...I could hook you up with some old saves, but I cheat like a mother in SP -- would that foul your results?
See if you can do anything with this. When I started looking, finding something with no custom faction turned out to be a challenge. I haven't been playing much for quite a while now, so it's tough to remember any details about an old save - I certainly used the four-point-patrol/elite cheat, almost certainly the build queue rollover cheat, and - more than I can remember. I really doubt my cheat games are going to do you any good. Sorry.
Well now, that IS a problem. I'm a builder and like to space my bases out pretty carefully. I don't have any true crammed-together ICS to show.
...Morgan and Yang do it a lot, of course -Yang, far more sucessfully- but I can't say I've ever paid any attention to how they do things differently when they ICS.
I guess what you need is some MPlayers to speak up. This thread (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2818.msg15584#msg15584) has some discussion of ICS. Kirov and Earthmichael could definitely tell you some stuff. Sorry to be so useless.
Not a save game, but this screenshot is a good example of ICS:
http://apolyton.net/upload/view/11127_IcsUni3.jpg (http://apolyton.net/upload/view/11127_IcsUni3.jpg)
No idea what was built in the bases (was not my game). The screenshot is from an old thread on Apolyton. AFAIK, the save game was never posted.
There was much said about ICS. How ICS works is complex, I was in games, where ICS'ers were winning. One of reasons is that ICS reduces time between colony pod completion and establishing a new base. Important is speed of development.
Established new bases return cost of colony pods quite fast compared to building base facilities and terraforming.
Production places are important too - many bases means many units can be completed in one turn.
But I do not think ICS is overpowered in SMAC. That is what I would like to prove, so that people don't waste any more time trying to fix ICS in SMAC, and instead can work on more interesting things.
Why is speed of development so important as compared to long-term growth potential? Just because you can then use crawlers to ramp up early development even more?Bases in ICS grow also, and they have potential. E.g. establishing a base on flat terrain, maybe moist, 1-0-0, gives you immediately smth like 2-1-1, and this is a "free" worker. If you count additional tiles with 2-1-1, where no population needs to be there working, that adds up to some significant bonus. Several turns earlier established bases also add up to more harvested resources. Colony pods are best made in bases of size 2, since you need only 3 rows of nutrients, and in fact in order to keep population 2 you accumulate only 2 rows of nutrients.
How so? Without base facilities or terraforming, the new bases seem they'll be fairly weak as compared to a well-developed base. You might get an advantage early on, but it'll be weaker later on as the non-ICSer has larger bases (because he's not clumping them.) And remember of course that building a colony pod costs not only minerals but also a population point.It is about this advantage in early game. MP often were won when someone got first to Air Power, copters and could use chop'n'drop. And itis not, that ICS cannot have bases where non-ICS would have. They can also be later placed in those locations having more tiles to be worked.
Yes, that is why ICS is having a condenser for food and crawler for minerals/energy. And there are satellites later. Map size counts too. Larger maps allow you to be builder style player, and on small maps you have little time before contact with other players. It all depends.
But if they're all smaller, then they'll produce units (especially the more expensive units you encounter later in the game) less often, as compared to higher-production bases. Why are a lot of small bases substantially stronger than a smaller number of larger bases on the same territory?
Bases in ICS grow also, and they have potential.
E.g. establishing a base on flat terrain, maybe moist, 1-0-0, gives you immediately smth like 2-1-1, and this is a "free" worker.
It is about this advantage in early game. MP often were won when someone got first to Air Power, copters and could use chop'n'drop.
And itis not, that ICS cannot have bases where non-ICS would have. They can also be later placed in those locations having more tiles to be worked.Quote
I'm not sure what you mean here.QuoteYes, that is why ICS is having a condenser for food and crawler for minerals/energy.
Yeah, condensers seem to be a major component of the issue.
It is not really about condensor being overpowered, or air power.
It is about the exponential initial growth issue. If player A plays a strategy that doubles his resource base every 10 turns, and player B plays a strategy with better potential at turn 80, but doubles his resource base every 12 turns, then player B will be insurmountably behind at turn 80.
Because at turn 60, player A will have TWICE the resource base of player B. Even with a better long term strategy, that kind of lead is probably insurmountable.
BUT, what I have discovered is that the 2-3 turn delay to move to better terrain is paid back in the short term, so instead of having a lower initial rate of growth, I get a equal or higher initial rate of growth, and better short term and long term potential.
Also, Morgan gets +3 energy per base tile with FM/Wealth.
Turn 80 is about half way on the vets map. I have rarely had a game go more than 200 turns, even with air power completely banned, and the game is usually decided quite a bit before that. Only much larger maps, or much less aggressive players, have games going 300+ turns.
But the other issue is the base resources. If a player has double the resources at turn 60, that probably means he has the majority of the secret projects, and has a very large base to continue building. Even if at that point he is only 75% as efficient for future growth as the other player, 75% x 200% means that he still is growing 50% faster than the other player.
If the terrain is absolutely lousy, ICS wins because every base turns a 0/0/0 square into a 2/1/1+ sequare instantly.
Morgan may be the exception that proves the rule. Since Morgan gets such a large bonus just for placing a base, Morgan might do better with ICS, but I still believe it depends on the terrain. In Morgan's case, since every turn delay in base placement costs +4 energy compared to other factions, it takes more terrain advantage to make up that deficient. But most maps, such as the map of Planet or the Vets map, do have good enough terrain to make it beneficial to delay placing the base a couple of turns even for Morgan, for better resource gain after the base is placed.
To get a rought idea for comparison, you multiply the lost resource opportunity times the number of turns of delay. If the additional resources for the better terrain make up for the lost opportunity in a reasonable length of time, say before the base can reproduce itself, then you have a definite win from the delay. But since the base continues to prosper from the new terrain, even if it takes a few extra turns to reproduce, it still might be better than the ICS placement. Furthermore, having the base further out makes it easier subsequently to exploit terrain that is further from the starting point.
I found this very complex to try to just calculate in the cases where there was not an obvious win for delayed placement, so instead I ran some scenarioes both ways, and evaluated how both positions looked around turn 60-80. And what I found is what I have reported: with reasonable terrain, terrain exploitation wins over ICS. For a really crappy map with lousy terrain, ICS wins simply because there is not much tterrain o exploit, so the value of the extra 2/1/1+ for additional bases prevails.
But in that case, wouldn't terrain exploitation followed by ICS (once you've reached your maximum feasible borders) be even better than that?No, because at that point I usually have enough technology to build mutliplier buildings that are more effective than additional colony pods. I usually have bases that have grown to size 7, so multilying the result of thost 8 squares being worked is more effective than building additional bases. Once I have some mutliplier buildings in place, I can lift the population cap on the cities so even more squares benefit from the multiplier builds.
No, because at that point I usually have enough technology to build mutliplier buildings that are more effective than additional colony pods. I usually have bases that have grown to size 7, so multilying the result of thost 8 squares being worked is more effective than building additional bases. Once I have some mutliplier buildings in place, I can lift the population cap on the cities so even more squares benefit from the multiplier builds.
It is also around this time that I can begin my pop boom. So bases grow quickly, leaving very few unworked squares, and those few square can be exploited by supply crawlers.
If I can get to this point without being too far behind ICS (and with reasonable terrain, I am usually on pace or ahead of ICS), then I leave ICS in the dust. Because I now have most of the squares I am working multiplied with 100% mineral boost
3/2/2 forest squares
Because I have only 1/6 the number of cities to cover a given amount of land compared to ICS, even if ICS wanted to build these multiplier buildings, it would cost them 6x as much, with 6x as much maintenance.
With 200% labs, econ, and psych multipliers, each specialist acts like 3 specialists without the multipliers.
As for minerals, I get 50% multiplier at Retroviral Engineering (C6), which is pretty early. I get the next 50% at Industrial Nanorobotics (B9), which is mid-game in my view.
It is true that the base limit of 14 limits limits the growth for awhile. But even only working 15 of 24 available squares, with multipliers, I still do better than ICS covering the same ground.
I consider Super Tensile Solids (B10) for habitation Domes to be a mid-game technology.
As for the forests 3/2/2, engineers provide no minerals.
As you said, we will see during our game.
But to continue harping for a momemt, I think the best thing a game can do for anti-ICS is to make lots of valuable multiplying facilities that can be built, with fairly high maintenance costs. Then if ICS players wants these multipliers, they will have to build 6x as many with 6x the maintenance costs. Ultimately, it is these multiplying facilities in SMAC that defeats the ICS strategy, in my opinion.
I don't believe maintenance costs need to be increased. It is enough that ICS will pay 600% more maintenance cost than the large base strategy, as well as 600% facility construction cost. I think that is enough to see that if ICS tries to match the facilities construction to gain the same multipliers as the large city approach, the ICS approach will lag far behind, due to the 600% increased cost.
I will check some of my previous MP game saves tomorrow, and see if I can spot which turn I typically get a couple of these techs you asked about.
OK, I checked a couple of games at turn 80.
On my AKI game, I have 30 total advances, and making a new advance every 3 turns.
On my University game, I have 35 advances, also making a new advance every 3 turns.
In both cases, the techs include:
MMI, and everything leading to it.
Bio-Engineering, and everything leading to it.
Environmental Economics, and everything leading to it.
Fusion Power, and everything leading to it.
These account for the first 30 techs researched.
Additionally, University has:
Orbital Spaceflight
Organic Superlubricant
Adavanced Spaceflight
Superstring Theory
Silksteel Alloys
When I obtain Supertensile Solids, I build the Space Elevator right away using a bunch of supply crawlers, and build Hab Domes in all my cities. Then I start cranking out Hydroponic Sats (at half cost due to Space Elevator), while I pop boom all of my cities until they are working every possible square, and the rest of the nutrients are use for specialists. Once I have enough Hydroponic Sats to cover my population, I build the same number of Orbital Power Transmitters. Now every single pop-boom population unit is bringing in an extra food and energy, the energy being multiplied by 200% or so by all of the facilities.
Several times, after this pop boom/sat construction has occured, which generally boost my power graph by 50% or so, the ICS player just concedes. He thinks he is supposed to be way ahead on development right now, only to find that he is far, far behind.
FYI, to pop boom with Aki, put a lot of energy into Psych. The facility multipliers help a lot here. You have to put in enough energy to get at least 50% talents at all bases, and no drones. This triggers a Golden Age, which provides +2 Growth, so that Aki can boom.
To clarify, I am actually talking about SMACX here. Virtually all of my games are SMACX. So there may be some confusion about the tech tree.
With SMACX, Will To Power is not on the beeline to Super Tensile Solids.
I don't consider turns 90-100 to be late game. I consider this mid-game. Of course, if someone concedes, I guess that is end-game. But seriously, the game has typically another 50-100 turns left to reach a final conclusion on a map the size of the Vets map; more on a larger map.
The vast majority of the terraforming is forest; there is no fungus remaining. There are some mines, because I rarely take the trouble to terraform level, and just build mines to crawl for 4 extra minerals. I have one energy field with 8 solar collectors and an echelon mirror in the center, raised to maximum altitude, with 3 energy specials, all being crawled to my HQ. There are some scattered boreholes.
As for labs, at turn 80, AKI is generating 652 with 100% labs.
At turn 80, University is generating 618 with 100% labs (after a -20% penalty).
The population is in large cities with hab complexes which got boomed to around 14. All multiplying facilities allowed by the tech are built in all cities. I didn't want to add up the total population.
I recounted. It takes 27 techs to have MMI, Bioengineering, and Environmental Economics on the SMACX tech tree.
It looks like it takes an additional 7 techs for Fusion Power, for a total of 34. I think I must have missed a branch on Fusion Power the first time. You said you got 32? Do you want to recount and see if you also get 34? Or am I counting a tech twice?
With University, I have 105 votes, spread over 10 cities. Some of the cities are maxed; a few of the more recent cities are waiting for tree farms to cmplete, so that they have enough food to pop boom. With Aki, the population is 98 with 9 cities; again, some cities are waiting for tree farms to boom.
Cash for maintenance typically comes from the facility completion energy bonus. I switch out of 100% labs when I want to gain energy for facility completion from a new tech that I have achieved, such as to build Fusion Labs everywhere.
Drone control starts with building all drone suppressing and psych multiplying facilities, and then converting to specialists on an as needed basis to achieve drone control.
I do stop growing after I hit 14; I am limited to 14 anyway until I get domes, so no point in any more growth. I have mostly forests, but there are a few rainy farms at most bases, and some bases have some food specials. I think most bases have about 3 specialists, and I think about a 175% psych modifier.
The energy is going to come whether I rely on it or not. If I need extra energy, for either maintenance or rapid building, I switch back to 50/50 with Uni, or even to 100% econ with Aki, until I get enough energy. If the bug where somehow patched, then I would just change the balance of time where I allot energy to econ.
As for University stability, I generally switch between 50/50 and 100% labs.
At 100% labs, there is only 20% loss, due to high efficiency from Democracy.
Your count is totally off. To get MMI, Bioengineering, and Environmental Economics requires:
-All tier 1 tech except Prog Psych (7 techs)
-In tier 2, HEC, Secrets of the Human Brain, Planetary Networks, Industrial Economics, Ethical Calculus, and Doctrine: Flexibility (6 techs)
-In tiers 3-4, Gene Splicing, Industrial Automation, Synthetic Fossil Fuels, Neural Grafting, and Ecological Engineering (5 techs)
-In tiers 5-6, Bio-Engineering, Doctrine: Air Power, Environmental Economics, and MMI (4 techs)
For a total of 22.
To get Fusion power as well then requires another 10 techs beyond that: Superconductor, Polymorphic Software, Optical Computers, Adaptive Doctrine, AMA, Doctrine: Loyalty, Intellectual Integrity, Cyberethics, PSA, and Fusion Power. For a total of 32.
Can you verify that the next beeline to Super Tensile Solids is indeed 8 more techs as listed, or if I have missed something?
The 8 techs to Super Tensile Solids are (I believe):
Orbital Spaceflight
Organic Superlubricant
Adavanced Spaceflight
Superstring Theory
Silksteel Alloys
Monopole Magnet
Nanominiturization
Matter Compression
ICS is at its ultimate strength in the endgame, the only limiting factor on your economic capacity at this point is the 1 pop\turn growth limit.
i would like to see your counter example game doing anything similar within 117 turns with any other base placement strategy. :)
A real ICSer will have much more formers and crawlers than i did in this game, i have seen 400+ formers on several occasions, my own games and others. Most or all of those forests between my bases would have been turned into condensors
and when the ICSer can begin pop booming very easily suddenly what is his limitation? Your 25 bases can grow at 25 per turn...his 100 bases(and i have seen 100 bases in MP) can do 100 per turn. And dont think he cant because of nutrients, he has spent the game building that insane fleet of formers so he can cover the world in condensors.
Your cities will NEVER reach their max capacity before the game ends anyway
Imagine a map covered only in condensors and boreholes, and cities in max placement. Can you really exceed the population per tile with a minimalistic base placement style?
Yea I would think the ideal strategy varies a lot by map. A lot of these blazing fast runs are on maps where you're under no military pressure. Therefore you can put everything into economy and growth.
If you're on a smaller map or a land map, then tighter packed bases can be better. You then have a smaller land area to defend.
I've found geographic placement really matters on non-asym maps (which is probably a good argument against random maps).
Personally I feel satellites and Transcend specialists are a little more game-breaking than Condensors.
Though +1 nutrient per Condensor rather than +50% wouldn't be a bad fix.
I feel a better fix would be to make it so Hybrid Forest didn't completely negate the advanced terraforming Eco Damage. Then a base would have to have a mix of Forest, Farm/Solar, Boreholes, and Condensors. No one improvement would really dominate. A second exploit is that crawled tiles don't add Eco Damage...this should probably be nerfed too. At least those are my thoughts.
I think the correct endgame is where technology development and secret projects and facilities make it so that the optimal terraforming is to refungus the entire planet.I'd say it was already the case with Deirdre and Cha - once I have the Assent built, I go WILD with the ecodamge, let Planet turn most of my improvements to fungus, and grow all my bases to 71-73, depending, (and my headquarters/superscience/supermoney base to 127 with some nutrient crawling) while I play out the clock and transcend at the last second.
Toward that end, if we want to tweak some secret projects or anything else so that fungus is the ultimate final terraforming, I am all for a mod to do this. So rather than nerf soil enhancers, let's improve fungus so that by the time you have all technology, there is nothing more effective to do than replant fungus. If that means giving fungus techs or projects +X more food, then great, I think that is the right fix. Because it leads to the right endgame. Maybe what one could do is give certain facilities dual roles, like Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests, so that that they give extra resources to both Forest and fungus. Or tweak the secret projects.
Anyway, does everyone agree that fungus ought to be the ultimate endgame, and agree with the goal to make fungus eventually better than any other terraforming? If you agree with this goal, how do you think it best could be accomplished?
I think the correct endgame is where technology development and secret projects and facilities make it so that the optimal terraforming is to refungus the entire planet.
Toward that end, if we want to tweak some secret projects or anything else so that fungus is the ultimate final terraforming, I am all for a mod to do this. So rather than nerf soil enhancers
One thought I had is what if Manifold Harmonics secret project is tweaked do more with a high planet rating. What if Manifold Harmonics was changed to give:
0 Planet (0,+1, 0)
1 Planet (+1, +1, 0)
2 Planet (+3, +1, +1)
3 Planet (+4, +2, +1)
4+ Planet (+5, +2, +2)
This seems like it would have a minimal impact on most of the game, but would have the desirable effect of making Fungus the ultimate final terraforming goal (after building this project, of course).
Testing would be in order to make sure that wouldn't run a typical base over 127...I think the correct endgame is where technology development and secret projects and facilities make it so that the optimal terraforming is to refungus the entire planet.I'd say it was already the case with Deirdre and Cha - once I have the Assent built, I go WILD with the ecodamge, let Planet turn most of my improvements to fungus, and grow all my bases to 71-73, depending, (and my headquarters/superscience/supermoney base to 127 with some nutrient crawling) while I play out the clock and transcend at the last second.
Toward that end, if we want to tweak some secret projects or anything else so that fungus is the ultimate final terraforming, I am all for a mod to do this. So rather than nerf soil enhancers, let's improve fungus so that by the time you have all technology, there is nothing more effective to do than replant fungus. If that means giving fungus techs or projects +X more food, then great, I think that is the right fix. Because it leads to the right endgame. Maybe what one could do is give certain facilities dual roles, like Tree Farms and Hybrid Forests, so that that they give extra resources to both Forest and fungus. Or tweak the secret projects.
Anyway, does everyone agree that fungus ought to be the ultimate endgame, and agree with the goal to make fungus eventually better than any other terraforming? If you agree with this goal, how do you think it best could be accomplished?
...Some of it is a matter of not having much choice once I've got all the min-boosting SPs. And I just enjoy that red endgame. You can learn to love the fungus...
...Some of it is a matter of not having much choice once I've got all the min-boosting SPs. And I just enjoy that red endgame. You can learn to love the fungus...
...Some of it is a matter of not having much choice once I've got all the min-boosting SPs. And I just enjoy that red endgame. You can learn to love the fungus...
It would be pretty cool if Fungus spread rather than Forest post-Voice. Or if Hybrid Forest actually changed the graphics for your Forests.
It would be pretty cool if Fungus spread rather than Forest post-Voice.
Or if Hybrid Forest actually changed the graphics for your Forests.
Or if Hybrid Forest changed the Forest to behave like fungus once the fungus bonus exceeds the Forest bonus. And maybe at that point, the graphic changes accordingly, showing a red forest with fungus properties.
Not a bad idea, but tough to implement - if the coding was even feasible, which I doubt, I don't think there's enough space in the file where the forest graphic is to insert another version, so it might take some sort of hue-shift by the game, which I doubt it can do.
Yessir; the file in question is texture.pcx, and I could create a draft of a texture2.pcx fairly easily if you like...Actually, if they're all in one file, it might be easier to add another entry if that's possible. I won't know which will work better until I inspect the code, and it's not a high priority. Just know that if you can make the graphics file, I can probably make the .exe use it.
If you really want it, keep it in mind for a request when I start taking them.Can you give a general timeframe for when you will start taking general requests?
QuoteIf you really want it, keep it in mind for a request when I start taking them.Can you give a general timeframe for when you will start taking general requests?
There's this Ascent speedrun won on turn 76 (Transcend difficulty). Not super ICS but most bases stay at size 9
http://www.dos486.com/alpha/ (http://www.dos486.com/alpha/)
Let me also talk a little bit about build density. SMAC is well-known for encouraging ICS strategy, but I'm not going maximum full-blown here. I actually think it's more efficient to give the bases a little room to breathe, about 8 tiles each. The reason for this is buildings, primarily the Children's Creche but also any multiplier facilities. Each building costs the same amount but is worth twice as much in a city twice as big. This network of bases is already working every available land tile at size 7. If I had more bases, they would both need more Creches and not all be able to boom to size 7, for the same total population and output.
Hmm. I can definitely do it - the question is whether you'd rather deal with addressing a new file with the alt. forest in the same position, or have me move a couple of thing to make room for alt. forest in the original. scient told me changing the positioning was definitely doable when I made the negative resource icons, so which would be less trouble is up to you. I won't fool with it until you know which is better/ you want.Yessir; the file in question is texture.pcx, and I could create a draft of a texture2.pcx fairly easily if you like...Actually, if they're all in one file, it might be easier to add another entry if that's possible. I won't know which will work better until I inspect the code, and it's not a high priority. Just know that if you can make the graphics file, I can probably make the .exe use it.
I am by no means an ICS expert, or even advocate (although I do strongly believe in some base overlap), but I think there's one important point that could work in its favor. If things like crawlers and condensers are considered overpowered, what about pop booming? To me, pop booming is *the* most broken aspect of SMAX. And if you took pop booming out of the game then ICS would have a big advantage in faster population growth. Maybe not enough to make up for its drawbacks, but it would certainly make things closer.
Just know that if you can make the graphics file, I can probably make the .exe use it.
That was a very interesting article. There is a quote here that I think is important to why the author (and I) believe that ICS is not optimal.QuoteLet me also talk a little bit about build density. SMAC is well-known for encouraging ICS strategy, but I'm not going maximum full-blown here. I actually think it's more efficient to give the bases a little room to breathe, about 8 tiles each. The reason for this is buildings, primarily the Children's Creche but also any multiplier facilities. Each building costs the same amount but is worth twice as much in a city twice as big. This network of bases is already working every available land tile at size 7. If I had more bases, they would both need more Creches and not all be able to boom to size 7, for the same total population and output.This is exactly the logic I use for why ICS is not so great. I think he missed the point himself a bit. His logic is give the cities twice as much room to expand (8 squares each, verses 4 for ICS), so each facility is effectively twice as valuable. If you extend that, why not double again, give each city 16 squares. His logic was not wanting to building housing structures. I think this is faulty. If you are going to build other structures anyway, what are a couple of housing structures? So I would go further to state that cities ideally are spaced to give each city as much room as possible, so that all ground is covered with a minimum number of city, instead of ICS which uses the maximum number of cities possible in a given area. This minimal cities means the fewest of each structure so that each square worked still gets maximum bonuses.
-The second file option would have the advantage that I could alter some other things to reflect a new status quo, like flecks of green in the fungus. No room to add anything but alt. forest in the original...
Actually, I think there are enough balances to pop-booming already.
Early game, the most you can boom to is 7, until you get Hab Complexes. You probably can't get drone control for size 7 bases all that easily.
Mid game, you can boom up to 14 with the Hab Complexes, but you still have a problem of getting enough nutrients and drone control for this.
Changing crawlers to harvest multiple resources changes all of this. With multi-resource crawlers, you would not have any incentive for actually working a single square of land with a worker. You would just crawl every square on the board. So it would not matter so much how large a city is, since it can still have the same effect as a large city if a lot of crawlers are homed to it.
I don't like the idea of multi-resource crawlers for this reason. It takes away planning for putting cities near important multi-resource square to work them. Otherwise, cities can be anywhere.
Yea and then you could triple-crawl everything to a base with a project like Supercollider / ToE (but I think as mentioned in that article, you get capped out at one tech/turn/city).
On the downside though one supercity can only ever build one unit per turn. So you'd need a few others just for unit production purposes.
I always find Nutrients the harder part to get for Pop-boom than the Drone control. Is there any viable way to really Pop-boom before Tree farms anyways?
I dont really know if this counts as ICS but...
Here is a game i played back in 2005 i found from apolyton. Unfortunately i dont have any pics or savegames from any of the great players\games showing ICS, back in those days it didnt occur to me to save up such things so people in the future could see. I couldnt find his savegame, but a player called archaic achieved the same result as in this game but with a sub 2200 transcend mark. I learned the basic strategy while playing this game out.
You will easily find ways to improve the efficiency of this game if you look through bases and SE so hopefully you can see some potential in this strategy and overlook the poor implementation here.
Boo. Several months late, but someone's just tapped me on the shoulder and let me know this place existed, so I figured I'd drop in and say hi.
Just looked through my old backups. I think the attached 2191 save file might be the one you're looking for, but I'm not certain. Don't currently have SMAC/X installed (haven't been able to find the ol' discs), so I haven't been able to check. The date is May 2004 though, which seems about right. I was transcending around 2213 going by this terraforming thread over a CivGaming (http://www.civgaming.net/forums/showthread.php?t=907&page=5) back in '03.
If this is the right save, I've also got saves every few years from 2124 onwards for this particular game.
You could take a look in the Waterworld MP game. There's two factions (Drones and Technocrats, played by Kataphraktoi and Kirov respectively) that popboomed to the 220ties/440ties population (again, respectively).
Another reason I mention it is that in this game the year counter stopped at 2199
That doesn't look like ICS...you have 2 bases by 2191, and their radii don't even overlap.
In particular, I think you might be interested in how I handle Drones as University. Honestly, I've always found that problem to be a little overblown. I never had any problems maintaining perpetual GA popbooms in Demo/FM/Wealth with 40/20/40 allocation, which honestly ends up a hell of a lot better in the long run than dropping into Planned for a few turns. The economic benefits of GA's are essential to a sub 2200 run.
I've just always viewed ICS as very Hiverian role play wise and that's the way I like to play rather than some mathematically 'best' formula :\ lol. I have a terrible time playing other factions because of that.
Well Yitzi, I do have a possible solution to discouraging ICS.
But first, here is why ICS will always be better then making fewer bases.
1) the ICS player gets faster tech, faster grouth, more units up untill mid game. After that , arguably the player who made more base facilities gains the advantage.
2) #1 is wrong because when you get access to orbial enhancements, all the bases benefit, Sky hydroponics labs make your bases grow, and look at Lazerus's picture, his bases have 14 population! And all that means SPECIALISTS. You see engineers give +3 energy +2 tech(multiplied by base facilities).So when orbital enhancements become available ICS bases start to build.
Also all those bases give near limitless support, and guess who has the bigger army(and probably better due to faster tech)
My solution to this is to invert the base growth nutrient,Let me be more specific
-Small bases grow slow, Large bases grow fast
-so a small base population 1 will take 40 nutrients to get to 2, then 30 to get to 3 , then20 to get to 4, and after population 5 cap at 10 nutrients
-Also if its possible to only allow colony pods to be built at bases with 3 or more population
One of my future plans will allow the population cost of colony pods to be tweaked, so building at 2 population can be made to work the same way as at 1 (i.e. it costs you the base).
-Small bases grow slow, Large bases grow fastThis particular idea i had was not originally intended to counter ICS.I always thought that it didn't make sense that 10k people ---> 20k much faster then 20k ppl--->30k, and that 40k--->50.I mean how much sex do your colonists have Oo? Do they go celibate when the base grows????
-so a small base population 1 will take 40 nutrients to get to 2, then 30 to get to 3 , then20 to get to 4, and after population 5 cap at 10 nutrients
This particular idea i had was not originally intended to counter ICS.I always thought that it didn't make sense that 10k people ---> 20k much faster then 20k ppl--->30k, and that 40k--->50.I mean how much sex do your colonists have Oo? Do they go celibate when the base grows????
-Small bases grow slow, Large bases grow fast
-so a small base population 1 will take 40 nutrients to get to 2, then 30 to get to 3 , then20 to get to 4, and after population 5 cap at 10 nutrients
Quote-Small bases grow slow, Large bases grow fast
-so a small base population 1 will take 40 nutrients to get to 2, then 30 to get to 3 , then20 to get to 4, and after population 5 cap at 10 nutrients
Hey, umm, can you help me make this happen in my own games? I've read the whole Alpha.txt i can't change it from there. Or, if its not too much trouble, make this an option in your future patch?
not sure how the equation would be, my maths is a little rusty, and my programming skills are non existent :(
One idea would be to take a page from Civ2's book and give larger cities an FOP boost on the base tile. Satellites kind of do this anyways I realize, and there's a decent ramping up of N in the midgame (Tree Farm, Aquafarm, Condensor) also. With raising out I modded FOP from terraforming a lot, and am now playing around with no resource caps, and condensor available from the start of game. Taking out crawlers makes WP very strong, and something I've been trying to mod around. Probably a cost increase to WP is the only really good fix.
Sparta struck me as more suited to ICS due to +1 POLICE. In PS that's +3 POLICE for much cheaper control than other factions.
There should be choice between Boom (vertical) and ICS (horizontal) pop growth.
Specialists also play a big role, as they aren't hampered by EFFIC, stronger specialists tend to favor ICS.
That size 16 takes a lot of tech whereas 4 doesn't.Ethical Calculus, Industrial Automation, Doctrine: Flexibility.
QuoteThat size 16 takes a lot of tech whereas 4 doesn't.Ethical Calculus, Industrial Automation, Doctrine: Flexibility.
Not a lot by any measure.
Spartan +1 police is nothing compared to Hive's +2 police, +2 support, +1 industry, +1 growth.
And they have -1 industry on top of that.
Try ICSing with Sparta and see. :)
Best ICS-ers are Hive and Morgan in that order, because both are basically forced to ICS.
For some, such as Spartans, ICS is a really bad idea, provided you are playing against a competent Hive or Morgan ICS-er.
Talking about efficiency, keep in mind that low efficiency means more base number "hard" drones, which hurts ICS.
Boomers will also always build the Children's Creche, which raises efficiency by 1.
Wait, shouldn't that third one be Planetary Networks?To get past the first pop limit, you need Hab domes, which come from IA.
And of course if you actually want reasonable drone control, that adds quite a bit more.Not really.
Spartans can run Police State as well, you know.
And Hive's -2 ECONOMY may be worse for ICS (since it's a per-base penalty) than the Spartans' -1 INDUSTRY.Early game ICS is mostly about industry.
I don't think Hive has to ICS, though it's probably the best at it.This depends on background.
As for Morgan, he actually probably shouldn't ICS, because the commerce bonus is far more useful when it's working off two sizable bases per pair instead of just one, and it's not like he's going to be making heavy use of police or free support anyway, and he needs multiplier facilities. (Yes, I know, he can run Wealth/FM for +4 energy per base as opposed to other factions' +2...but if played as ;morgan; should be, that will be much less significant than the extra commerce. Morgan running FM/wealth has +4 energy per base, or +1 per square at maximum density. But he also gets +5 commerce rating, which with midgame techs translates, with a treaty and no global trade pact, to commerce equal to ~8.9% of the energy income (excluding specialists) of both cities. So if there is a global trade pact, with two treaty partners and two pact siblings, Morgan's boosts from commerce can be more than 2/3 of his total energy income.)My logic behind "forced" was that he has so little pop limit that, in order to use the available land efficiently, he has to put a lot of small bases.
Spartans playing ICS probably isn't such a bad idea; the key, though, is that they need to remember that the goal of ICS isn't for a builder game, but to give the support for a sizable army. If I were playing Spartan ICS, I'd make sure to grab the Command Nexus at all costs, get key military techs, then use my large number of bases to allow a switch to Fundamentalism for instant elite units (with that +1 movement) to overrun the enemy before they can get going.Yes, this is a valid strategy, but it is also circumstantial:
To put it another way: Spartan ICS is all about synergy with rushing.
Thus, strong specialists make low efficiency builds stronger, and therefore ICS becomes weaker.Yes, you're right. I seem to have misread the original comment.
A few other ways to control Boom vs ICS would be the moddable support divisor (higher SUP costs favors ICS)My thinking is that if it's going to be changed, add in some extra early game bonuses for booming which change as little as possible if you are not their target audience (like, not booming or at least not early game booming).
And also the much more impactful free minerals per base and colony pod costs and infantry cost. Stronger/cheaper recycle tanks would also favor ICS
If you're going pure ICS then the low EFFIC causing B-drones doesn't matter. The only drone control you'll have is from police units and perhaps punishment spheres (though default Punishment Spheres are overcosted versus Clean Police). So that's why Sparta benefits as they get +3 POLICE easier than other factions. With -1 IND you need to save any minerals possible.
A few other ways to control Boom vs ICS would be the moddable support divisor (higher SUP costs favors ICS)
And also the much more impactful free minerals per base and colony pod costs and infantry cost. Stronger/cheaper recycle tanks would also favor ICS
there could easily be too many drones for even police to handleDidn't police count as "hard" drone control, counting even B-Drones as a single drone?
Quotethere could easily be too many drones for even police to handleDidn't police count as "hard" drone control, counting even B-Drones as a single drone?
Does anyone know of a good symmetrical SMAC map?
I wanted to try comparing Hive and Spartans @ ICS, but on my Planet Map start Spartans got excellent location and some really good early pod pops while Hive ended up next to Believers.
I guess I should disable pods entirely, but that really takes a lot away from game. :(
If you aren't using their MORALE then you are falling behind.
The difference between industry and morale is that industry can be used all of the time, while morale - only when you are attacking.
Depending on the "crowdedness" of map morale will be either better or worse.
On huge maps with lots of fungus (movement/settlement impediment) most likely worse.
I'm pretty sure that B drones are capped at base size no matter what drones flag you use.
In my FFA games I started to find that extreme aggression wasn't that worth it. My reasoning was that since your economy doubles around every 20 turns in SMAC, if you don't conquer that same sized enemy in 20 turns then you're actually behind.
I boosted Fundamentalism in my SE set accordingly. I felt like it wasn't tempting enough to switch out of Police State for an ICS player (arguably, a little more worth it for a builder from Democracy).
Well, if you don't put 100% into military units for a war then you tend to lose to players that do. Total war doctrine is pretty common in SMAC. The game tends to be going from one extreme to another (builder/momentum) depending on pressure from other players. However I would say there can be cold war type scenarios involving tech probing where neither side wants to break Pact due to the commerce benefits. That would be more of the in-between scenario.