eternal game - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  eternal game

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   eternal game

luzerKing posted 07-14-99 04:44 PM ET
Wow. Version 4 fixed my crash problem. Now, though, I'm in the eternal game. I have around 200 mindworms, 120 warplanes, 40 transports, etc, etc. I went for full automation and this has been going on for hours(days). The transports drop troops off on islands the size of a dime in the middle of nowhere, the planes fly around in circles when just an inch away there awaits a victim, it's really just 2d mass confusion. I'm beginning to think that the autoplay is just not all that intuitive and to really put in a stellar performance (in other words, to crush the opposition,) it really requires some hands-on piece-by-piece micro-management. Is this too far from correct? I did a drop in Yang's territory with some Quantum Shock troops and by managing the resources myself, took 5 cities in one turn. This, after hours of slow going. Any hints would be appreciated because I really do enjoy automating as many of my pieces as possible. How do I overcome the problem with stupid transports and planes if not by micro-management. The game is supreme, but I just don't have the time to spend 36 hours winning. I've won before in only a matter of three or four hours. What gives?
Series II posted 07-14-99 04:52 PM ET
Well..... to get teh most enjoyment out of fully automated units I suggest you purchase another game that is better designed!
I do think that SMAC is a good game, but it is not smart enough to control most units automatically.
I may be putting some units on auto patrol mmy current game, but usually I jsut automate a half dozen formers and control the rest of my units.
Krushala posted 07-14-99 05:58 PM ET
it confuses me why people automate units. I can see bases, but units. Why even play the game? In civ2 you could activate the scenario editor and select no human player and just watch the ai play until you get tired of it. That's what automating units means to me.
Bluemax posted 07-15-99 04:41 PM ET
Micromanagement is essential, especially on the harder settings of the game. The more difficult you set the AI, the more micromanagement needed. You will not transcend as an Ironman without micromanaging every base and every unit. It may be tedious, but the challenge is worth it.
(In my HMO, watching the AI play is also tedious and unchallenging.)
Zoetrope posted 07-16-99 12:26 AM ET
In earlier times, I grew very bored having to see the AI move its pieces on remote parts of the globe (esp. on my P-100). Nowadays I play with all settings fast, and Fog of War on, so I don't have to see what's happening outside my immediate vicinity. (Sure I might be unexpectedly jumped by enemy forces, but the worms do that anyway.)
Micromanagement is unfortunately still essential in the current version of SMAC. There are a few things one can safely automate, such as some routine terraforming (eg, build Farm/Solar/Road and Build Road to Base), but SMAC lacks simple but important strategic concepts, such as "move all units in this stack simultaneously", "allocate these ships to the Pacific Fleet", "take Route 66 to the west coast", and even the most obvious "goto enemy base" and "goto this square".
It's a pity that Brian Reynolds and his team, even Sid Meier who's supposed to have had some overview and input into the SMAC project, have repeatedly ignored these requests which have proven their value in other strategy games, such as Space Empires 3.
--------------------------------------------
To put it in a nutshell:
Faction Leaders do not want to command every individual unit, they want to give strategic orders.
--------------------------------------------
Groups in SMAC are blatantly half-baked.
Since you can't (for example) send a military force on orders to travel together, arrive on enemy territory and, once there, generally pillage and conquer, SMAC degenerates into a Tactical game in which you play the role of every soldier individually, instead of Having Fun.
These omissions severely damage the game's potential, as the automated units could do much better if SMAC allowed us to give them coherent goals.
Observe that automated units sometimes do coordinate their arrival and attacks, so if we could move them as stacks and fleets, and tell them where we want the pressure applied, then they would consistently do some good without having to be pushed around like chess pieces.
luzerKing posted 07-16-99 05:56 PM ET
Tried to reply but inadvertantly started a new thread...anyway to rehash.
I agree with most of what you say..it would be optimum to have some mass movement control over your units....you expect them to converge on the closest enemy city and they end up on the other side of the world, mounting an offensive against a speeder or something.
It probably has something to do with the way I play. The first couple of games played at the easiest level were fun, somewhat shorter, and rather easy to win.
I then thought I would try this. Pick a faction, obtain all tech thru cheat and like, 9999999999 enery points, then once I can open the com channels, give away all the tech to EVERY faction along with millions of energy point. The rational behind this was to attempt to have a major high-tech blast-fest.
This in the Transcend level. Befor I know it, probably due to the Governors, I end up with a million units, all shuffling around the screen and blasting anything foreign. This is all great fun, but the game lasts forever. And the tactics, as you pointed out, have no rhyme or reason. If, as in Battlezone, you could choose certain units to go certain places and slaughter certain units or capture certain bases, then it would make sense. For now though, I guess it's back to micro-mgmt, although that still makes for a game that goes on for days, especially if you disable the victory by Trancendance.
Thanks for all the feedback and any more you have would be appreciated.
luzerKing posted 07-16-99 06:04 PM ET
Oh, and I forgot to add...even after giving away all tech to all factions, it seems that even though we are all on equal footing, they are unable to catch up to me in terms of Units, Tech, Cities, etc. I end up pummeling them....I really want to LOSE a game...any suggestions?
Inix posted 07-16-99 06:56 PM ET
Im not sure i much understand the complaints some of u guys are making. I agree completely that the game should alow u to move groups of units as a "stack" like in the Warlords sieries, simply so that turns would go faster as u wouldnt have to watch each individual piece move seperately. I also think that thier should be some sort of a "bind" command that let u compose a "stack" of units that were not in the same square but could then direct them twords a common destination. However, i think half the strategy of the game is coordinating attacks and tactical maneuvering's. Finding the vulnerable/strategically important cities, sieging them and making your way through the enemies empire with as few losses on your side while costing your opponent as much as possible requires the kind of thought that we simply cannot bestow uppon computers yet. And even if we could, i think it would make the game overall less fun and skillfull. Why bother thinking up clever strats if the comp does it for u? The combat in this game is still pretty much exlusively strategic, the tactical element is thier but marginal in comparison (i gess the game would take WAY to long if it had true multi-element tactical battles, though i think it would make a marvelous combination). I never us the Preferences for "moving pieces quickly" because i want to see what is going on as much as possible (even with Fog of War), but if the length of the game and the time it takes to execute a turn is bothering u, maby selecting these preferences would help alieviate some of your pain.
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: eternal game
luzerKing	posted 07-14-99 04:44 PM ET Wow. Version 4 fixed my crash problem. Now, though, I'm in the eternal game. I have around 200 mindworms, 120 warplanes, 40 transports, etc, etc. I went for full automation and this has been going on for hours(days). The transports drop troops off on islands the size of a dime in the middle of nowhere, the planes fly around in circles when just an inch away there awaits a victim, it's really just 2d mass confusion. I'm beginning to think that the autoplay is just not all that intuitive and to really put in a stellar performance (in other words, to crush the opposition,) it really requires some hands-on piece-by-piece micro-management. Is this too far from correct? I did a drop in Yang's territory with some Quantum Shock troops and by managing the resources myself, took 5 cities in one turn. This, after hours of slow going. Any hints would be appreciated because I really do enjoy automating as many of my pieces as possible. How do I overcome the problem with stupid transports and planes if not by micro-management. The game is supreme, but I just don't have the time to spend 36 hours winning. I've won before in only a matter of three or four hours. What gives?
Series II	posted 07-14-99 04:52 PM ET Well..... to get teh most enjoyment out of fully automated units I suggest you purchase another game that is better designed! I do think that SMAC is a good game, but it is not smart enough to control most units automatically. I may be putting some units on auto patrol mmy current game, but usually I jsut automate a half dozen formers and control the rest of my units.
Krushala	posted 07-14-99 05:58 PM ET it confuses me why people automate units. I can see bases, but units. Why even play the game? In civ2 you could activate the scenario editor and select no human player and just watch the ai play until you get tired of it. That's what automating units means to me.
Bluemax	posted 07-15-99 04:41 PM ET Micromanagement is essential, especially on the harder settings of the game. The more difficult you set the AI, the more micromanagement needed. You will not transcend as an Ironman without micromanaging every base and every unit. It may be tedious, but the challenge is worth it. (In my HMO, watching the AI play is also tedious and unchallenging.)
Zoetrope	posted 07-16-99 12:26 AM ET In earlier times, I grew very bored having to see the AI move its pieces on remote parts of the globe (esp. on my P-100). Nowadays I play with all settings fast, and Fog of War on, so I don't have to see what's happening outside my immediate vicinity. (Sure I might be unexpectedly jumped by enemy forces, but the worms do that anyway.) Micromanagement is unfortunately still essential in the current version of SMAC. There are a few things one can safely automate, such as some routine terraforming (eg, build Farm/Solar/Road and Build Road to Base), but SMAC lacks simple but important strategic concepts, such as "move all units in this stack simultaneously", "allocate these ships to the Pacific Fleet", "take Route 66 to the west coast", and even the most obvious "goto enemy base" and "goto this square". It's a pity that Brian Reynolds and his team, even Sid Meier who's supposed to have had some overview and input into the SMAC project, have repeatedly ignored these requests which have proven their value in other strategy games, such as Space Empires 3. -------------------------------------------- To put it in a nutshell: Faction Leaders do not want to command every individual unit, they want to give strategic orders. -------------------------------------------- Groups in SMAC are blatantly half-baked. Since you can't (for example) send a military force on orders to travel together, arrive on enemy territory and, once there, generally pillage and conquer, SMAC degenerates into a Tactical game in which you play the role of every soldier individually, instead of Having Fun. These omissions severely damage the game's potential, as the automated units could do much better if SMAC allowed us to give them coherent goals. Observe that automated units sometimes do coordinate their arrival and attacks, so if we could move them as stacks and fleets, and tell them where we want the pressure applied, then they would consistently do some good without having to be pushed around like chess pieces.
luzerKing	posted 07-16-99 05:56 PM ET Tried to reply but inadvertantly started a new thread...anyway to rehash. I agree with most of what you say..it would be optimum to have some mass movement control over your units....you expect them to converge on the closest enemy city and they end up on the other side of the world, mounting an offensive against a speeder or something. It probably has something to do with the way I play. The first couple of games played at the easiest level were fun, somewhat shorter, and rather easy to win. I then thought I would try this. Pick a faction, obtain all tech thru cheat and like, 9999999999 enery points, then once I can open the com channels, give away all the tech to EVERY faction along with millions of energy point. The rational behind this was to attempt to have a major high-tech blast-fest. This in the Transcend level. Befor I know it, probably due to the Governors, I end up with a million units, all shuffling around the screen and blasting anything foreign. This is all great fun, but the game lasts forever. And the tactics, as you pointed out, have no rhyme or reason. If, as in Battlezone, you could choose certain units to go certain places and slaughter certain units or capture certain bases, then it would make sense. For now though, I guess it's back to micro-mgmt, although that still makes for a game that goes on for days, especially if you disable the victory by Trancendance. Thanks for all the feedback and any more you have would be appreciated.
luzerKing	posted 07-16-99 06:04 PM ET Oh, and I forgot to add...even after giving away all tech to all factions, it seems that even though we are all on equal footing, they are unable to catch up to me in terms of Units, Tech, Cities, etc. I end up pummeling them....I really want to LOSE a game...any suggestions?
Inix	posted 07-16-99 06:56 PM ET Im not sure i much understand the complaints some of u guys are making. I agree completely that the game should alow u to move groups of units as a "stack" like in the Warlords sieries, simply so that turns would go faster as u wouldnt have to watch each individual piece move seperately. I also think that thier should be some sort of a "bind" command that let u compose a "stack" of units that were not in the same square but could then direct them twords a common destination. However, i think half the strategy of the game is coordinating attacks and tactical maneuvering's. Finding the vulnerable/strategically important cities, sieging them and making your way through the enemies empire with as few losses on your side while costing your opponent as much as possible requires the kind of thought that we simply cannot bestow uppon computers yet. And even if we could, i think it would make the game overall less fun and skillfull. Why bother thinking up clever strats if the comp does it for u? The combat in this game is still pretty much exlusively strategic, the tactical element is thier but marginal in comparison (i gess the game would take WAY to long if it had true multi-element tactical battles, though i think it would make a marvelous combination). I never us the Preferences for "moving pieces quickly" because i want to see what is going on as much as possible (even with Fog of War), but if the length of the game and the time it takes to execute a turn is bothering u, maby selecting these preferences would help alieviate some of your pain.