posted 02-26-99 12:52 AM ET        

Of course SMAC is like Civ2! Like Duh! I mean it is an un-official sequal. What did you want it to be, a real-time game? May I remind you that Civ2 was just about the same as Civ was. Why don't you bring up that? Hmm, maybe because you declared it the greatest game ever?

And Future Tech, not being believable. Play it for a couple of times. I know in playing the demo, I got used to the technologies fairly quickly!

So, lay off of us. If you don't like SMAC, bitch about it somewhere else.

posted 02-26-99 12:58 AM ET            

Also, you don't like smac, and want to bitch, well don't do it here,
unless
you can give an improvment on the game., and no i don't think colonizing other planets counts

posted 02-26-99 01:17 PM ET            

While most feedback on games would not be good to actually implement, it's very important for Firaxis to pick up on general trends of criticism and see if they should do anything to address that criticism.

posted 02-26-99 01:58 PM ET            

SMAC is, of course, similar to CIVII, but only in overall design or framework. As Imran says, 'what did you expect in the unofficial successor to CIVII?'. Also, I find it rather humerous that many of the people that are complaining that it is too much like CIVII are the same who are waiting for C:CTP. SMAC is too much like CIVII so I'm going to run out and buy a game that is (most likely) going to be even MORE like CIVII. Including nations that are going to be identical except for color.

posted 02-26-99 02:46 PM ET            

SMAC sucks! It's not realistic!

OR

SMAC sucks! Worms are everywhere!

OR

SMAC sucks! Tech tree is hard and I'm illiterate!

C'mon people. How does it suck? Have you played more than one game? Are you commenting on a feature you've never tried? Are you overgeneralizing a specific incident in the game? HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST FIRAXIS IMPROVE IT?

I would suggest you play some more games of SMAC and then suggest changes. If you absolutely can't stand it you still must have a reason...

posted 02-26-99 02:49 PM ET            

Commenting on Civ: Call to Power is pure speculation at this point. I'm willing to bet the people who are having problems with SMAC will be posting their problems with CTP come its release.

posted 02-26-99 05:44 PM ET            

SMAC ROOLZ BITCH!

Ooops, back to the game...

posted 02-26-99 06:10 PM ET            

I don't like:
* The unit combat interaction. Same animation, same sounds, every unit.

* The unwieldly interface - there's an awful lot more point and click stuff than there really needs to be. (And uncoordinated people seem to struggle with the rolling terrain ).

* The sound - seems to have errors, or incompatabilities, or something, because a large number of people have reported the echoing speech/background static problem.

* Faction balance - the Believers and the UoP don't quite seem to be there yet.

Aside from this, SMAC is the most intelligent, challenging, and above all FUN game I have played in a long time. If I forget to thank Firaxis for that every time I post a complaint, then I'm sorry. (But I did give them $NZ90 to make up for it )

posted 02-27-99 07:59 PM ET            

I agree with Shining1. The fact that they don't have different sounds for different weapons hasn't discouraged me from loving the game, though.

posted 02-27-99 11:23 PM ET            

Spoe: I have yet to play a game as the Believers, but they never seem to pose a real threat in the main game - their technology is consistantly too weak. The bonus attack does help, but if you can outmanuever them then you shouldn't have any problems.

posted 02-28-99 01:39 AM ET            

You asked for it so now I'll give it to you.

First, just because someone disagrees on how great SMAC is doesn't mean that they are a moron or a shill for some other game. Have you ever thought that other people have different expectations for the game than you do. Maybe those expectations are actually higher than what you are willing to drop $50 on? Using your logic I should go to the hockey game and pay my money, but I should never cheer or boo no matter how well or badly my team plays. RUBBISH!

Second, I happen to be one of those people who have those different/higher expectations. I like SMAC(I bought 2 copies), but I am also quite disappointed because of what this game could have been. I have seen thousands of great ideas posted on various forums and implementing just 10% of those ideas would have resulted in a better game.

Third, people like you and Scrubby wanted specifics so here we go.

1) Over two years of development could have resulted in a better resource model than nutrients, energy and minerals. Blow on a Kleenex and let me know if you can now smell those all to familar food, shields and trade arrow icons.

2) Civ II trade allowed you to dump trade anywhere regardless of diplomatic status or need. All SMAC did was change this idea to make a treaty-make a buck. Can you really justify this as an improvement? I can't. However, maybe someone over at Firaxis needs to play some other TBS games. Most of them are much worse than CIV or SMAC, but some of them actually have some really good ideas. Case in point, Imperialism is a dog crap game, but they have a much better trade system than Civ or SMAC because you actually have to trade with someone who wants what you have. They are also so bold as to use the concept of applying diplomacy to influence trade. Wow, have you ever heard of an embargo? Imagine Morgan strangling you economically and your potent military can't do squat because they don't have the fuel to go and unload a can of whoop a#s on him! Now that would be a game.

3) The same old piece of crap helicopter is still the same old piece of crap helicopter. Need I say more?

4)The old Civ 2 "one unit kills all" approach to combat has been only been replaced with the "one at a time" method. What about reinvigorating that proven, 25 year old board game concept of having your units fight as a stack? The bottom line is that all SMAC is is a David vs Goliath until no one is standing. This is not only unrealistic, but it's stupid.

5) Although the A/I is quite a bit better, it is also totally predictable. I find the one-dimensioness of the happiness particularly irritating. Gee, get a drone, change to a talent. Heck, good old Lords of the Realm did a better job with happiness.

6)I actually liked the idea of "wrath of god events" when I first started playing. However, I am also seeing an all to familiar pattern that if you get a head you become a marked man. This doesn't make make any sense if this is supposed to be RANDOM!@!!!!!!

7)Factions were a great idea. However, if different factions have different ideas on how to rule the world, then how about different weapons for the different factions. This would have added a lot of flavor to the game and would have been much better than the lame "build a unit" mess that they created.

8) The same idea extends to different technologies and wonders that would only be accessible by certain factions due to the same ideollogy issues.

9) After all of the hoopla, this is still one very ugly planet. I personally would have preferred a better use of the color pallet to make it easier to look at.

posted 02-28-99 06:48 AM ET            

1) Two years have not been spent developing a model for resources. Two years have been spent developing a _game_...

2) I think the embargo Idea is _well_ within the game. The whole commerce system builds on the fact that if you're at war, you don't trade.

3) Yes. You need to say more. I don't get this comment...

4) Works fine for me. Unrealistic, yes, but Stack Warfare is a bit... weird?

5) Happiness is not AI, but a simple Mathematical Formula.

6) OK. Point taken (FIRAXIS, fix this!)

7) I love the design workshop... They tried making the factions more distinct, but it made them too strategy-dependant.

8) see above.

posted 02-28-99 11:00 AM ET            

I expected as much in your responses. I expected this for the following reasons. First, Imran likes to believe in conspiracy theories as espoused by him in previous postings on other threads within these forums. I can truly say that I have no love for or linkage with activision and frankly speaking, I think that CTP is going to be a gimmick filled piece of junk that will help Firaxis sell more copies of SMAC. With this said, if you spend so much time looking for the bad guys in every closet, then you can't spend much time focusing on thinks that are factual. I. E. taking the time to make a good game great.

Again, I say that I am disappointed with SMAC because when you boil it down to it's essence, it is still just a fresh coat of paint on the same old house. The only things that are different are based on the graphics, sound and animations. Other than that, it's the same old game! I suggest you purchase and play some of the other TBS titles as this will expose you to some different ideas(both good and bad mind you) that could have been easily incorporated to make this game better.

Let me see if I can paint a picture as to why I think we have what we have. Imran, has your conspiracy network looked into the idea that perhaps the reason we have such a rush on Civ based TBS is because of the final disposition regarding the whole Activision, Avalon Hill, et al ... legal mess? As such, no body wants to take any real chances by making anything markedly different. This game was designed for the veteran Civer and perhaps to pick up a few newbies along the way. As a result, no one wants to make any waves as it would hurt market share and impact cash flows. In short, getting off the line first at this point is better than being revolutionary in game design.

Tofgi(sorry if wrong spelling),

Thank you for itemizing your response. Regarding item three on helicopters, I find it hard to digest that they can travel essentially unlimited distances with minimal reductions in effectiveness. First, this unbalances the moivement rates for the needlejets and second totally misrepresents how difficult helicopters are to operate. In short, helicopters are a brick with a rotor attached.

Second, the build a unit idea is a mess. Essentially, all of the units are the same and you are advancing technologically so fast that you can't implement what you design. Therefore, you spend far too much time doing nothing.

posted 02-28-99 11:22 AM ET            

I thought this was a democratic forum!!!!

And if Activision is offering $$$ to attack SMAC, **** I would get the James Carville Award and have an easy mil in my pocket....

posted 02-28-99 05:24 PM ET            

1) Yeah, they're the same. I've tried to think of other options, but none seem really appropriate...zoning squares, maybe? What are your thoughts?

2) The economic model allows you to generate most of your energy "in house," making economic warfare as you envision it difficult at best. tOFfGI is correct about losing trade income during conflict, but in my experience it has never been a significant amount.

3) I agree in that I find the helocopter units pretty useless, though I'm not sure how the difficulty of operation figures into your criticism.

4) Well, there is the designated defender option.... Were you envisioning something like the Warlords games?

6) I wonder if the "random" events are based on population. Not that this negates your criticism, but at least it's a logical reason.

7) & 8) I do like the idea of proprietary weapons, technologies, and projects. One or two specials per faction would be interesting, or different effects of tech/projects. tOFfGI, I do not understand your comment that more distinct factions "made them too strategy-dependent." Could you elaborate?

9) I also thought the color scheme was less than optimal. I expect they wanted something suitably alien-looking and so chose that arrangement. Have you tried the alternate palette? Does it help?

Like many posting here, I really enjoy SMAC. I do not, however, feel that it is a perfect game. No game ever is. You'd always like more or different. Critical comments are meant to serve as an aid to the designers, if I am not mistaken. Although it doesn't affect SMAC, giving FIRAXIS some honest feedback about their game just may get those changes implemented in a future endeavor.

posted 02-28-99 06:11 PM ET            

Oh, Undertaker, that is interesting calling me a Commie. Read Off-topic forums to see my Commie viewpoint . Also, All you say is that SMAC sux, for the reasons all the people, that don't understand this game, say. I've seen you on the CTP forums, yelling SMAC sux and CTP rules. You don't think CTP will be even more of a rehash?

To all who critize, look at the game. There are many, many improvements! Some of the arguements that SMAC is exactly like Civ2 are stupid! Half-Life is exactly like Quake, SC3000 is exactly like SC2000, C&C: Red Alert and Starcraft are the same as Warcraft 2. If anything, SMAC has MUCH more advancements from its predessesors than any I have stated above.

Also, I want any of you SMAC-detrators to find a single magazine review that has said SMAC sux. All I have seen are rave reviews (PC Gamer gave it its highest score ever - 98%).

posted 02-28-99 06:25 PM ET            

1) I believe that the Civ II model of food/shields/trade worked very well. I see no need to improve it.

2)I don't think that there should be trade between two warring factions. I also don't really sympathize with the "bring the wine caravan 70 spaces to a city that demands wine approach." Although the SMAC trade model is not perfect, I think that it has been changed sufficiently to stop trade from become a major hassle. Does trade really deserve so much attention anyway? The trade model also gives advantages to peaceful factions.

3) I believe the helicopters are modeled correctly. A 30% hit to hit points is hardly a minimal reduction. It will easily be killed by any unit because it may be attacked by any unit and already will be weakened heavily. If you still don't like it you can edit the chassis in alpha.txt. The needlejet has a farther "effective range" in that it can go its full movement without worrying about retreat.

4) I don't think that the stack combat you are thinking of is a good idea for SMAC. There is, as you noted, already emphasis on keeping units from dogpiling on a square to avoid the possibility of a large but weak combat force. Stack combat would either:

a) Not differ very importantly than the current combat model, in which case I see no reason to change the current combat model.

b) Drastically increase the value of many units over a single unit. This would mean that more but weaker units would constantly defeat less but more powerful units. This in turn would decrease the need for military technology, causing more of an early game rush. I for one do not support games that emphasize rush tactics.

5) From what I have seen, the AI works very well generally but sometimes makes errors. This actually makes the AI similar to humans in that respect, although I do not want to give the impression that I support a flawed AI. I believe that Firaxis may intend to fix some of the more common AI problems in a patch. I for one hope they do. However, I do not think you appreciate the difficulty of making a strong AI in a game. I challange you to find a better AI in another game. As for happiness, i agree that the model should be more copmlex, although I think it works well now. Perhaps more levels of happiness or different consequences other than golden age/drone riots would be a place to start. However, is this minor failing enough of a reason to dislike this game? I certainly do not think so.

6) Most of the random events are random. Some of the random events really are "punishments". If you don't like them, turn them off.

7-8) What I believe tOFfGI means by strategy dependant is that each faction would have no reasonable choice but to follow a specific strategy, which would damage replay value in two ways. The first would be that it would not be possible in some situations to use the strategy, severely weakening the faction and the second would be that it is not fun to repeat a strategy time and time again. Taking this into account, only a small amount of special unit/facility advantages would be allowable, and that Firaxis did not include them does not really hamper the game. You can, again, modify this in alpha.txt.

9) You are entitled to your own opinion. I think the planet looks fine. I really do not think that the graphics in a turn based strategy game really affect its desirability unless they make it too hard to differentiate elements in the game.

I hope that none of this will be taken as a personal insult to you. I am just stating my opinions on the points you have raised. Many of these supposed faults are really minor points, and several suggest change where change would only hurt the game. Changing for the sake of change will destroy a game, as I predict will happen to Civilization: Call to Power. Again, I hope that these discussions of faults in SMAC and comparisons between Call to Power and Alpha Centauri will be handled calmly and will not degenerate into a battle of flames.

posted 02-28-99 09:15 PM ET            

Thank you for the outstanding reply. How could anyone take your comments for anything other than the well thought out and well intentioned ones that they are. Finally, I can have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person.

I will now respond to each item in turn.

1) I am not talking about what we have or what works based on our past experiences when it comes to resources. Instead, I am talking about creative game building that will use the well founded concepts that resources are scarce and that they are not evenly distributed. I happen to think that this would be a much better game if a faction could apply the leverage of controlling needed resources. It would keep the game from being so predictable and would add a whole new aspect to diplomacy.

2)I don't want to trade with people whom I'm at war with either. However, ACTUAL TRADE combined with the aforementioned resources would again make this game better. This model of Rodney King(can we all just get along)trade is just awful as it really has little to no effect on the game.

3)A 30% reduction is still enough to allow them to run rampant and shoot up your non-combatants and destroy your improvements. This is just poor game balance. By the way, I build NO HELICOPTERS!!! So please don't call me a hipocrite.

4)The reason for stacked unit combat is to allow a faction to "OUT GENERAL" another faction. The current linear model of build a unit and kill or be killed is just plain attrition. As such, it is too predicatable and easy to defeat. You might want to pick up a copy by Clausewitz or Sun Tsu to understand the principles of war.

4a)Same answer as in 4 above.

4b) Please elaborate as I don't think I addressed this issue.

6) As I said before, I not only liked but requested random events. However, 13 wrath of god events in 17 turns is a little more than random in my mind. Second, I think an A/I that always trys to knock you down when you are on top and trys to always help you in the lurch is again too predictable. I would actually prefer an A/I that would sometimes kick you when you're down so that you can start a new game.

7&8 See "X is for Xerxes" response as he articulated my position far better than I was able to.

Finally, please understand that by and large I really do like SMAC. However, I also feel that there were calculated decisions by the Firaxis team to just teach the same old dog a few new tricks. This is a shame in my opinion as I think that they have realistically had far more than two years of input to put together a really great game. In all, the game did not live up to the hype and I think you will see the same disagreements when CTP and the other clones come onto the market.

By the way, if I was smart enough to edit game files, I would be smart enough to make my own game. Obviously I'm not.

posted 02-28-99 10:03 PM ET            

Still, the underlying point I believe is that this was done for ease of use. I wouldn't want to bother with the hassle of special areas with special resources, and having to trade them with certain other factions, depending on who wanted them the most.

3. Helicopters actually aren't as overpowering/underpowered as you seem to suggest. I have found that combined arms makes for the best mix of units/stacks, and I haven't found 'copters to be THAT good. They certainly shine in Recon though, and in close base defence, where they don't have to travel miles to reach the opposition...

4. I think that the combined arms method I mentioned in 3 would cover this. I have found that it is NOT simply a case of churning out the most powerful units, one after the other, then sending them off to the front. I plan my attacks well, building a defender here, an offensive troop there, air superiority there, recon somewhere else, etc. Then just get them together in one place, and go off to attack. I think this more than adequately allows you to model "out generaling" the opposition.

6. Are you sure they're act of God attacks? Most of them I have seen are actually caused by Planet - Xenofungus blooms, volcanoes, etc. And if they're happening real quickly, you must be really pissing Planet off...

posted 03-01-99 12:18 AM ET            

1) Are you thinking along the lines of an advanced version of the Civilization II trade system? Possibly a screen where you take resource X from base Y to base Z to complete facility W? Or trade resources with another faction with an open trade route button for the particular resource? If so, there is already a game that uses that model, Imperialism. The problem with that model is that it stresses expansion too much, and that it really could give a massive boost to a faction that lands in a field of an important resource. If you are thinking of something else, please specify it.

2) Again, I think you are talking about the Civilization II trade model. Most people in this forum thought it was too much trouble to micromanage the caravans. I know that this could be rectified with a "trade route button", but if trading was that easy, wouldn't you trade with all available partners? If that was so, than how (other than the advent of special resources) would trade differ from the present model? I think that the designers at Firaxis took this into account when designing the system.

3) Brother Greg is correct. Remember that helicopters can be attacked by any ground unit. If they already have 50 or 60% damage, I truly doubt that they could resist even one of your weaker patrol units. Also remeber that air superiority needlejets will protect the surroundings of where they are stationed. Needlejets do not have this counterattack problem.

4) I again concur with Brother Greg that multiple unit combat already exists in this game. My problem with weak stacks overwhelming strong single units is best adressed with an example:

Let us assume that the stack combat model is that every unit in the stack attacks every unit in the defense one at a time (i.e. Attacker R attacks Defender S, then Defender T, then Defender U. Then Attacker Q attacks Defender S, then Defender T, and so on)
If five attackers that are one third as powerful as the lone defender attack, they are likely under this model to get away with only very minor scratches because the damage will be more or less evenly distributed among the attackers instead of perhaps 4 attackers dying and one getting through. It is not the best example but I think it will shed some light on the situation.

6) Are you referring to fungus growth as a random event? It is not. It is the Planet's response to ecological damage and the probability increases with the damage. The random events are those like the one that increases or decrease nutrient production at one of your bases.

7) From your response I believe that I have not made it clear what I was talking about. Another example would probably help:

Let's say that the Spartans were given a very strong special gun and another morale bonus in addition to their previous advantages, and that they were given a research and additional industry penalty to compensate. Now they don't have any peaceful advantages, and a massive disadvantage in that area. What if the other factions were on the other side of the globe? They would be stuck without any possibility of winning because when contact was finally made, they would be a tiny empire and the other factions would be strong. The Believers are almost unbalanced in this respect, and their only saving grace is the multiple ways of getting technology, which allows them to play somewhat peacefully and trade/buy techs and play low tech. The hypothetical Spartans would not have an industry penalty on top of their research penalty, crippling them. And what if I wanted to use their police bonus and police state to create a peaceful faction? Another example that leaves much to be desired, but does its job. If you want the Spartans to have a special gun, modify alpha.txt and spartans.txt to give them a special tech and replace the gatling laser with their new gun with a prerequisite being the special spartan tech.

You don't need to be a programmer to modify the game files, since the designers at Firaxis have let us modify them. They are in basic text file format, and there are notes on how to customise them. Start with alpha.txt (contains most of the general variables) faction.txt (contains the instructions for modifying faction files) and the faction files. If you have trouble you can post in these forums and I am sure you will recieve advice. Just make sure to back up the files!

-Lightwing

posted 03-01-99 12:38 PM ET            

Thank you fot the counter points. Now for the counter-counter points.

Brother Greg's issues,

1&2) Actually, this doesn't have to be complex. If you can have a 32000 unit system, you can design a better trade system that should be easy and fun to use. In addition, I think that it is possible to have this trade system as a toggle so that people who don't want to be bothered can turn it off like many other features. However, I stand strongly by my previous point that the make a treaty-make a buck sytem not only robs the game of vital diplomatic aspects of the game but actually adds little or nothing to it. Case in point, I am in a game right now where I am at war with Hive Boy, The hotty(Deedruh), and that back stabbing scum sucker Lal and I am generating approx 100 excess energy credits per turn. By the way, I already enjoyed Miriam the matron's inquisition and Commander Data(oops I mean't Zakharov) wanted to dog pile until I knocked out about 40 of Hive boy's units. In short, As much as I have tried, I have no friends in this game and I am still in great economic shape. This strikes me as odd. How about you?

3) I can only illustrate my point by you following these instructions. Build a force of choppers and go after an enemy in their rear areas. Especially before air to air is found in the game. Shoot up their non-combatant units and destroy their improvements. The a/i will not go after them because a) the a/i is very slow to build interceptors and b) they will not sortie garrison units. As a result, your choppers move too fast for other units to catch and you can blast them back to the stone age without any worries. Try it!

4) Your example shows how good of a strategic planner you are. However, generalship is a factor in how well you fight an individual battle or series of battles. As such, you are still only fighting a war of attrition and the A/I will either out attrit you or collapse. Time has shown that a great general with limited means can defeat far greater numbers. I think a guy named Napoleon comes to mind.

6) Actually No, No, No, No!!!!!!!! Planet and I were having a love fest as I had 31 bases and only 4 of them had any eco damage whatsoever. The highest was 7 and I hadn't lost a square to fungal blooms in about 15 turns. By the way, I had lots of tree farms, hybrid forests and I even had the wonder that reduced eco damage(I don't know the name). Also, I wasn't talking about fungus and worms. I was talking about viruses, meteor showers, clouds, energy crashes etc... As a matter of fact, the a/i seemed to target my biggest and best cities with utmost vigor. All I'm saying is that let it be random and not punishment only. As a personal note, the a/i also got me through this same fiasco by The Hotty turning over about 25 units to me for my fight against Miriam the prison matron. The problem was she turned them all over at the same city and I lost 15 of them since it was only producing 10 minerals.

7) Actually no. I am not talking about 7 unit sets or anything extreme like that. However, i am talking about a few units per faction. I.E. Deedruh should be the only one with mind worms, Hive boy could have really solid infantry for his bunker mentality and Santiago could have better mobile units to support her "peace through superior firepower" approach. By the way, this could be a toggle as well and I said it would be nice, not essential.

Lightwing,(I'll try to be quicker)

1&2) Yes, Imperialism. However, I agree with you that they took a great idea and made it worse. I think that "never, has so little been done with so much, by so many" fits the bill when applied to the net result of Imperialism. However, I think the guys at Firaxis are much smarter and could make it much better.

3) See 3 above

4) Obviously, neither you nor BG are students of history. Your example of weak units overwhelming strong ones is one that is repeated time and time again. Look at WWII where the allies used lousy sherman tanks to overwhelm excellent tigers and panthers. The same can be said for the soviets on the east front. The point is that great units will be overwhelmed by the weak and that you need to build both quality and quantity to prevent this.

6) See 6 above

7) I'm not talking about sweeping changes that unbalance play. I am talking about a player having the option to identify more directly with their faction and that particular vision. Again, let it be a toggle if you don't want it.

However, the build a unit idea is a great concept and lousy practice. Aside from our agreement on confusing unit identities, I spend far too much time with never ending upgrades and scrolling through dozens of useless units. It is my preference to spend this time and computing power on the trade and diplomacy aspects of the game.

Again, I thank you for the abundance of discussion and the lack of hostility.

posted 03-01-99 05:08 PM ET            

1&2. While I still don't like the idea, I can see where it might be nice for those that want it as an add-on. Personally, I hated the micromanagement of CIV II's trade caravans, and as a result, I rarely if ever bothered with them. Thus, I find SMAC's model to be both more fun, and in a lot of respects more realistic. You don't agree with me, fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

However, when making a game, you can't include every option for everyone. In my time (over a year) on these boards, I have heard requests for a tactical combat engine for battles, trade the likes of Imperialism, colonization of other planets, and the list goes on. What it comes down to in the end though is that they have to create a game that has as many features as possible, while not bogging you down with micromanagement, and keeping it all fun at the same time.

With most people already complaining about the steep learning curve of SMAC, as well as the micromanegement by the end of the game, a greatly increased trade ability would merely bog down the game in yet more endless micromanagement. I really do like the system in SMAC. If you play as Morgan, Lal, or anyone else really, and make a few treaties, you begin to rake the benefits in. So I think that they looked at the game, and implemented a trade system that is fairly realistic, extremely easy, and also fun IMHO. If you think you can come up with a better, go for it, I am always willing to listen.

As for your example, obviously you are playing either Morgan or Santiago. Now, you also mentioned that you had 31 cities, and I presume that you are reasonably well into the game (150 years at least). So, with 31 cities only needing to spit out 3 energy per turn, I am not at all surprised that you have 100 per turn. If you had treaties, I imagine that would probably double, thus the strength of treaties. Throw in that I have no idea what your Social Engineering is, let alone your faction, and it is more than possible.

In my last game for example, I had a maximum of about 15 cities, pacts or treaties with at least 4 factions at all times, and by the end of the game, I was raking in 3-400 per turn, as LAL, with no economy bonus that I can remember, and only 40% tax.

3. Well, in the end, that shows me that you are a good tactician yourself, and that maybe there is a hole in the AI. After all, you would have had to either be very close to their rear, or arranged to have a carrier or the like to refuel your choppers on. Otherwise, with your 30% damage at the end of each turn, you'd be using them as throw-away troops. Also, I have no idea what level you are playing. If you're playing a lower level, it makes sense that the AI is slow. If not, make a suggestion to fix it. But it is an AI problem, not an unbalanced choppers issue, IMO.

4. I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to get at here. Surely my example shows how with 5-6 troops, manouvered well, using choppers as recon, infantry as defence, artillery to soften the opposition up, air power, etc, you can, with few troops, defeat a much larger number of opposition troops. For example, in the same last game, I walked through the hive with all of 4 air units, 3 infantry, two artillery, and two rovers. Now, most cities of his had between 3 and 5 defenders, yet through successful use of my troops, I defeated him easily, against far greater numbers, and probably better trained troops (I was playing Lal, and never had Morale bonuses to speak of).

6. Okay, that was why I was asking if they were Planet related. Haven't had that happen to me, so I can't say too much. As far as I was aware, it was Random, so I don't know how to explain it. Maybe you want to post it under the "Bugs" forum...

7. Once again, see my previous point. The Factions are NOT set in stone. Yang does not HAVE to play as a Mad, power hungry, secretive basket case if you don't want to. He could be played as a Democratic / Free Market / Values: Knowledge / Eudaimonic if you so wished. In which case, your example would not fit quite so well. Remember, they are only templates, and nothing say that you have to follow said templates.

I also disagree entirely that Diedre should be the only ones to have Mind Worms. If I play any other faction, and am Planet friendly, why shouldn't I be able to use them too? I think that would really annoy people more than anything.

What I think might be a little more fun, is to have some wonders build certain "special" units. One-offs that once destroyed, that's it, they don't come around again. Still, comes down to how much it adds to the game, and I wouldn't think it added _that_ much.

As for the unit upgrade, I find it great. I hated in CIV II if I didn't have Leonardo's, cos I'd have to manually upgrade everything. Now I have the option to upgrade them manually, whenever I feel like it. I find it quite easy to use, and fairly untuitive. Take into account that you can choose not to upgrade if you don't want to, and you can choose not to accept the auto-designs. I can't see a problem with it...

posted 03-01-99 08:00 PM ET            

1 and 2) The problem with this is that it would become a land grabbing game like Imperialism. I like Imperialism but I don't think that land grabbing should be highlighted in SMAC. The only land grabbing in the game now is the land grabbing of the special landmarks and that is enough. Have you seen the advantage landing near the Monsoon Jungle can give a faction? This would be magnified if they landed near a lucky combo of resources. I like the simple trade model that exists in SMAC now.

3) I tried your strategy five times but it only worked once. My choppers were eaten by enemy rovers when I failed. My greatest sucess with choppers is attacking enemy stacks with a nearby airbase, giving me 4 or 5 attacks before I have to retreat.

4) Are you thinking of an Imperialism-like combat model where you make a stack and use it in a combat module? Otherwise I don't see how stack combat is much different that combined arms?

5) You must be having really bad luck. That has never happened to me. Try building Biology Labs and Research Hospitals. You can always choose Bell Curve in the custom options.

7) If you want the factions to be more distinct, edit the files. Firaxis has left that opportunity to us to change the game to our hearts content. Try using the Gatling Laser if you want a special gun as I have never seen it used in the game.