SMACX Thinker Mod

[JoGr223]

"Add ability to generate mirrored maps along X/Y axis to guarantee balanced starting positions." that will be nice !
would it be also possible to create 7 position mirror ? this way you could really benchmark easily how strong AI performs with each faction

for island maps it's actually easy to do manually, but maps won't be very varied if u won't put much effort into it

Alpha Centauri Bear: you asked before - you can find mirrored 4 player map called veterans here:
https://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=24

i wonder if it was made manually or maybe some program already was created for this map; if manually it looks liks 30h+ of work

[dino]

Air force is OP mostly because of att/def ratio that in all circumstances necessites to maximise the amount of engagements where you are attacker on a tactical level. Once you buff defense a bit and take away collateral, Air force becomes mobile allowing an easy mass strike within range, but economically suboptimal compared to slow land forces in terms of damage it can practically inflict compared to its mineral cost.

[JoGr223]

Air force is OP mostly because of att/def ratio that in all circumstances necessites to maximise the amount of engagements where you are the attacker on a tactical level. Once you buff defense a bit and take away collateral, Air force becomes mobile allowing an easy mass strike within range, but economically suboptimal compared to slow land forces in terms of damage it can practically inflict compared to its mineral cost.

wrong, u can buff ur armour 3x or so, air is still op: i'll obliterate in few rounds every terraformed square you have in vicinity with the cheapest planes; and say goodbye to nearby formers and crawlers; also i'll use these cheapest planes on the same square where my land units are, so that my land units are immune (cause ur land units cant attack fields that are occupied by both enemy land and air units)

[dino]

You mean all enchancements within flying range ? Anyway with buffed defence and no collateral land force could not only flood territory and destroy enchancements, but also occupy the tiles permanently, if they wouldn't be capable of taking over the bases, while air superiority uints would make a short work of your defensive wall of suspended in the air jets.

You've just nailed down solution to the puzzle called unbalanced vanilla SMAC combat and don't want to consider possibility of something different.

[Induktio]

Okay, Feb 4 develop build  is now available from project website. This version changes the following things. Other changes have to wait for now.

* Remove Fossil Field Ridge from smac-in-smacx maps.
* Fix probe units and crawlers sometimes being given incorrect move orders.
* Add first version of X/Y map mirroring. This must be enabled separately from ALT+T menu.
* All landmarks will be disabled if the generated map is mirrored. It's somewhat hard to implement otherwise. Also faction placement doesn't mirror the start positions yet, haven't decided how to implement it yet.
* Another consideration: should the new map generator include some toggle to select if the map should have polar caps? Now they are always added, but in vanilla map generator it varies, maybe randomly.

even if we don't know exactly what the optimal strategy is in this game, theoretically it is still there

you might not know it but I know it v.well its basically play FM faction and go FM->wealth->crawlers->PTS->ICS->race for top early eco SPs (HGP,WP,PEG,AV)->restrictions->boreholes->air->kill all with air
this is vs AI which is weak opponent

I find this snarkiness really uncalled for. Furthermore I'm not sure if you understand the definitions I was using there. You can't assume any weak opponent with Nash equilibrium strategy because it by definition assumes only the strongest possible opponent and plays accordingly. When exploiting specifically weak opponents, it opens one's own play to counter-exploitation, and this diverges from Nash equilibrium. Something similar would be mentioned near the end of the vimeo talk I pasted. And no, you don't have to log in to view it, just use the download link to download the file instead.

[JoGr223]

even if we don't know exactly what the optimal strategy is in this game, theoretically it is still there

you might not know it but I know it v.well

I find this snarkiness really uncalled for.

no snarkiness, I really think that; I'm handing u the best strategy on golden plate and you think it's snarkiness 

Furthermore I'm not sure if you understand the definitions I was using there. You can't assume any weak opponent with Nash equilibrium strategy because it by definition assumes only the strongest possible opponent and plays accordingly. When exploiting specifically weak opponents, it opens one's own play to counter-exploitation, and this diverges from Nash equilibrium. Something similar would be mentioned near the end of the vimeo talk I pasted.

why you focus on this line on "vs AI" that I said ? as just the next lines in my post I consider scenario of "strongest opponent"

You can't assume any weak opponent with Nash equilibrium strategy

obviously I don't; my post is not in anyway referring to what you said about Nash

[dino]

Aren't you bored with taking advantage of the same quirky exploits for years ?

This discussion made me only realise how much SMAC ruleset unbalance limits viable gameplay options.
In particullar many strategies that could provide a sense of versimilitude to the gameplay experience.

[Buster's Uncle]

I don't want to step on vigorous debate, but y'all try to show each other some respect, okay?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

My main point would be that even if we don't know exactly what the optimal strategy is in this game, theoretically it is still there, e.g. there's at least some Nash equilibrium optimal strategy. As an analogue, we can look into how other finite, zero-sum, two-player, imperfect information games like poker have been solved.

I know game theory that proves there always is a weighted strategy equilibrium in any competitive game. I don't think anyone is arguing about that. What good does it give us knowing it is there but know knowing the answer? How does it help us converse, support our opinions, propose modification to game features, etc.?
When we don't have exact knowledge we naturally fall back to inexact one or subjective - whatever you call it. It is still better to have that than nothing. All claimed in this forum are based on subjective knowledge. User poll may sound stupid from mathematical point of view but it the best tool we have in absence of exact mathematical knowledge.

On another note, I have to also mention this talk by Sid Meier where he explains how they designed the combat system in Civilization to adapt to player expectations. It's quite hilarious to listen to since he explains how players tend to perceive "big strength number vs. small number" battles as something where they're always supposed to win. It seems obvious some similar kind of reasoning was also used in the design of Alpha Centauri combat system.

That is known modern thread too but again, as someone already clearly pointed out before, we are not the major target audience for these games. That's why we are modifying them to our liking!!! There is no point to resort to what designer planned for it.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

note this is not optimal proposition of rebalance, but quickest one for myself to implement; just things that need to be nerfed
more optimal especially in the air aspect is like:
move needler tech 3 levels up and copter 4-5lvls on tech tree, while hovertanks 3 levels down so they appear before air + move air superiority ability to earlier tech than air tech + then needler/copter chassis cost only ~1,5-2x

Not to push or advertise my opinion on that but there are a lot of similar discussions in early-mid WTP forum. Other people expressing their view on similar OP issues. You may tons of useful input and reasoning for your thoughts as well.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Air force is OP mostly because of att/def ratio that in all circumstances necessites to maximise the amount of engagements where you are the attacker on a tactical level. Once you buff defense a bit and take away collateral, Air force becomes mobile allowing an easy mass strike within range, but economically suboptimal compared to slow land forces in terms of damage it can practically inflict compared to its mineral cost.

wrong, u can buff ur armour 3x or so, air is still op: i'll obliterate in few rounds every terraformed square you have in vicinity with the cheapest planes; and say goodbye to nearby formers and crawlers; also i'll use these cheapest planes on the same square where my land units are, so that my land units are immune (cause ur land units cant attack fields that are occupied by both enemy land and air units)

Not if you equip formers and crawlers near front line with contemporary AAA armor. It does cost some to defender but it does cost more to attacker to wipe them out. Still defensive response is cheaper. Another option is to employ tons of interceptors protecting these workers. Interceptors are even more economically cheaper than air attackers. Either way proper defense is more effective than stupid frontal assault.

Not that it comes to mind of any human player as we all are spoiled with stupid AI incapable of defending against hordes of human player needlejets. When you start playing Thinker/WTP these different strategies do start coming to mind.


Here is dino saying about the same thing. Sorry, I didn't get to his answer until I responded to yours.

You mean all enchancements within flying range ? Anyway with buffed defence and no collateral land force could not only flood territory and destroy enchancements, but also occupy the tiles permanently, if they wouldn't be capable of taking over the bases, while air superiority uints would make a short work of your defensive wall of suspended in the air jets.

You've just nailed down solution to the puzzle called unbalanced vanilla SMAC combat and don't want to consider possibility of something different.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

I don't want to step on vigorous debate, but y'all try to show each other some respect, okay?

I don't think we yet crossed the line of disrespect. There is a lot of misunderstanding for sure but we are trying to understand each other to the best we can. At least I believe so.

[EmpathCrawler]

* Another consideration: should the new map generator include some toggle to select if the map should have polar caps? Now they are always added, but in vanilla map generator it varies, maybe randomly.

I think that'd be nice. It feels cheap that I can often continent-hop around the icecap if I don't restrain myself. No landmass on the canonical map touches the map edges, but the map generator seems to connect to them quite a bit.

Woo hoo on the landmark fix!

I humbly submit a feature request: Is it easy to add keyboard shortcuts to the UI? I've been using an AutoHotkey script to get around the total lack of build queue shortcuts for ages. I can send you the script if you're interested in what I'm doing.

By the way, I only just discovered how you set the partial hurry payment value to the correct amount minus 1 turn of mineral productions... Can't believe I've missed it for this long!

[DrazharLn]

My main point would be that even if we don't know exactly what the optimal strategy is in this game, theoretically it is still there, e.g. there's at least some Nash equilibrium optimal strategy. As an analogue, we can look into how other finite, zero-sum, two-player, imperfect information games like poker have been solved.

What do you mean by a "Nash equilibrium optimal strategy"? Do you mean a dominant strategy (one that is best for you regardless of what your opponents choose to do)? Why do you think SMAC has such a strategy? Many games do not have a dominant strategy (e.g. Rock Paper Scissors has no dominant strategy because the best strategy depends on what your opponent does).

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

* Another consideration: should the new map generator include some toggle to select if the map should have polar caps? Now they are always added, but in vanilla map generator it varies, maybe randomly.

I think that'd be nice. It feels cheap that I can often continent-hop around the icecap if I don't restrain myself. No landmass on the canonical map touches the map edges, but the map generator seems to connect to them quite a bit.

I think continents should not connect by polar caps. Polar tile touches three not polar tiles and it should reflect the prevalent realm it touches (land/water). There should not be chain of polar land tiles connected just to each other. Same is true for water but I never saw it.

The game places region number on each tile to mark land/water mass. Stupidly enough all polar tiles on both sides have fixed constant polar region number even if they are touching other regions and even if they are themselves on the opposite poles! Ugh. Game design.

Even better option would be to not even take polar regions into account. Make consistent land polar caps all over the poles but make sure the do not connect any landmass. So that all landmasses are surrounded by water.