\That was excellent, disproving your own point.
...but no one has done anything close to that to my knowledge since Roger Damon's Wargame Construction Set. And, those tools were lackluster even on an ancient system like the Commodore 64.
But to tell you the truth, If I was to make AC2, I'd get rid of the factions feature. Select ideologies or aspects of ideologies over the course of the game.
But to tell you the truth, If I was to make AC2, I'd get rid of the factions feature. Select ideologies or aspects of ideologies over the course of the game.
If you were talking Civilization, I'd actually agree with you, but I think the factions, and the personalities therein is one of the best things of AC.
If you were talking Civilization, I'd actually agree with you, but I think the factions, and the personalities therein is one of the best things of AC.Also the least likely thing to be made decently. Imperium! Bet you that has a whole lot of thought behind it!
Hopefully, when they get multiplayer working, the game will be more interesting, due to the variety of strategy that human players can bring to the game.I appreciate your report, but I don't really believe that multiplayer by itself would make it purchasable. Without a sociological aspect, preferably more developed than AC, it's just a weak (and at the moment, ai-less) civ-styled wargame, unlike, say, the AOW series, which is a good civ(master of magic...)-like wargame. One can do the whole rock-paper-scissors thing better elsewhere, and if you want flavor, AOW campaign, at least, has more RPG aspects and story-depth than many CRPGs. Alpha Centauri is notable for it's sociological aspects. I hope that you forum-goers can convince them to make their priority the improvement of AI, or at least it's modability, and ensure modability overall so that someone else can make their game.
They probably realized they aren't sci-fi buffs.
They didn't, they're programmers paid by a company that makes generically named wargames.
Other designers would not have been able to make as intelligent factions. The expansion cybernetics faction is a failure; the negative growth makes it a bunk faction. The expansion also tried to include an industrialistic democratic socialist faction, but mostly it just ends up spamming synthemetals unless it gets a lucky position.
Angels is pointless, it's function easily replaceable by believers and morganites
You mean have a lot of games with people and AI playing different factions on a wide scale of maps, and see how the various factions do on each sort of map with various players? That would work, but would take a lot of playing to get a decent sample size if we don't make use of already-existing data...Yes, exactly that. :) I think the process of playing and making the ranking will be very interesting. And it can be sort of continuous process.
And even there, you forgot to list a few other important factors that affect faction strength, such as difficulty level, and the features (faction, player skill, player playstyle, and difficulty level) of the other factions in the game.Yes, these factors too. Difficulty level would be stressed on transcend. I have impression most people quickly migrates to the highest level, if they are going to play SMACX longer.
Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend. ;)You mean, you always win on transcend?
Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend. ;)
Don't think I ever won a game at Transcend. ;)You mean, you always win on transcend?
4. librarian
5. thinker
I played Citizen, Specialist, and Talent once each, then went to Librarian for a long time during which I tried Thinker a few times, Transcend once. I've deicided I'll always be a Librarian. That's okay; I'm always playing new factions or maps or some rules adjustment somewhere.