SMAX - The Will to Power - mod

[Nevill]

Thank you. That was some quick work. Will test.
The forum ate my reply, so I'll not be going into details as retyping is a pain.

Need more elaboration on that. Are you talking about unit pricing OR weapon/armor value progression?

The latter.

I beg you pardon. I have not introduced any de-specialization in WTP. It is all SMACX custom design philosophy you are blaming! Where, on Earth Alpha Centauri you saw *any* specialized unit? I cannot even think how you envisioned such specialization to be possible with the design workshop. 😲
Please enlighten me.

WtP gives +50% for base defense and +50% territory out of the box. I believe the modifiers should only go that high with specialized units, i.e. units with special abilities.

You haven't removed them, but I'd like to see them utilized more often. That's why I increase the need for them while lowering the costs.

It was +1 row before. Then with base former cost decreased to 2 I counted 50% cost increase too excessive. Can return back if you believe it is important ability for some dedicated fungus removal units.

I am a fan of your "do it yourself" approach. I like the customization. If you think it's best to make them free, so be it. Fungus is twice as hard to remove in my mod, so getting x2 efficiency for x1.5 cost is a bargain.

That is probably possible but I don't understand why flat cost should be at all involved when you are talking weapon and armor values. It won't scale.

I like the idea of SA units being slightly higher in cost than vanilla ones. I like the idea of defensive units being cheap. That's why I wanted -1 mod back. But not all SA are worth paying 25% or 50% for. They don't need to scale.

That was the idea behind flat costs, no? I just want to apply the same logic, "free for defensive units, not free for attackers, cheaper for balanced".

This feature is me pushing my luck. If it's too much work, just ignore my musings.

That all probably can be introduced too.

You mean, reintroduced? It's the old "-4" value.
It would scale poorly with air chassis (x3 times the cost for jets?), so I'd probably use it with land units only.

For example, Deep Radar cost 1 for land units. This essentially denies radar to land units. What significant difference does it make? Human doesn't see AI units in fungus 2 tiles away? I cannot even formulate how specifically this may tilt the strategy. Even less define the magnitude of such changes.

...I was actually considering making AAA cost 1 for land units. Have you ever seen AAA put on planes? And ships get completely outclassed when jets take to the field.

Don't know if it would help, but it's worth a try.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Need more elaboration on that. Are you talking about unit pricing OR weapon/armor value progression?

The latter.

That essentially makes contemporary defense proportionally weaker. Are you sure it won't tilt current balance? Even with 1:1 ratio Tayta can chew through AI defense.

I beg you pardon. I have not introduced any de-specialization in WTP. It is all SMACX custom design philosophy you are blaming! Where, on Earth Alpha Centauri you saw *any* specialized unit? I cannot even think how you envisioned such specialization to be possible with the design workshop. 😲
Please enlighten me.

WtP gives +50% for base defense and +50% territory out of the box. I believe the modifiers should only go that high with specialized units, i.e. units with special abilities.

You haven't removed them, but I'd like to see them utilized more often. That's why I increase the need for them while lowering the costs.

Still don't see what base defense (which is even a vanilla feature) of territory bonus (which resembles vanilla sensor) have anything to do with unit specialization. They all could evolve and be modified independently.

Also your specialization paradigm is very vague. I may comprehend the idea but need some concrete SMACS example. The "some unit have defense bonus" specialization is already there. It is called stronger armor.

That was the idea behind flat costs, no? I just want to apply the same logic, "free for defensive units, not free for attackers, cheaper for balanced".

The flat cost is for flat things not scaling themselves with weapon and armor. Like Psi combat bonus. Whatever other multipliers directly dependent on weapon and armor should naturally be proportional.

I can add it too - no problems. Not all negative number are exhausted yet. But you said it yourself. Out of these 7 negative values probably just one is used ever. Is there a point in them at all?

That all probably can be introduced too.

You mean, reintroduced? It's the old "-4" value.

Then it is already there. I've incorporated all negative ability costs from alphax.txt.

For example, Deep Radar cost 1 for land units. This essentially denies radar to land units. What significant difference does it make? Human doesn't see AI units in fungus 2 tiles away? I cannot even formulate how specifically this may tilt the strategy. Even less define the magnitude of such changes.

...I was actually considering making AAA cost 1 for land units. Have you ever seen AAA put on planes? And ships get completely outclassed when jets take to the field.

Don't know if it would help, but it's worth a try.

AAA is not allowed for air units. Obviously. So you can just make it cost 1 in general.
Why ships are outclassed? They are about the same defense value for same price. And you can add AAA on them for fraction of the cost.

[bvanevery]

Details the mighty fungicidal gun foil

the mighty fungicidal gun foil

Version 163.  MY 2203.  This city recently produced a Transport, and then was trying to produce a Sea Colony Pod.  I've been shelling it with my ship since forever, and I shelled it again this turn.  It switched production to the Fungicidal Gun Foil.  What's up with that?  It's a bug I've seen in the stock binary on occasion, Fungicidal Tanks being put on things that shouldn't have them.

MY 2204.  That ship killed my Gatling Plasma Foil.  How the heck did it do that??  It only took 30% damage.  That main armament is pretty seriously bugged.

MY 2206.  I see another such ship crawling around, about to attack one of my sea bases.  Maybe the Gun Foil design has been weirdly upgraded?

MY 2207.  It attacked one of my Synthmetal armored Fungicidal Fusion Sea Formers.  It did 20% damage and died.  So, I guess having my own Fungicidal Tanks wins the exchange?

Same year, my newly minted Chaos Skimship fried the crap out of the other unit that killed my older ship.  It's now rushing another one to try to shoot me next year.  Well it really shouldn't be able to win an artillery duel with me.  I have Synth armor, so I wouldn't expect it to be able to win on a direct assault either.

MY 2209.  It was finally built and attacked.  It died without inflicting a scratch.  I don't know how to explain that earlier victory against my lesser unit.

[bvanevery]

Details aquatic

aquatic

MY 2221.  At 2:45 AM I've lost faith in this exercise.  Nothing is especially wrong with my position, it's viable.  But the world is full of spam.  Nobody really fights.  I spend all my time trying to get the most basic infrastructure together for my cities.  I think the accident of my research sequence may have led to gross inefficiencies.  I just kept the Pirates' default research options, whereas I think beelining for the Recycling Tank and the Children's Creche is probably optimal.  The Caretakers have moved halfway up the peninsula, which is still not worth colonizing because it's hard enough to hold my existing empire together.

The game slows down between turns, and that's annoying.  I'm not sure how slow, probably not so much, but it makes one aware of the game just dragging on.  It's all micro about building up facilities, and no action.

[Tayta Malikai]

Thanks a lot for re-implementing the various special costs for abilities. I was really missing those in the WtPized versions of Nevill's mod; most of them don't see a lot of use, but they have their niche. One step closer to being the best mod we mod into another mod.

Need more elaboration on that. Are you talking about unit pricing OR weapon/armor value progression?

The latter.

That essentially makes contemporary defense proportionally weaker. Are you sure it won't tilt current balance? Even with 1:1 ratio Tayta can chew through AI defense.

It's not really a 1:1 ratio, though. For one thing, my best weapon is 8 and the AI's best defense is currently 6 - and far from all their defenders have that much armour. Since it's trivial to get infiltration on AIs (seriously, just ask Nevill how much struggle it was to infiltrate each other in our games, and how it usually ended up costing me the game), I can easily target bases with weak defenders: the AI can't garrison them all, or preempt my strike*. Then I have artillery to soften them up: I find 3 is enough to make sure every defender gets hit at least once. Finally, I have infantry riding APCs into battle, which allows them to make full use of their +25% against bases (as opposed to rovers, which receive minus 25% on top of being more expensive). So the odds are somewhat more in my favour than a simple weapon vs armour comparison would suggest.

Frankly, I don't think any amount of symmetrical defense buffs will allow the AI to withstand a combined arms attack like this. Even if they can no-sell an offensive, they can't really attack back.

I'd have to dig up the screenshots, but remind me to show you the last duel I had with Nevill (my Morganites vs his Peacekeepers). Essentially, I built bunkers in rocky terrain and held him off for over a decade with the combined +50% (rocky) + 50% (bunker) + 25% (sensor) + 25% (territory) bonuses. Since probes don't allow bypassing ZOC anymore, he had little choice but to deal with them the hard way. In the end, he broke through because I didn't build enough counter-artillery batteries, couldn't figure out how to actually get rid of his stack of death so I could get a breather, and made one careless move that let him bribe a single defender in its bunker (traitors compromising defenses, a tale as old as time).

*Actually, that was something else I wanted to mention. In my past few games with WtP (modded or otherwise), the AI has been curiously unwilling to attack bases of mine that have at least somewhat decent defenses (e.g. a 2-defense unit, possibly with ECM or behind a Perimeter). It makes it rather easy to guard chokepoints against even superior numbers, and leaves their units easy pickings for me since they mill about uselessly outside the base. A base with a 4-defense unit might as well be invulnerable as far as the AI is currently concerned.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

as opposed to rovers, which receive minus 25% on top of being more expensive

Eh? Vanilla didn't have any penalties for base attack.

Frankly, I don't think any amount of symmetrical defense buffs will allow the AI to withstand a combined arms attack like this. Even if they can no-sell an offensive, they can't really attack back.

That is an old war tricks: force concentration against weak spot. AI cannot do that nor counter it.

*Actually, that was something else I wanted to mention. In my past few games with WtP (modded or otherwise), the AI has been curiously unwilling to attack bases of mine that have at least somewhat decent defenses (e.g. a 2-defense unit, possibly with ECM or behind a Perimeter). It makes it rather easy to guard chokepoints against even superior numbers, and leaves their units easy pickings for me since they mill about uselessly outside the base. A base with a 4-defense unit might as well be invulnerable as far as the AI is currently concerned.

Guys, tuning an AI is a huge and endless work. It is like writing a chess program capable to beat the world champions. The only difference is that SMACX is much more difficult to handle since it is brand new game not thoroughly analyzed in tons of books yet.

Thinker did noticeable work on that: a few steps on the path. WTP added some more steps, etc. It will never be perfect. Recently I've tilted it toward expansion trying to mimic human strategy. It did well acquiring more economic power quickly but reduced amount of early conflicts, obviously. I think it is good as early conflicts just slow down the expansion and let others (human) grow stronger. Yet it could be toned down slightly if people think it is a mistake. I have also added some defense focus so that it would not be big empires with absolutely empty bases easy to conquer. You tell me if AI succeeds in it.

Besides, it is all single turn single unit heuristic. No  multi turn strategy, no unit coordination, no plans. Teaching AI to fight properly would be very difficult.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Re: APC.

Aren't they considered an exploit? I understand the infantry base attack bonus is given in compensation of it incurring hasty penalty every now and then which is obviously eliminated by using APC. Should we remove infantry base bonus? They are already balanced enough by their price.
I mean: either this or APC. One should go.

I also don't see much use for "mobile in open" bonus. Mobile unit already has benefit of their mobility. Meaning it will be attacking enemy infantry twice more often. It seems like pure lore introduced bonus just to add more "realistic" elements in the game. Same as attacking along the road, artillery altitude bonus, etc. I believe they all just clutter the tactics and complicate computations which is, as always, benefits human only. Simple rules let AI heuristic survive.

[bvanevery]

Should we remove infantry base bonus?

Yes you should.  I did.  People will still use infantry because they are cheaper.  Also they are not subject to ECM penalty.

Thinker mod AI can move units around in APCs?  If it can, we'll that's new, and an accomplishment.  If it can't, then APCs shouldn't be allowed / provided.  I don't offer predefined APC units for anyone to contemplate, because the AI doesn't know what to do with them.

You should still get rid of the infantry on bases attack bonus.

[bvanevery]

I also don't see much use for "mobile in open" bonus. Mobile unit already has benefit of their mobility. Meaning it will be attacking enemy infantry twice more often.

Actually in the field, what will really happen is the mobile unit will start at a range that infantry can't get to it, move 1 square, and attack once.  It's not more attacks, it's better attacks.

It seems like pure lore introduced bonus just to add more "realistic" elements in the game. Same as attacking along the road,

Even the original game doesn't activate this bonus.

artillery altitude bonus, etc.

I got rid of it.  I wasn't a big fan of artillery units on shore, having an inherent advantage over units at sea.  I mean, tell that to the Americans doing battleship bombardment of the Japanese in WW II.  It should be about size of guns, not land being somehow magical.  The final straw was when I noticed the bonus was being applied to Ocean Shelf attacking Deep Ocean.  It's the same ocean, you're both on top of it!  That's a bug and it had to go.

I believe they all just clutter the tactics and complicate computations which is, as always, benefits human only. Simple rules let AI heuristic survive.

Very likely true.  Unless the obscura of the equation happens to benefit the AI and not the human in some weird way.  I'd always vote for simpler rules when planning an AI.  When I finally figure out what my commercial effort is going to be, most of this "facilities chrome" is going bye-bye.  The AI isn't going to sit around figuring out how to smallpox or 20 production steps to getting a viable base together.  It's gonna fight, and that problem is hard enough.

[bvanevery]

Besides, it is all single turn single unit heuristic. No  multi turn strategy, no unit coordination, no plans. Teaching AI to fight properly would be very difficult.

Needs an entirely new game with a sane rules basis for doing the AI cogitation.  A lot of work, and a difficult problem to monetize.  I'm crazy enough to try.  My 'monetization' is living out of my car.

[Nevill]

Recently I've tilted it toward expansion trying to mimic human strategy. It did well acquiring more economic power quickly but reduced amount of early conflicts, obviously. I think it is good as early conflicts just slow down the expansion and let others (human) grow stronger. Yet it could be toned down slightly if people think it is a mistake. I have also added some defense focus so that it would not be big empires with absolutely empty bases easy to conquer. You tell me if AI succeeds in it.

Not really. They expand really well now, but can't seem to defend their holdings. Currently I am in a game with Yang who only builds scouts and colony pods despite having access to very cheap Plasma armor. Aggressive factions should have some standing army, at least.

Aren't they considered an exploit? I understand the infantry base attack bonus is given in compensation of it incurring hasty penalty every now and then which is obviously eliminated by using APC. Should we remove infantry base bonus? They are already balanced enough by their price.
I mean: either this or APC. One should go.

I also don't see much use for "mobile in open" bonus. Mobile unit already has benefit of their mobility. Meaning it will be attacking enemy infantry twice more often.

APCs make infantry not so cheap, demand support, and there is rarely enough of them in one place. They are a strategic asset to augment the offensive, not a brute force solution.

The base bonus, I am less sure about. In vanilla game rovers completely dominated the field, because of their mobility advantage and armor/defensive techs being so pathetic no one bothered with them.

Now, introduce some armor, and maybe "mobile in the rough" penalties, and they become a situational unit instead of a go-to all-purpose solution, and the infantry may still have a niche even with the base bonus removed.

"Mobile in the open" bonus is best left alone. With more armor in play the rovers can only attack once before they are damaged and have to be towed back, and they can't penetrate defensive terrain as well as infantry could. However, they can protect open ground, necessitating the opponent to use rough terrain to navigate the map instead of just bulldozing straight through it.

AI not being able to make use of complex features is not reason enough to remove those features, because humans tend to enjoy reasonable complexity.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Should we remove infantry base bonus?

Yes you should.  I did.  People will still use infantry because they are cheaper.  Also they are not subject to ECM penalty.

Thinker mod AI can move units around in APCs?  If it can, we'll that's new, and an accomplishment.  If it can't, then APCs shouldn't be allowed / provided.  I don't offer predefined APC units for anyone to contemplate, because the AI doesn't know what to do with them.

You should still get rid of the infantry on bases attack bonus.

Exactly. Unit proportional economical advantage is defined by their cost. There is no need messing with base attack/defense bonuses as they are quite finely tuned already. I am going to do it right now.

APC = ground transport. Troop Transport is just a module that could be slapped on any chassis even needlejet. That was already there in vanilla.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Currently I am in a game with Yang who only builds scouts and colony pods despite having access to very cheap Plasma armor. Aggressive factions should have some standing army, at least.

I never could understand why everybody thinks Yang is aggressive with its GROWTH (!) and INDUSTRY (!) bonuses as well as its free Perimeter Defense (!). It is a well protected economical paradise - an opposite of an aggressive faction that conquer to survive.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

25% (sensor) + 25% (territory) bonuses.

Just collecting feedback on that. Do you find sensor bonus a better replacement for territory bonus? In my mind they are fragile and they also not inherent - require some efforts. Moreover, sensor is incompatible with second level improvement so may be difficult to find a good spot for.

[bvanevery]

Moreover, sensor is incompatible with second level improvement so may be difficult to find a good spot for.

Not a valid objection.  You have to make your fortification vs. cultivation tradeoffs.  So it ever was in all sorts of games.