SMAX - The Will to Power - mod

[lolada]

I feel we are playing different game ^^. We are talking about Will to power mod, right? You said you are modding the game for you needs and using .exe from wtp ?! - basically we are talking different things if you don't use half of this mod. No offense, just if we talk about different stuff.. there's no much point.

It takes time to produce units - AI spams them - and units die A LOT if you try to attack in will to power. You don't have tons of units.. ever except in very end maybe. I was lacking units most of the game - mod is designed to favor defense, build style and infrastructure.. not units.  Even rushing units in mod is doubly more expensive than facilities. I don't love too much micro and don't want too many units. I also don't want too few units otherwise you can't progress since defense is so strong.

Yes - early game is slower - but every vanilla game is same spam. T-Hawk did it perfectly. Here with these costs there's incentive to build some infrastructure before colony pod spam. And expansion gets easier with early fusion reactor.

Mines are not pointless. Mines are better source of minerals, they are best source besides boreholes. And you can't really use two boreholes often (eco damage) and they are not simple to setup due to terrain and build time. You can't place adjacent boreholes or build them on slopes. Even if you don't use them by base citizen mines are great for crawler usage (unlike boreholes where you waste 1/2 resources).  And base use them when you don't want to grow - which is all the time on transcend because drones. Its often better to work mine than forest.

Forest are for growth + minerals and fit that scenario when you must have that +1 food to stop starving or simply want slow growth. And forests can turn barren land into 2-2-0 tiles and make nice military base for example. Btw Plant Fungus is quite late terraform option - its somewhere in midgame.. you can't just plant fungus like that. And it doesn't spread like forest.

I don't see the reasoning to use forests as energy producer? It even clashes with sea bases. Or you can Place one condenser and farm/solar terrain and it will have that similar yield. Another thing is that teching is too fast - i think you agree there. Why allow even more energy in the game and make things worse?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Good suggestions, dino. Although it feels like sometimes you going too far. There could not be that many equally powerful things in game. There are just few on the tip of the mountain those we should focus on.

I dislike a bit the concept of making everything super expensive to balance, makes early game super slow and things are still OP later. Better to nerf OP stuff a bit instead, imo.

It depends. Some things could be easily and naturally offset this way. Not everything, though, I agree.

Satellites:
Max bonus without Aero Complex 1/4 base size and 1/2 with Aero, rounded down, balances both satellites and Cludbase Academy.

They are already capped at base size. For base size 20 your improvement just reduces income of each resource by 10 (from 20 to 10). The excess resource production is different at the end game. The base size 20 produces like +20 nutrients, +60 minerals, +200 energy. Nutrient satellite is the most impacting one. Other two are no big deal with or without your restriction.
Would it be more logical to limit by current resource excess production, not by base size? Say 1/4 of it? In this case whatever satellite impact will never exceed any other means of production increase. Therefore, it never be OP.

1) Condensers only increase raininess, no 50% food bonus, already implemented in Ytzii's patch and 4,4 Boreholes,

Agree with Condensers. Their proportional bonus forces me to place them on nutrient resources and I don't think game should force their placement. Although, I'd still give them some bonus to compensate for inability to build solar there. Like +1 nutrient.

2) 1,1,2 forests -  wood is not a useful material in s-f setting, but can be burned for energy ( or you could nerf it even further to 1,1,1 but it'd be too much imo ).

You defy its minerals focus. Would be a shock for many players. 😆
I think 1-2-0 in my mod is nerfing enough. Especially with longer terraforming time.

3) Remove a mining platform bonus from EcoEng and give it as aquatic faction bonus from the start instead of the current OP one, it'd balance both sea minerals in general and aquatic factions.

I don't feel this bonus it at all OP. It comes later in the game and is a replacement for land boreholes and mines. Sea bases are exceptionally pathetic in production field. This is their price for excessive nutrient/energy production. However, I wouldn't go too far in depriving them minerals even more. With this bonus (and trunkline) base size 10 with platforms on half of its squares produces only 3*5 = 15 minerals. I don't think it is too much for past mid game. You need to produce there too. Not only facilities but sea units.

Crawlers:
1) Gather resourcess with 1 point penalty, already in Ytzii's patch.
2) No disbanding for 100% minerals to rush SP, but make one crawler transport 4 resource points between bases  ( or 6 ).

1)

Crawlers are similar to mineral multiplier facilities. You invest in them once and then get return forever. The problem with crawlers is that the return from them is not limited comparing to facilities (which you have limited number). Reducing individual input won't cancel crawler rush as long as they are profitable at all. Same type of solution is to make them more expensive - thus increasing initial investment and reducing profit/investment ratio as I did in my mod.

The more cardinal solution would be just restrict total crawler yield for base same way as for satellites. This would put a stop on their unlimited spawning.

2)

Don't get why you don't want rush SP with them. It'll make you build everything in a single productive base which will be vulnerable to PB later on. Besides on highest difficulty you probably lose the race to AI 99% of the time.

Transporting resources between bases is useless. It is much more effective just to build crawler in highly productive base, then assign it to poor base, and then crawl resources for it.

3) Do not grant a free prototype from stealing a unit, unless stealing faction has the required tech.

Unit should have prototype. And you can reverse engineer from it. This is how game is made. What's the problem with stealing unit tech when you steal the unit? I think that is the most fun part. 😝

Natives:
Make each additional lifecycle granted by facilities ( biology lab and brood pit ) cost one additional mineral row for worms, spore launchers and sealurks and 2 additional rows for locust and isles.
Add 1 more row for each two "free" lifecycle bonuses granted by SP, SE, or faction bonuses for spore, sealurks and 1 row for every "free" lifecycle for isles and locust.

Again, why is that OP? These facilities are similar to conventional units morale boosting ones. Do you propose to increase conventional unit cost too because of morale boost? 😕

Morale/lifecylce boost is essentially an equivalent to more units. You either have lesser casualties due to morale or produce more low morale units. By making them cost more you effectively negate this feature. I don't think 1/8 improvement is a game breaking thing.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Brood Pits and Cover Ops Centers

I think cost should be no more than 3-4 turns in that stage for a good base - otherwise it won't be built. Its ok to build Command center 6-7 turn early on.. but on turn 200 there's no way i am using 6-7 turns in many bases building those facilities and still having to wait to build worms afterward. I can spam ton of worms instead from every base in those 12 turns and just finish the job. Police rating is not that valuable this late in the game - especially when you need to build police units as well.

So, that said, good bases in my last game at a time i got brood pits had around 50 minerals - i think i had one at 68 it was eco-damage cap at time.. many other weaker ones were 20 - 30. If you price BP between 100-150 minerals then it will get between 3-6 turns thats roughly ok - very best bases might get in in 2, weaker don't have to build it. You can probably go with 120 minerals if you find that ok, and no more than 3 maintenance. Its excessive to go over. Bvanevery wanted to move the facility out of use - i kind of don't like that argument, I'd like to see it used.

@tnevolin Maybe try putting it in Secrets of Alpha Centauri (L9) for start. It would be an upgrade and won't risk much being op.

I wouldn't put CoC in same bracket with BP. I built two in that game just to have stronger probes to win combat. Two bases can spam ton of probes and they don't cost support - worms do and you can't have them on fungus all the time. There's also no point to have CoC in many bases. One can have more expensive CoC in both minerals and maintenance.

Good points about it. I priced it 120/4 which is close to your suggestion.

I do think BP and CoC are exactly the same type of facility in term of unit improvement. BP gives 3/8 to natives (1/4 cost + 1/8 morale) and CoC gives 2/8 (morale only). They are affecting different unit types so it is not easy to say which one should be costlier.

About overpricing in the mods - there's no much point to it - you are both probably hurting AI. For example i find Aerocomplexes overpriced at 120/3 (for the time they appear) and just don't build them - or build them in 2-3 best bases eventually. AI wastes ton of time building them in most bases. Then i try to snatch Cloudbase or if i don't get it i don't really care. Its not that hard to spam more Food satellites or planes instead. I think its actually benefical for AI to have them cheaper as they are good defensive facility for them. Same goes for Naval Yard as they work as Perimeter Defenses.

The AI is dumb. That is why it is giving production edge on highest levels. We should not play with facility prices just to aid AI. I don't think there is a way around it besides actually tuning the AI to do smart things.

For example overpriced special projects. The only really good reason to overprice something is that if you allow it early - but don't want to have it built early - like Command Nexus. If you put The Command Nexus at 1000 minerals and its so good - than the player will get it if he really wants it. I can just spam Crawlers and get any expensive special project - yes you made me invest in Crawlers but i get the op thing. But poor AI will waste tons of time on it and lose progress - Bvanevery said AI uses Crawlers to rush - but in any case they are not nearly as effective as player. For example Cloudbase Academy is expensive - that just means its easier to get for a player .

Special projects i can't get are actually cheaper ones - that AI builds before me. Thats important. Or one could teach AI to use multiple supply crawlers to rush very expensive projects. In that sense, 50 min base building special projects shouldn't take more than 15-20 turns. I wouldn't price later special projects more than 1000 minerals unless they are very best. The later project appear the faster it should be built. If its broken - then ok - but move it anyway to tech 10+. Very late best bases top 100 minerals.. and you won't be playing much with such power - its game over.

Good point. I should adjust their prices toward end game. However, I generally tried them to be build in 20-40 turns up to mid game at least. So that race condition could last longer.
With crawler rush it can always be built instantly regardless of the cost.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Probe teams:
1) Add energy cost to tech stealing ( like half the cost to research +/- probe modifiers ), hijack mind control function and dialogue window for that.
2) Give tech stealing/mindcontrol bases adjustable multipliers.
3) Do not grant a free prototype from stealing a unit, unless stealing faction has the required tech.

It would be interesting to nerf tech stealing - its op. At least AI is doing good work with probes, they defend and attack well. I would really nerf mind-probing bases its so obnoxious when you lose entire base + units in and around it.  AI could actually spam less attacking probes - they seem crazy with it.

There is one single response on complaining about how probes are OP: Build more defensive probes (and COC)! They are for that purpose exactly!
😜

Natives:
Make each additional lifecycle granted by facilities ( biology lab and brood pit ) cost one additional mineral row for worms, spore launchers and sealurks and 2 additional rows for locust and isles.

I don't like this one. Isle of the Deep are very expensive - i think they are 120 min, Locusts as well. Sealurks are offensive unit at 80 minerals - and thats expensive as well. Sea/coastal bases are not exactly mineral rich. They die to stupid thing like formers and foils and probes, especially in enemy territory. And they often die vs combat units as well - if they get hurt AI counterattacks and wipes them with sometimes much cheaper ships (due to reactors). I had Drones spamming tons of cheap 3-3-4 ruining expensive Sealurks - you just can't get numbers to win naval war. Its dumb to tisk Isle of the Deep in combat - they have one purpose here and thats transport in dangerous waters.

Locusts don't really get extra combat advantage and they are expensive. They are good due to their movement/felxibility but thats about it - mindoworms are better and cheaper attacking unit. Locusts also get somewhat countered by AAA and interceptors.. mindworms don't - AI don't really spam trance units that much. By this time you also have magtubes for movement issues. If i spam locusts thats for micro convenience - i am too lazy to transport worms.

Good point about how not exceptionally effective natives are in this mod. My rule of thumb for their pricing was in comparison between their cost and cost of units they are fighting against. Of course, one would love to send only cheapest units with psi abilities against them (Scout Patrol + psi counter = 30 minerals). This makes worms/sealurks about twice as ineffective against them. However, owner of natives would try to attack high end conventional units those cost 100-200-300 minerals depending on game stage. They are exceptionally effective against them! If we make them cheaper then native factions would use nothing but them with unchecked effectiveness. Next time try to compare how much mineral worth units you killed with them and compare with your mineral worth losses. I don't think it is even a waste to use them against colonies (60-90 minerals) or formers (40-80 minerals). The only worthy adversary for them are cheapest units like Scout Patrol (even without psi counters!!!). However, it is quite impossible to shield all of units in a field with counter-psi sentinels. Most of the time natives will be at least moderately effective (more with positive PLANET or against negative PLANET). This changes even more drastically toward the end of the game with costlier high end conventional units. Locust can kill needlejets in flight acting like interceptors. This is very well rounded multipurpose attacker/defender units. I don't think they need to be even cheaper.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

I would consider nerfing Command centers to +1 morale. It makes SE choices stronger and goes with logic of making morale valuable in your mod.

You are forgetting about negative MORALE that halves effectiveness of these facilities. With just +1 morale there won't be anything to halve.
😂

As for Naval Yards and Aerospace complexes they act as defensive facilites for AI. Player is not dumb enough to spam them - making them cheaper would help AI i think.

Could be but they are both morale and defense even if AI build them for defense it get morale boost on top of it. 80 is not that expensive for these benefits at the time sea battles begin. I don't think fiddling with +-1 mineral row makes big difference.

What are your thoughts on expensive projects - doesn't it make it just easier for player to get projects? That logic i mentioned in posts above - it gives more time to player to use supply crawlers.

There is no way around it. If player managed to get far ahead they will get most of the rest of the projects anyway. Actually in my games even when I was ahead I could not get more than 50% of them. Just because they are too costly I couldn't amass enough crawlers to speed them up all at once! And even if I could steal them from AI they just switched to other available and still get something. With 7 of them keep building around they manage to get quite a significant chunk of them.
I'll review SP costs anyway.

a) making projects cheap enough that first who gets it has best chance to build it. that would often mean AI gets it - not the player. projects are all over the place so presumably zakharov would not build every project. he's a wimp anyway. and i think AI can be told not to build more than n projects at a time?

My idea was to give them longer time to build to instigate race. Meaning the one discovering it first not necessarily jut got it for free. At least some more other competitors may try to steal it.
Moreover, with short build time their supply will end very quick and other racers will just lose their production on unfinished project. Whereas, with longer build time there will be quite large selection of them at any given time. So even those lost the race to first can switch to next one and get it instead. This is what I've observed all the time. Each faction eventually get some project maybe not the one they started to build. This make it harder for human to get 100% of them.

b) disable supply crawlers project rushing completely (and make projects reasonably priced for building

That's a big-big discussion. All SP costs should be reconsidered. I recommend you start a separate thread for that and there we can gather opinions.

c) is it possible to teach AI to plan/use multiple supply crawlers to rush secret project?

Everything is possible! Isn't it already done in Thinker?

d) is it possible to teach AI to rush secret projects with energy credits?

I would guess so. Isn't it already done in Thinker?

The goal of all of these would be to level the playing field. The thing is that player can pick up any secret projects at will in late midgame. Making projects more expensive is counter productive - it just makes it certain that player will get it.

Again, I don't understand why you feel this way. I played my mod multiple times and it is NOT easy to grab any project of your liking in whatever stage of the game. Especially with blind research. Even with tons of crawlers waiting to rush it in one turn I not always can get myself what I want. Play it out few times and tell me if you feel different.

[lolada]

Oh i built tons of probes - i actually think i build hundreds in single game . CoC is good i like that - its really worth it. One has to build ton of probes or you are dead on transcend. I actually think AI is doing itself a bit of disfavor by building too many armored probes - but thats hard to change. AI is using tons of probes to attack mine - they use expensive armored cruiser probes and suicide into 0-1-1 cheap infantry probes. Defending probe has +50% territory bonus. So in that sense it hurts them badly but the do apply constant pressure.
But i must say armor probes come great against other units - and AI is bated to attack probes so they work great AI vs AI.

Note: armored probes have one great stupid weaknes - if they are under another unit - and they are not main defender. If unit dies probes are dead. I killed multiple times 2-3-4 neutronium armored probes this way - its ton of minerals wasted. Poor AI.

Btw i have a question:

Why does AI can subvert my bases when i have +4 Probe rating? I understood you have Scient patch in your mod - and its supposed to fix this issue - as i understand it. I checked AI did not have ench. probes (yet) - they should not be able to do that. They had Hunter-Seeker but thats irrelevant as far as i know. Its quite a big pain not to be able to use +Probe rating to stop mind-probes. (i have save games i could double check this if its needed)

ps. I'll try to make my case about secret projects - i see the logic in your reasoning - it has pluses and minuses. I will describe what happens in my games in new thread and why i think that super expensive projects beat the purpose. There's no need to change anything quickly we can discuss and see where it ends.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

It's very relevant since the primary tool it uses to deal with issues is to increase mineral cost. And exe modding is also very within tnevolin's capabilities.
Some of my "revolutionary" ideas became a staple of this mod for me, like no collateral damage for example.

You are right. This is a primary tool because it is an easiest one and alphax.txt based. However, I don't mind exe modding providing this cannot be done with pricing alone.

Kudo to you, man. You made to my credits. 😍
https://github.com/tnevolin/thinker-doer#credits

I suspect that a very low popularity of this mod is caused by wild changes to vanilla tech tree and few other aspects and most fans would rather play more familliar SMAC but with more challenge.

I don't think it is completely unpopular. I believe it is comparable to Thinker. So it has its share of challenge liking players. I check GitHub traffic and it is pretty steady. Like 1-3 views daily with occasional spikes.

Early game is awful with all these huge costs for everything and make people bounce, less brute force approach and more subtlety would make this excellent mod good imo.

Do you refer to vanilla or this mod huge costs?

As discussed in a thinker thread, nerfing advanced terraforming and crawlers would help AI compared to the human player who can alway abuse it better.

I would agree to that but that is a huge designer work. Don't want to start thinking about this first.

I want less minerals and other resources at play in late game which would slow down late game without issues in early game, like increased costs generate, or without the need to move interesting toys into a very late game tech tree levels. The ultimate goal is to make AI competent with the same rules as player, without heavy cheats, ideally to the point that it is competent at one level below transcend.

That is reasonable about late game. For me Civ2 used already too much of multiplier facilities and SMACX is even more. Yield skyrockets in the end game it is just flood.

Mines on rolling are already fine early 1,2,0 mineral resource, but ridiculous 2 mineral forest is so good that it's absolutely pointless to build mines, especially on rolling.
It's a leftover from civ games, that didn't had boreholes and mining platforms, or that many rocky tiles for a good mine, to generate minerals.
It's secondary, but from a versimilitude perspective wood is not a viable production material in a s-f setting, unlike in medieval times, but energy rich plants can be burned for energy.
So I'd imagine forests here as mostly fast growing energetic plants plantations and I think 1,1,2 with 8 turns cost would be perfect.

First of all, mine need to be on a rainy square to get 1-2-0. Otherwise it is 0-2-0. Besides, nobody builds them on not rocky tile anymore in my mod where restrictions are lifted.

Let's not argue whether wood is good s-f material. This is a game of alternatives so let make them alternatives.
Forest and fungus should be inferior to normal terraforming as they require less investment and produce less eco-damage. That is a trade-off. The 1-2-0 forest is already inferior to rocky mine 0-4-0. Three rainy farms (3-1-1) + three forests (1-2-0) = 12-6-3. Whereas four rainy farms + two bad rocky mines = 12-12-4. Second option is clearly superior.

I also do not absolutely mind to use forest for energy. However, then I need to review my fungus progression as it focuses energy too. Do you mind fungus to be more on a nutrient-minerals side?

Removing EcoEng platform bonus is suggested to balance proposed land advanced terraforming nerfs.

In this case it may work but it needs to be a complex well rounded design. I suggest to start a separate thread on this question alone.

No need for expensive crawlers with gathering penalty and 1 mineral forest and it would hurt human player way more than AI.
Super expensive crawlers can be abused by human sniping, or stealing them from AI's making them waste resources this way.
And most importantly, huge costs for basic things are a true blight of early game in this mod.

Gathering penalty doesn't solve it. You just make each individual crawler less lucrative. Whereas the crawler problem is in their unlimited usage. You can spawn 100 crawlers per base and place them out of the borders. Makes no difference whether they gather 4 or 3 resources. It is still abuse.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

On units side will to power might be slightly too expensive at times - but they can be rushed - later there is so much money available that you don't know what to do with it.

I don't think they are expensive. The very high end mixed and naval units at the end of the game are 200-300 which is a piece of cake for end game bases.

Do not compare them to vanilla no armor infantry units. They are 60 minerals for 30-1-1*4. This is just ridiculously broken formula. My naval and mixed weapon/armor units are actually cheaper than in vanilla!

As for secret projects - i don't like that they are so expensive - it doesn't make sense. I don't think that fulfills reasonable purpose.

Been said many times. 😁
Start a new thread and propose your cost for all of them. Then we can have productive discussion.

[dino]

Crawlers:

1) Gather resourcess with 1 point penalty, already in Ytzii's patch.
2) No disbanding for 100% minerals to rush SP, but make one crawler transport 4 resource points between bases  ( or 6 ).

1)
Crawlers are similar to mineral multiplier facilities. You invest in them once and then get return forever. The problem with crawlers is that the return from them is not limited comparing to facilities (which you have limited number). Reducing individual input won't cancel crawler rush as long as they are profitable at all. Same type of solution is to make them more expensive - thus increasing initial investment and reducing profit/investment ratio as I did in my mod.

The more cardinal solution would be just restrict total crawler yield for base same way as for satellites. This would put a stop on their unlimited spawning.

2)
Don't get why you don't want rush SP with them. It'll make you build everything in a single productive base which will be vulnerable to PB later on. Besides on highest difficulty you probably lose the race to AI 99% of the time.

Transporting resources between bases is useless. It is much more effective just to build crawler in highly productive base, then assign it to poor base, and then crawl resources for it.

With 1 mineral forest an 1 point penalty and even moderate cost of 3-5 mineral rows, economically viable crwalers usage would be limited to a smaller number of condensers condensers, rainy flat low elevation farms and rocky mines. So it'd naturally limit the amount of crawlers on the map without artificial hard limits.

If the amount of reasonable crawling spots was very limited this way and crawler could transport 6 minerals between bases like it can from special resource rocky mine, then crawling resources between bases to speed up something would be viable and less micro intensive than building, moving and disbanding them. Penalty feature is for the taking from Ytzii's patch, the rest would be difficult.

Agree with Condensers. Their proportional bonus forces me to place them on nutrient resources and I don't think game should force their placement. Although, I'd still give them some bonus to compensate for inability to build solar there. Like +1 nutrient.

Then it would change them from 6,0,0 to 5,0,0 what is the point in even making such insignificant change. They increase rainniness and count as soil enritcher before you can build them, that is already powerful enough and the feature is for the taking from Ytzii's patch, so shouldn't be much work.

You defy its minerals focus. Would be a shock for many players. 😆
I think 1-2-0 in my mod is nerfing enough. Especially with longer terraforming time.

Why the forest should have mineral focus and be superior than mining in that to boot ? You have mines on rolling for 1,2,0 in early game, why change forest into something it's already there ?
You don't have the issue with mines being useless in this game ? 2 energy is not too much, it's average of what solar gives at the cost of nutrients, which in early game is no joke.

And I have a new idea: benefits of normal facilities are limited to the base, but with most SPs it's RoI grow with the number of bases. Maybe make the cost of them scale with a map size ?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Less late game minerals, less builder micro, does it realy improve your game experience to have 20 - 30 units per base, as opposed to 10 - 15 ?
Also tons of minerals makes building facilities, a no brainer late game when you can build anything in 1-3 turns.
Balancing costs for mid-late game mineral surplus and stalling early game is the major issue for me with WtP.

I don't think WtP is different from vanilla in this regard. All the terraforming and multiplying facilities are in place. What gives?

1,1,2 forests are different from fungus, since they don't require planet rating and can be exploited while running free market.
And with 2 minerals forests, mines are completely pointless, you want an early  game 1,2,0 tile ? You have it already, a mine on rolling.
1,2,0 forest is still way superior to mine, with potential future upgrade, and borehole is superior to mine on rocky, why keep mines completely useless ?
Thinker with few lines edited in the source code can be easily adjusted to build less forests and more mines to facilliate changes.
For exmple flat non rainy - forest, otherwise either farm+mine, or farm+collectors.

Man, you keep mentioning rolling mine. Are you talking about WtP??? Nobody build rolling mines there due to lifted restrictions.
🤣

Thinker also already generates way more nutrients than it can utilise, crawled 4,0,0 condensers won't hurt it and it should just be adjusted to build them only when most nearby tiles are non rainy.

Thinker? How?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

With 1 mineral forest an 1 point penalty and even moderate cost of 3-5 mineral rows, economically viable crwalers usage would be limited to a smaller number of condensers condensers, rainy flat low elevation farms and rocky mines. So it'd naturally limit the amount of crawlers on the map without artificial hard limits.

If the amount of reasonable crawling spots was very limited this way and crawler could transport 6 minerals between bases like it can from special resource rocky mine, then crawling resources between bases to speed up something would be viable and less micro intensive than building, moving and disbanding them. Penalty feature is for the taking from Ytzii's patch, the rest would be difficult.

You decrease forest crawling this way but not rocky mines. They are plenty of rocky squares too. You can mine and harvest them all you like. lowering their yield from 4 to 3 is some impact but not enough to stop the rush. It does help to reduce it but I believe it is a half measure.

Agree with Condensers. Their proportional bonus forces me to place them on nutrient resources and I don't think game should force their placement. Although, I'd still give them some bonus to compensate for inability to build solar there. Like +1 nutrient.

Then it would change them from 6,0,0 to 5,0,0 what is the point in even making such insignificant change. They increase rainniness and count as soil enritcher before you can build them, that is already powerful enough and the feature is for the taking from Ytzii's patch, so shouldn't be much work.
[/quote]

You are forgetting your own initial point, man. The point is they are not multiplying yield anymore! Therefore, it is irrelevant where exactly to put them - the absolute benefit doesn't change. How did you get 6,0,0? Raininess is limited by 2 nutrients + 1 from farm = 3 at most.

I agree that adding 1 nutrient to condenser square is not important anyway.

Why the forest should have mineral focus and be superior than mining in that to boot ? You have mines on rolling for 1,2,0 in early game, why change forest into something it's already there ?
You don't have the issue with mines being useless in this game ? 2 energy is not too much, it's average of what solar gives at the cost of nutrients, which in early game is no joke.

Forest SHOULD NOT have mineral focus. But it is how it is in vanilla! Any change will shock players to extent. It is preferable not to change rules without an absolutely compelling reason. That is what I meant.

And I have a new idea: benefits of normal facilities are limited to the base, but with most SPs it's RoI grow with the number of bases. Maybe make the cost of them scale with a map size ?

Makes sense. However, there are other considerations about their too high cost. See other posts.

[dino]

They still would count as soil enritcher, so it's 2+2 and that is where vanilla 6 comes from, +50%

I mostly compare my proposals to vanilla, as in what could be changed from vanilla and put into the WtP, instead of what is currently there ( which is cost increases mostly ).

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

They still count as soil enritcher so it's 2+2 and that is where vanilla 6 comes from, 4 +50%

https://alphacentauri.gamepedia.com/Condenser
They do not count as farm or enricher. You need to build farm + enricher to get them there.
So rainy farm + condenser = 3 * 1.5 = 4.
Rainy farm on resources = 5 * 1.5 = 7.

I mostly compare my proposals to vanilla, as in what could be changed from vanilla and put into the WtP, insted of what is currently there ( which is cost increases mostly ).

Well then keep in mind there is not point discussing isolated features. They are all highly interconnected. Most problems can be solved one way or another and you don't want to duplicate solutions, etc. WtP is already quite finely balanced version. You are probably better off by looking at it and proposing changes rather than looking at vanilla and proposing changes for other mod.
😝

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

# Version 47

* Brood Pit cost/maint is 12/3.
* Brood Pit is assigned to Secrets of Alpha Centauri.

[bvanevery]

Natives:
Make each additional lifecycle granted by facilities ( biology lab and brood pit ) cost one additional mineral row for worms, spore launchers and sealurks and 2 additional rows for locust and isles.
Add 1 more row for each two "free" lifecycle bonuses granted by SP, SE, or faction bonuses for spore, sealurks and 1 row for every "free" lifecycle for isles and locust.

Are you also going to do that for conventional units with Command Centers, Naval Yards, Bioenhancement Centers, and Covert Ops Centers?  Because having more experienced units, is exactly the same play mechanic.