SMAX - The Will to Power - mod

[Hagen0]

My experience with the combat system is the AI declaring war on me and then sitting on my periphery with artillery/armored drones such that dislodging them is cost-ineffective due to the defender having a large combat advantage. Granted I play a very passive builder style. But I still do not see what to do about that.

Why, use the offensive outposts (TM)! Fight fire with fire; if they are skulking around at the edges of your territory, expand your territory just before you attack them. They lose their +50% buff, and you get one. Sensor arrays and their puny 25% on defence, eat your heart out!

I get what you are saying but it doesn't really apply. They are 6 other factions. The AI declares war on me without reason or potential gain because it is stupid. Now I have random armored drones/rovers or boats running about annoying me. Boats standing offshore in some fungus patch bombarding my terraforming are particular troublesome. Only reasonable counter I found is to put some unit on that tile and ignore the bombardement . Note that their faction does not gain anything from this. I could deal with one faction doing this but not with 4 of them.

[Nevill]

Would you, as assailant, prefer defender to be able to "recover" from any of your attempts to destroy their economy so the war never ends?

I don't think it's possible in the current engine.

Most of my 1v1 duels tend towards a "burn, don't even pillage" policy. The aggressor doesn't have to worry about holding on to the captured territories. They can put the base to the torch without losing move points; they can starve the populace to avoid dealing with drones; and the capture of the base leaves it a husk of its former self, so upon recapture you get barely a couple of facilities back.

Losing a developed base is a massive setback for the owner, and taking it doesn't inconvenience the victor any. So in that sense I get what you are trying to do. It's just that your solution sacrifices other gameplay elements that I like.

I think Civ IV did it pretty well when it comes to city conquest, but then it isn't fair to compare the different games... and it's been a decade since I played it, so my memory is foggy. But I remember having a lot more trouble with waging wars, where invading a city was the easy part.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

The quote was about WTP.

You linked that video before. I do not understand what it's supposed to say. I am not talking about randomness in general. I am talking about your mod in particular. I already explained once how the combat formula you invented makes extreme combat outcomes more likely than they should be. That in itselves would still be OK if you did not have so few units.

Oh. Sorry about posting it twice.

It is supposed to say that there is a difference between probabilistic and perceived fairness. The more random the outcome is the more it is perceived unfair to some players. Yet probabilistic fairness stays the same. So you may feel something and somebody else may feel different. What to discuss here?

There is a config property in thinker.ini: alternative_combat_mechanics_loss_divider. Set it to 1 and you'll get the plain vanilla combat mechanics.

By the way, you can search your feelings in regards to whether they are induced by vanilla experience or not.
Have you played Civ 1? Do you understand its combat mechanics? If yes, ask yourself: did you feel the combat is unfair to the frustration level? Did you stop playing it because of this?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Would you, as assailant, prefer defender to be able to "recover" from any of your attempts to destroy their economy so the war never ends?

I don't think it's possible in the current engine.

You evaded the question by answering a different one. I asked about your preferences irregardless to this mod or whatever engine. What would you prefer in your dream game?

[Nevill]

The question was somewhat provocatively phrased, so I tried to expand on it by listing my grievances.

I don't want an opponent to be able to shrug off any attempts to harm their economy. But I find the current meta - the one where an empire folds like a house of cards the moment a couple bases fall - unsatisfactory.

In a dream game the most intense phase of war should come after an initial invasion.

[Hagen0]

I have never played Civ1 but I do play Civ4 regularly and have absolutely no issue with the the randomness.

And extreme volatility is bad whatever the video says. If I lose a 4 vs 3 combat strength fight that's OK. Losing two 4 power units against that 3 power defender should be exceedingly rare and losing three 4 power units against that 3 power defender should be about as likely as winning the lottery. The advantage of this above avoiding making people feel miserable is that you can properly plan. This is suppose to be a strategy game after all. Civ4 ensures this by scaling combat power with unit health. So if the 3 power defender wins but is heavily damaged it will be cleaned up by the next unit with near certainty.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

The question was somewhat provocatively phrased, so I tried to expand on it by listing my grievances.

I don't want an opponent to be able to shrug off any attempts to harm their economy. But I find the current meta - the one where an empire folds like a house of cards the moment a couple bases fall - unsatisfactory.

In a dream game the most intense phase of war should come after an initial invasion.

I don't yet understand your grievances. Even more I don't understand why such grievances apply to this mod which on purpose designed so this said house of cards falling much less likely to occur comparing to vanilla where it happens all the time.

As you said yourself there is a point where an empire folds like a house of cards. You even said yourself when exactly this happens. So, I assume, you have full awareness of how it work. Now you complain about why this is happening to you while you knew this is going to happen and you did nothing to prevent it. I don't see how I can help here. My only advice would be - do not let that happen! Do something! It does sound stupid because it is obvious.

In simple terms there could be two cases when your empire folds like a house of cards.
1. You were capable to withstand the assault not losing any critical bases but you weren't prepared. Then this is your fault and bad play. There are thousand ways to lose the game. This is just one of them.
2. You were prepared but they still overcame you. Then it is time to surrender. Their economics, weaponry, and military is overwhelming to the point when no defensive bonuses can save you. They won the game before the assault.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

I have never played Civ1 but I do play Civ4 regularly and have absolutely no issue with the the randomness.

And extreme volatility is bad whatever the video says. If I lose a 4 vs 3 combat strength fight that's OK. Losing two 4 power units against that 3 power defender should be exceedingly rare and losing three 4 power units against that 3 power defender should be about as likely as winning the lottery. The advantage of this above avoiding making people feel miserable is that you can properly plan. This is suppose to be a strategy game after all. Civ4 ensures this by scaling combat power with unit health. So if the 3 power defender wins but is heavily damaged it will be cleaned up by the next unit with near certainty.

What do you mean by "that's OK"? Is it your approval of game mechanics being satisfactory to your liking? If so then I don't see use in discussing personal preferences. Turn this feature off and enjoy.

[Nevill]

Even more I don't understand why such grievances apply to this mod which on purpose designed so this said house of cards falling much less likely to occur comparing to vanilla where it happens all the time.

They don't. I was talking about SMAC in general, and I even said as much:

I try to keep an open mind about what the new changes mean for the game.

Losing a developed base is a massive setback for the owner, and taking it doesn't inconvenience the victor any. So in that sense I get what you are trying to do.

The usual 1v1 game logic goes like this:
1) Losing a developed base is a disastrous setback in SMAC that is not easy to recover from.
2) The defender tries to protect their bases with everything they've got
3) The most fierce battles occur at the base outskirts since it is safer to catch an attacker in the field
4) If the attacker manages to take a base despite 3) it often means the defender simply doesn't have units to repel them... and even if they do, they are crippled
5) Defender surrenders, game ends

The way I see it, you make an attacker undergo massive economic setback to mount an invasion, so even if they succeed in taking a base the game is still somewhat even. This is what I tried to tell Hagin0.

...there is no need to be defensive all the time, surely?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Even more I don't understand why such grievances apply to this mod which on purpose designed so this said house of cards falling much less likely to occur comparing to vanilla where it happens all the time.

They don't. I was talking about SMAC in general

Sorry. Didn't catch this at first.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

The way I see it, you make an attacker undergo massive economic setback to mount an invasion, so even if they succeed in taking a base the game is still somewhat even. This is what I tried to tell Hagin0.

Aha. Got it now. Glad we are on a same page.

...there is no need to be defensive all the time, surely?

Hmm. I don't feel defensive. Most of the time I am just trying to clarify what other people meant. That takes a lot of time and a lot of inconvenient questions. Usually because people don't want to raise these inconvenient questions themselves. So they may feel hurt by them while, in fact, I merely seek pure knowledge like Zakharov.

[Nevill]

The game is picking up once my bases reach ~20 minerals production. Building cruisers isn't as daunting anymore.

Manifold Harmonics gives me 5-1-4 on fungal non-terraformed tiles. I can't top that; I might as well just disband my formers. But no, I will need formers to plant even more fungus.

Wild life got really annoying when I first built Genejack Factories and went from 24 minerals to 36 with eco-damage rising up to 30+. I got besieged by worms in double digits as I had some turns with two fungal pops in a row.

Wouldn't wildlife be a bigger threat if collateral damage for them were disabled? It is set to 100%, so for now you only need to win once to have an entire stack of worms disintegrate. This is what made them easy pickings in vanilla... sure the Planet can spawn 20 mind worms a pop, but a couple empath rovers can clean it up nicely.

Do they no longer get lifecycle upgrades from killing their neighbours?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Interesting idea. I'll look at it.

[Nexii]

Yea the whole ICS and trying to make dynamic wars. One big reason ICS is so strong is that bases are capped at producing one unit per turn. Granted, allowing multiple units per turn isn't really great either. 50 bases and 500 units isn't really my idea of fun... that much micromanagement gets tedious. I was going in the direction of more expensive units myself, not just military but the non-combat ones too (pods, formers, crawlers). I did prefer Yitzi's cost formulas where I could make it so reactors didn't make units cheaper, just tougher.

I liked the idea of bases forced to be more distant.

I've thought a lot about it too. I think in some way, smaller factions need a sort of boost. Rather than everyone getting a big defensive boost, maybe a boost to both attack and defense but only for battles in your territory. It's that or penalize empires more for getting big... either economically or crippling captured cities for longer.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Rather than everyone getting a big defensive boost, maybe a boost to both attack and defense but only for battles in your territory.

That is what territory bonus in WTP does.