is a 70 percent realistic or at least it tries to be.

The arguments of realism that Wissenshaft started here and the one which I started would show by sales of these two competitive products.

If CTP comes out with a bang,and sells millions more than SMAC who wins by unamious decision.

It looks like on this topic and mines no one but a courageous few is trying to be
BI-PARTISAN and question simple mistakes in this game.

I ask all of you to stop by the CTP Forum where tens of SMAC and neutral players are beginning to start topics calling SMAC-WACK.

So for those who stand by this game good for you, but for the majority who rushes out of there way for CTP on Mar 16th.

May they bring the final vote which many have been waiting for.

Is REALISM a factor or is it not.LET'S ALL WAIT AND SEE SHALL WE!

posted 02-22-99 01:56 AM ET            

Shadowhawk

posted 02-22-99 02:11 AM ET            

I am not even going to comment on the pure realism garbage. Strawmen bore me, and I have talked about this, and clarified, many types before.

Wissenschaft

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."

posted 02-22-99 09:11 AM ET            

In my mind this is what the scope of things are in the game.

1 City = 1 production area, this would be something like a state in the US, it isn't just 1 city.

1 unit = thousands of troops

10% injured = 10% of your units supplies gone, this could mean ammunition it could be injured soldiers, it could be dead soldiers. How do the dead soldiers get resupplied, this is what the support cost is for. The support is assumed to cover these things.

Government change costs - this incorporates the stress a civilization feels during the change. I agree that it should probably be higher than it is, but its taking a abstract view of the effects instead of a specific view.

Wonders - these are a bit strange, while you say anyone with the technology can make one of these, they don't always. There aren't pyramids everywhere, there isn't the great wall of china everywhere. Its an abstract view of how these awesome accomplishments effect your civilization, if someone else had built them later it would of been no big deal.

I think your problem is your looking at everything too literally, most things in TBS take an abstract look at things, and I think they've done a good job with this. Its realistic enough and its fun enough.

posted 02-22-99 09:49 AM ET            

I think this topic is ridiculous.

A game is a game and the reality is the reality.

I hope you ALL have noticed the difference.

If you havnt.. you should seek for proffesional help (a psychologist for an example).

Happy buyer of Alpha Centauri.

posted 02-22-99 02:49 PM ET            

However, Wissenschaft agrees that realism must be weighed against fun and game playing balance, and must lose if it compromises either. If I'm remembering correctly (I takes a long time to read this forum) Wissenschaft criticizes four aspects of SMAC as unrealistic: field repair, morale building through combat, ease of changing governments, and monopolies over secret projects. I think he makes a poor case on the first two. Disallowing field repair ignores the reality of mobile parts depots and field hospitals. It would also force players to make lengthy retreats to base to make repairs, which is a big yawn. He's just wrong about morale building through combat. The American Civil War contains numerous examples of elite units that grew more talented through experience, rather than being cobbled together with the best soldiers from multiple units.

I think he makes a good point on the ease of changing governments. Allowing effortless switching of government options removes the strategic element to picking the right one. Even though a higher penalty for switching might lessen flexibility, it will make the decision more interesting. I also think he's got a good point on the wonders. It's really no fun if one faction racks them all up, which occasionally happens in SMAC.

posted 02-22-99 05:17 PM ET            

Will made one thing I have been saying very clear. Realism loses to fun and gameplay. I am suprised that hasn't gotten through to many of you. That is what I refered to with my "strawman" remark. As for trolling, I do not nbelieve I am doing so. I think I have listened and responded to what people have been saying. This does not mean I agree with them, or they agree with me. The only time I have declared things as "attacks" - which is innaccurate - is when I comment on logical fallacies, and I think I have explained the nature of those. If you have any questions about what I have just said, or have said before, then please voice them.
About units now. When a military unit loses troops, typically there is a 2 to 1 ratio of injuries to deaths. This is a fairly constant factor. This means that if a unit 'loses' 30% of its men, then 20% are injured that can be healed and put back in combat, allowing the unit to go back to 90% effectiveness. If it loses 60%, then it could only go back up to 60% effectiveness (40% + 60% * 2/3 = 60%). That was my point about unit injuries. As for the recruitment idea, recruits cannot move halfway around the world in one or two turns, especially in a relatively low tech SMAC setting. This does not fit with the setting of the game, especially since at the beginning you do not have any nanotech. Also, I do say that units cannot gain experience, rather this: Crack troops cannot evolve from a standard military unit, though that standard unit can become used to combat, experienced. In the civil war units had very little training, so experience and gaining familiarity with war was to be expected. However, as some are better with math than others, some people are better at combat and combat related tasks than others. From these the elite units, the crack troops are formed. Experience isn't the only thing important for troops however, but fighting spirit, true morale, is as well. This depends on many factors, including success in combat. I am not saying Alpha Centauri should necessarily incorporate all of these features, but the current system could be improved without any signifigant difficulty to the gameplay added. That is the only issue to which I address my criticism.

posted 02-22-99 06:30 PM ET            

Chris Pine from Firaxis comes out and says: "The 'ideal' of realism in games is simply antithetical to the very nature of what a game is."

And yet, despite this statement from a person in the industry, we have UAPB and Wissenhaft blatantly contradicting Chris Pine, and telling us that this game should be designed with reality in mind: "which means as close to reality as practicle".

Well, I am really about to listen to such noted dignitaries as Wissenhaft and UAPB over a person who is actually in the industry, and has a fair idea about what the hell he is talking about (no offence intended).

Frankly, in the end, none of the things you talk about are not fun (in most people's opinions), and it is only your opinion that they are not "realistic enough", and could be "more fun" if more realistic. And as I once stated before (and received no real reply to), NOTHING in the game is totally realistic. Nothing in C:CTP will be totally realistic. And mostly because of FUN, not the limitations computers that run the games.

Just swallow the bitter truth that you are in the minority, and that nobody likes the ideas that you espouse. Then if you really don't like the game, go and play Sim City 3000. And we will continue to play the thoroughly enjoyable SMAC, which while being not totally realistic (and noting that it was never designed to be), is totally fun.

What it comes down to is whether you are able to disassociate yourself from reality for a while, and play a game for the pure fun of the game, and not disect every aspect of the game, looking for inconcistencies with reality. I play a game for fun, not to try and nitpick it. Which is about the only reason that I'll give C:CTP a go. Some of the stuff sounds just too goofy, but hey, I have an open mind. I doubt that it will live up to anything designed by Sid and Brian, but who knows, maybe the designers are another sid and Brian in the wings. Unlikely, but hey, you never know.

Anyway, enough time wasted trying to beat my head against a brick wall. Sayonara, and thank you for your time.

posted 02-23-99 09:55 AM ET            

I like the new "social engineering" options in Alpha, it makes the game more interesting (than Civ2) and if it has something to do with the reallity I REALLY DONT CARE!

I mean.. try to simulate a base on Alpha when man doesnt even have reached Mars in the reality..

Its your imagination that plays you guys a trick.

posted 02-23-99 05:29 PM ET            

Wissenschaft

P.S. Maybe if I keep all my posts short I won't be misinterpreted (e.g. people will read what I say.).

posted 02-23-99 07:04 PM ET            

1) It seems to me that the realism of unit repair isn't as bad as Wissenschaft says. He seems to be assuming that the degradation of units is strictly a basis of people being killed. The percentage is a large mix of factors including deaths, injuries, ammunition, fatigue, needed repairs, lack of supplies, et all. I think the assumtion is that a unit can't return to it's full capability in the field, and 20% was chosen as an arbitrary and generally accurate (slightly smaller than your 33%, prehaps because of better healing tech).

2) I think morale is a poor word for he unit quality stat. If you evenly (or randomly) split the inherently 'good' soldiers and inherently 'not-so-good' soldier into 'units' then you can realistically look at every unit starting the same. (with training differences such as command nexuses) you can also look at the units as having about the same maximum ability. This is the scale from very-green to elite. Prehaps it would be more realistic to combine 2 veteran units and get an elite and a green unit, but I think it would add an unnescesary level of complexity to an already fairly complex game and not really add much.

3) I agree that the switching of governmental styles are too easy. I'm not sure what would be a better way to demonstrate it though. I think that an 'anarchy' penalty such as Civ had would be a better solution, maybe. Not having a solution in mind I accept what is presently before me.

4) Secret Projects. This is a 'bonus' for spending the time and effort to build a monumental example of a technology. It is not particularly realistic (though one could make an argument for the added benefit of having the first of something. the first skyscraper is alot more impressive than the 20th). However this is an accepted practice that, while not realistic is (in my opinion) more entertaining than any alternatives that I have heard. It is a classic addition to a game of this type.

posted 02-23-99 07:29 PM ET            

1) Unit repair: Dead people do happen in battle. But so does eating, replacing ammunition, providing reserves, etc. It is ASSUMED that each unit has supply lines open to it for this purpose. To avoid making the game impossibly complex, much of this kind of micro mangagement is left out.

2) Experienced field troops ARE greatly superior to inexperienced ones. Training can make up some of this, but hard battle will do it better (SMAC does let you train units, as well, using the four morale boosting facilities). MORALE is as good a word for this as anything - if you've read any war histories, you'll know that green or inexperienced troops usually had very low MORALE before heading into battle. And because of the base upgrades, experience is not the word you're looking for.

3)Switching governments may be unrealistic, but the Anarchy period in Civ was a real pain. Charging energy really makes the whole thing a lot more fun.

4)Again, the FUN thing rears its ugly head.

5)There is also a certain level of pointlessness and nitpicking about it, too. Just let the whole thing die.

6) See 5.

7) See 6.

posted 02-23-99 08:54 PM ET            

To put it simply:

We do not agree that making the game more realistic therefore makes it more fun. And in a big part, the ideas you have put forward would not make the game more fun, I(our)NSHOs.

posted 02-24-99 05:39 AM ET         

Since the topic is unrealism in Alpha Centauri, I would like to point out that the most unrealistic thing about SMAC is that there are planets around Alpha Centauri in the game.

If there ever was planets around Alpha Centauri, they would have long been catapulted away from the Centauri triple stars system by the gravitational tug-o-war between the 3 stars.

Star systems containing only one star like our own is a rarity in the universe. (If I remember correctly, 90% of all the star system have multiple stars).

Any talks of units healing too fast or whatever would seem irrelevant in this context.

I'm jusy going to buy the game and enjoy it like I did with Civ 2! :>

posted 02-24-99 01:53 PM ET            

What we're dealing with here is an improper use of terms. "Realism" is not the correct term for what SMAC strives for. The most appropriate term is, instead, "verisimilitude". The difference is simple. Realism refers specifically to the attempt to recreate the experience to the greatest degree of accuracy possible. SMAC doesn't do this. In fact, it would be very hard to imagine how SMAC could possibly HOPE to do this, since who's going to tell you what life on some hypothetical planet orbiting a different sun would be like? No one has that knowledge.

Verisimilitude, on the other hand, merely tries to create an experience that "feels right", so to speak. It looks for things that give the experience the proper flow, and create the sort of effects people might expect, regardless of what the actual experience might be. Of course, certain realistic elements CAN be included, but they don't NEED to be.

posted 02-24-99 06:15 PM ET         

I didn't know that Rong, if this is true then the prospect for the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is much larger than I thought!

I'm gonna have to recheck Drake's equation and see what I come up with

posted 02-25-99 03:00 AM ET            

The ultimate game of any genre would be infinitely open-ended, allowing access to it from all levels up to extreme realism. Fraxis, however, had to make choices, realizing it had to pay the bills even if that meant producing a game that could have been (and probably should have been) crafted a bit more carefully so that the gamer would not be forced to suspend his disbelief.

posted 02-25-99 03:37 AM ET            

Like art the value is with the observer (game
player). One can make this as real or fictional as they choose. It's our imagination that goads us. SMAC scores on that point in creating and open ended enviroment in which to roam. What more can
one ask for?

QS

posted 02-25-99 03:37 AM ET            

Like art the value is with the observer (game
player). One can make this as real or fictional as they choose. It's our imagination that goads us. SMAC scores on that point in creating and open ended enviroment in which to roam. What more can
one ask for?

QS

posted 03-03-99 05:35 PM ET            

Also regarding an objection to realism.

It increases micromanagement.

This is where technology limitations come in. Micromanagement is fine as long as it is possible to hand it off to a competent governor. I.E. in MOO II you had the "option" of handling your own battles or letting the computer do them, unfortunately, your local tactical commander was usually incompetent and would lose a battle that you could have won without losses. Therefore, it was an additional level of management that was required for successfully playing the game. THIS can detract from fun and therefore should be avoided.

I would love it if mind units had supply lines as long as the AI could manage them competently and I only had to change them for special circumstances.

This applies to a great many other things too. Most aspects of realism are left out not because they can't be done with current technology, nor because they would inherently detract from fun, but because --with current technology -- they would detract from fun -- due to extreme required micromanagement, slower turns, etc.

Basically,