Alpha Centauri Forums
Strategies and Tactics
Space Power
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
Strategies and Tactics
Space Power
|
| Author | Topic: Space Power |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-18-99 01:11 PM ET  
I have been writing on this forum for several days now and i noticed no one has written about space power. True, Sid unfortunately didn't make it a major part of the game...unlike Call to Power did. Although that game sucked. But still without space domination...the game could be easily lost. When two humans are playing, the game many times will reach the end techs and nuking is a question. Also large armies must be fielded if your going to get through a human defences. Unlike the mind worms of computers. Any good human usually has bunkers behind bunkers and bunkers behind them protecting each other, so it comes time that you need to build units so fast..that you need the extra resources of mining satallites.(sorry can't spell) Also you need to have money, specially if there is no one to trade with...when all the comps are dead and just to two enemy humans. Thats where power satelites come into play. Next time your playing a game with a human. Build up to 50 to 60 defence pods. And keep them poring in. destroy any facilites he tries to put up there. You will see his disadvantages coming when it takes 5 turns to build a advanced tank instead of 2 turns for yourselve....the space elevator is a must...a big must. Also nuke alittle...its only 2 of you, so no one is going to get on your back for it, and you have defence pods protecting you. Hopefully someone has built the secret of aphla or something so no mind worms come...with conquest victory on. Perhaps thats one thing the expansion should have more involved or aleast one or two more buildings for space. The United States Military and Economy relies so much on space, its not even funny. He who controls space..controls the tempo of the war. People who underestimate space put a real disadvantage to themselves. With the space elevator, your civ doesn't even need to spend much time with space but yet control it. Just one thing....don't get discouraged by those ever 50 year sunspot thingys that wipe out your space power. It doesn't take long to build up again. |
| TNSe |
posted 08-18-99 04:06 PM ET
You are right... the space part of the game could be more advanced. But to take a little story. I was playing the hive with -50% production costs, and had the Space Elevator. Stoopid me set some of the Colonies on auto build. I was in a middle of a war with Spartans/Gaians/Morgans/PeaceKeepers/Believers (Hmm... Not UoP Now my question is... WHO can take you down when you have SO many satellites.. Noone ... Don't underestimate them. Satellites are more powerful than most people think. If you have 50 cities. 2 Nutrients Satellites, +1 population in each city with Aerospace complex. 2 Energy Satellites +1 Research, +1 economy in each cityh with Aerospace Complex... Nexus Mining plant. +1 production in each city. Also, they are a lot harder to destroy than a supply crawler is... and they deliver to ALL cities. Think about this: you have 20 cities. Half of them (10) build Nutrients Satellites... I agree with Combined Arms ... Don't underestimate the power of Space :P TNSe |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-18-99 05:19 PM ET
As TNSe was saying..space power does work, and it even gets better, because later in the game, you build defence pods and all orbitals in one turn. I also wanted to share some suggestions how sid could improve the game for expansion smac or civ3. Perhaps cities can build platforms. Forexample. When a city produces a "platform piece" you are able to go to the space map, similiar to the way Call to power has it, and click on a spot and one platform is made. No one is going to believe that some aliens left already made platforms orbiting some planet somewhere. So we should build them. Also space cities should have to relie on mineral production from its "host" city on planet. Although they should be able to grow there own food...even we can do that. I never saw any minerals flying over the earth have u? (well except comets and such) You may say whats the use of space cities...well perhaps they can build enhancements to the platforms giving them a laser strike ability. Forexample. Instead of artillery in the future...its replaced by orbital bombardments. Also from space, you should be able to see the satelites orbiting, so u can attack them. Although in smac, the nessus places are orbiting so i guess you could build on them if u wanted to do it in this game. So what do u guys think? thks...remeber we want ideas. I'll be writing here about smac and how we could improve on the idea. |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-18-99 06:39 PM ET
Oh yes...i almost forgot....we are interested in putting a mars planet into our game....what space units and such do u guys think should be in there. |
| korn469 |
posted 08-18-99 06:53 PM ET
combined arms...have you guys made an axis and allies like game? and then a game where you have nuclear weapons and things? korn469 |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-18-99 07:34 PM ET
Im guess you liked the civ2 ww2 scenaro...well let me explain something. Its about 5 people working on the project(our first one might i ad) and we are currently in the beginning design phase, testing ideas and such. But remeber something, we are young guys like you...heck i still have a 1 in my age. Although i did like the civ2 thingy so we are going to take our time with it, and put in all or most of your ideas...heck your the buyer right. Thats why we spend alot of time on the forums of different games...to get a feel for gamers. tell me more of this nuclear weapon scenaro thingy....trust me...we at phoenix games enjoy nukes just as much as the next person. I contacted firaxis games, i hope to talk to them on certain ideas and such, we are very new and have several problems with the engine. Also our website will be up soon, and ill make sure to tell u when its ready. |
| Beta1 |
posted 08-19-99 08:41 AM ET
I think it is already possible to take out satellites - don't orbital defense pods have the ability to attack other orbiting structures? |
| Beta1 |
posted 08-19-99 08:41 AM ET
I think it is already possible to take out satellites - don't orbital defense pods have the ability to attack other orbiting structures? |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-19-99 09:21 AM ET
Yes your right beta...but would it be cool if u see a very large laser from your base or a ship do it? |
| MajiK6pt5 |
posted 08-20-99 01:08 AM ET
combined arms: whatever u do, don't make it real-time strategy, please! i think that a game where u would have ground combat like SMAC, and also space combat (check out space empires III) is in due time, no one has made one yet, and I think that people can, it's just that they have to think more than their puny brains want to. A nice strategy for orbital defense pods is to let your opponents build up some orbital facilities, then when he's depending on them, blow them all down simultaneously. This is worse than not letting him get any up in the first place becase he was depending on the research and building of the pods (also, his people will starve). This will surprise him greatly, and you will have the upper hand. |
| Sun_Tzu |
posted 08-20-99 03:16 AM ET
I am a huge fan of both RTS and Turn-based strategy games. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. However, I am more inclined towards the Turn-based side because of the simple fact that most of the good players in RTS games are simply faster clickers, better button pushers, and have better mouse control than the others. Yes, they do have a very good grasp of strategy and tactics, but the winner isn't always the person with the best strategies. Too much is dependent on hotkeys and time. However, I really dislike turn-based strategy games on the simple fact that they are turn-based. One side moves all its units etc, then the other side, then the other side, and so on. Side A moves a hovertank to Spot X. Then after Side A's turn is over, Side B moves its hovertank to Spot X and kills Side A's hovertank. It doesn't matter that Side A's hovertank had a bigger and better weapon, because it was on the "defensive," and that somehow nullifies the effects of its better weaponry (even though Side B had the same shielding but a weaker weapon than Side A). When you think about it, the whole concept of things being turn-based itself is a huge flaw. I have thought about this problem, and then it came to me. Why not have everyone give orders to their units, and then have all the units/orders worked out *at the same time*. That way, both Side A and Side B decide to move their respective hovertanks to Spot X. Assuming both units reach the spot at the same time, then Side A's hovertank would win the battle. In each battle, the units would exchange "volleys." Side A would attack Side B, then Side B would attack Side A. Then both Shielding and Weaponry would have an effect in the outcome of a battle. If the units were of different type, then you give the unit with the higher "speed," "attack vector," or whatever you want to call it, the first attack. If that "attack vector" is high enough, then the unit might be able to attack multiple times for every single attack made by the opposing unit. Besides making battles more realistic, forcing all the units to move at the same time would produce better and more interesting strategies. Side A wants to attack Side B, so it decides to order its unit to attack a nearby Side B unit. However, Side B somehow knows about this attack, and orders its unit to move back a few spaces, then back forward to its original position. When the orders are given and the "play" button is hit, then you would see real strategy and pre-planning in action. Side A's unit would move straight to were Side B's unit *used to be* and then, finding nothing, would sit there. In the meanting, Side B's unit would move back to where it was, and attack Side A's unit, giving it the "ambush" or "preemptive strike" bonus. There are a few details that need to be worked out, but personally I think that the system is better than the current Turn-Based system. What do you guys think? Is my idea a possibility? |
| Jonathan West |
posted 08-20-99 08:41 AM ET
Yes it is a possibility. In fact, the idea had been around and in use for years. It's called wargaming. Only problem is you need a referee who gets bored with not being actually involved (unless he's a control freak!). Doing it on a computer should in principle be no problem. However, there are complications. E.g. if you move you rover/gravship/etc. unit to point X, you need a way of reacting when the enemy is already there or arrives at the same time or after you. (A bit like trying to enter fungus only to find a unit there - then you need reaction orders.) So it gets complicated ... 1) all sides post orders which noone can see Also, would you trust the computer not to use your order in working out the AI moves? I know I wouldn't! |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-20-99 11:21 AM ET
Well heres how our current project battle system is going to work. Well first we have our world screen similiar to civs and smacs that you all like, but when one unit tries to attack another unit, it moves into the battle screen. In this demonstration i will use smac units. The defence is on a rocky terrain, and is at a high elevation. The offence attacking from a lower level. Well the battlescreen is a 2 and 1/2 screen, similiar to diablo looking, but better graphics. The defence is able to position its troops in hiding spaces and such. while the offence starts in a formation predestined. Then its similar outsmarting the defence. This is not a click war eithor. Units will not always move, or be slower accourding to there "moral". Its reminds me abit like close combat. Also, we have to relize that war is a combined action. For example you can attack a base with 2 platoons of infantry, one chopper unit for support and some nasty tanks for firesupport. You will be able to move at most 4 different units on the battle screen at one time. Its also comes down to that there is no more no armor big gun units or the opposite. You must have a good armor and good gun to eliminate the enemy or fend off the attack. Positioning your defences on the world map is much important because that will determine the battleground. You must be telling your selves that you can't build cheap units for base defence. Not true, for example the "petermeter defence" will have already built weapons into them, so you can build those gun infanty. That will be the only unit that you can build without a gun and survive, as long as he is able to use the base guns. Flying combat is very amusing, and looks cool when you fire a missile at the enemies. Whats most interesting is the vast units you command. One unit on the world map may be up to 10 units on the battle screen. This is just a fragment of what we are working on for upgrading battle and making it more realistic. Tell me whats wrong and how i can change it. Or what to keep and what is awesome. |
| pHunny_pHarmer |
posted 08-20-99 01:50 PM ET
First of all, will these battles be turn based (HOMM, Civ2) or constant action (RA, Warcraft)? I am not sure about the other people out there, but I LIKE your battle ideas. However, the perimiter defense might need reworking. The perimiter defence could just be a wall (hence increased defense for units hiding there). Seige weapons/guns would be needed to destroy the wall. However the units would not pop out undamaged like in the Starcraft bunkers. Some units should be trapped, others killed. Units should be able to retreat from endangered possitions. Another idea: instead of the battle screen just being a 1 by 1 square of the large map, make it a 2 by 2 or 3 by 3. Thus, a unit could retreat/disengage, but give up territory. And if the battle is going against the attacker, he can pull out. Air units should have to return to a base/airbase to refuel/reload. If it is turn based, the unit should attack once every X turns, and if it is real time, then there should be some command similar to RA. I have been waiting for a game like this for a long time. I�m sure I�m not alone. |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-20-99 02:56 PM ET
Sorry i was in a hurry, last time, and im still in a hurry write now so ill explain alittle bit more. First of all, i was using the petemeter defence as an example. Our program starts like a normal civ, at the early techs....to name some defences we have in plan are......wood stake, stone walls, trenches, mine fields, laser grid, and a few we would like to keep for our selves. On the world map, we can build bunkers, airfields, walls, laser turrets, watch towers, sensors---most of these get upgraded automatically when you get the tech..for example....watch tower - search lights - radar/sonar - sensors. And when you attack over these teraformed things, you see them in the battle. Oh yes...if your walls are blown up, close to 3/8s of the map are taken out with it if you know what i mean. But if you attack with lets say infantry, and kill the defenders, you may be able to save the wall. With one fighter unit on the world map, you control 3 on the battlescreen. In formation they will follow your mouse. Its interesting and hard to explain. We haven't worked out the bombing yet. Any ideas? |
| warg |
posted 08-20-99 11:31 PM ET
I wish they made the computer players build satellites. The satallite warfare would be great! |
| MajiK6pt5 |
posted 08-20-99 11:35 PM ET
these ideas kick some ass... that thing about zooming in at combat is a great idea, then you are actually in control of the output of the battle. By the way -- don't make it so that you would have to have the best defense and offense to win the battle, make it so that the skill of the player matters, too; so a |
| korn469 |
posted 08-22-99 11:32 AM ET
if you are honestly seeking ideas or an honest play tester i'd be more than happy to help you korn469 |
| laurens |
posted 08-22-99 12:35 PM ET
Answering to your space power question - Nothing wrong with the game. Just the incompetent AI who can't catch up with us humans. Cheers |
| iBookLover |
posted 08-22-99 04:21 PM ET
Hey Combined Arms Bombong could work like this: You go to the battle-screen and have some ground troops and an airplane. You do the normal attack with the ground units. another nice thing would be a probe assault: hey i'd like to join the development staff too. PS: Do you know might and magic III? That battle system is a little as yours(but I think its bad made, do it better) |
| Sinapus |
posted 08-22-99 09:54 PM ET
Sun Tzu: There was a game called Global Conquest about ten years ago that had something similar to what you described. It was turn-based. You would give your units orders (stay where they are, move to here, set waypoints, use sneak mode, etc.) and then the game would go into execution phase where all units moved for the length of the turn. They would open fire on enemy units in range. Airstrikes were done during the orders phase, though. It was fun. |
| Combined Arms |
posted 08-22-99 10:26 PM ET
Well we have been fooling around with the air in our game, and have come to the conclusion that all fixed wing aircraft will have there own battle screen. Right now my graphic guy swerdlow is working on how its going to work. Oh yes the "probe team" characters in our game have instead of a battle screen, have a city screen. It reminds me alot like the civ city screen, only zoomed in. Its quite fun trying to sneak into buildings and dodging other infantry garrisons and anti-spy teams. Although its nice because they usually go very quickly. The more tech you get the more and cool different things you can use to get to your target. Like C-4,masks,light scatters(cloaking fields when standing still) and other stuff like that. It depends also how you custimize your units and how you design them. Moral makes them slower, and slower to react to your commands, so its very important. I enjoy the ideas, keep them poring in. my address is [email protected], although this is only temporary still the website is done and our own company building is set up |
| MajiK6pt5 |
posted 08-22-99 10:56 PM ET
what's yer website address? |
| mcostant |
posted 08-23-99 11:21 AM ET
Combined Army - Well, I think it's difficult to mix tactical/conquest game with strategic/civ like game, because a lot of "scale" and micromanagement problem. Anyway, I must suggest you study about the Blue Byte "Battle Isle" games serie(1, 2 and 3 - forget 4 - a completly different affair - same name only for marketing use). I played it alot, and enjoyed the "two faction act into the same time" (Battle Isle 1 - one faction fire, the other move into the same turn), the limited fuel and ammunition (you must refuel at base or with special supply unit - B.I. 2 and 3) and the changing weather effect on movement - snow, heavy rain, dry etc. (B.I. 2 better than 3) - and sometime survival of unit (you can move unit on ice, but if you don't pass it in time, the first turn with sun melt the ice and you lose the unit). Please ask to me if you need more explanation about this subjects. Bye Marco > writing from Italy. |
| pHunny_pHarmer |
posted 08-24-99 06:52 PM ET
Combined Arms: I'd like to beta test or provide ideas for your games. Please post your website. However, one question: Will this game be a realistic multiplayer game. If there is a battle, or many battles, there will be many people sitting out of the battle. Will they watch it, or will they just wait? This could end up making turns rather long, and somewhat boring for a pacific player. What are you going to do about this? |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.
. Ok I was The Hive, but back to the point. By the time I had taken out most of the the other factions, I researched GravShip. So I started producing them. While looking at my cities, I saw a LOT of them were on autobuild satellites. Hmm... I checked how many satellites I had... Had around 80 of each type, and all my cities were 30+ in size.
