SMAX - The Will to Power - mod

[bvanevery]

Well you've got black box design, where you have no idea how something works internally.  Then you've got something else - grey box? - where you can see some of the knobs on the surface, but you're not really confident they do anything particularly reliable.  That's what this population and happiness set of problems / designs looks like to me.

Traditional board games required the humans to adjudicate all the rules themselves.  That somewhat steers away from grey box designs, but not entirely.  It's possible to have a system of rules that's so labyrinthine in detail, that only diehards will learn and apply them.  The old Squad Leader games were like that.  You'd probably remember a lot of it, but it was also encyclopedic.  You'd have to look up the rules section to apply it to some specific case, like how turrets are working today, in this particular game expansion pack.

Probably the original SMAC authors all grew up playing such games.  So they apply the encyclopedic approach, without the constraint of actually having to look anything up themselves.   

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Flattening out hurry cost was just averaging facility and unit base hurry cost. Now I am thinking this was not entirely correct. Obviously, human gravitated toward rushing facilities more often to save money. Thus effectively closing up to the multiple of 2 rather than 3. Besides, WTP SPs already cost hefty in minerals and even more in cash with 6x multiplier. All the above reduce the power of money producing factions over mineral producing ones. I think it would be fairer to pull hurry cost rate down to 2 for facilities and units and to 4 for projects. This'll probably make units much easier to rush than in vanilla letting deep pocket faction counter sneak attack easier but I don't consider this too important as it doesn't add anything in long run anyway.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

When does it end already???
Just discovered another shady logic in mineral and eco damage computation.

According to eco damage formula in help:

Code: [Select]

The ecological damage formula is complex:
...
^(6) Take the number of minerals produced this turn (but not from Orbit)
...
Which implies minerals from orbit are not counted toward eco damage.

Now the code actually adds orbit minerals to base mineral yield. Then this yield is multiplied by facilities like Genejack Factory which produce the mineral intake. That, in turn, is distributed to support and production. I.e. orbit minerals are multiplied by facilities.

When eco damage is computed it takes mineral intake, subtract orbit minerals from it, and use the rest for computations assuming it excluded orbit minerals from eco damage by that. Well, obviously, not all of them. Imagine base receives 10 minerals from orbit and has three multiplying facilities turning them into 25. Then eco damage algorithm subtracts 10 out of total mineral intake intending nullifying orbit mineral impact while, in fact, it leaves 15 orbital minerals multiplied excess for further eco damage computations.

This strengthen my earlier impression that designers did not plan for orbital resources to be multiplied at all.

I'll try to patch it so.

[bvanevery]

Although purity of intent is good, and low hanging fruit is good if you think it's easy to adjust...

...is orbital minerals eco-damage an actually important part of the game?  I've never built a Nessus Mining Station, that I can recall.  In the original game or anybody's mod, by the time I have that capability, I certainly don't need the extra minerals.  I also never build Nanoreplicators or Quantum Watchamajiggers.  I may build the Singularity Inductor, but it's a low priority project mainly to block others from building it.  I tend to avoid the Bulk Matter Transmitter until dead last, because it does boost up eco-damage.

Basically, what's wrong with Forest and Forget?

The game goes on too long with too many stupid toys.  All you need are some appropriate gravships to pound the crap out of everybody.  AI dies, game over.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Eh. I decided to not touch it. Instead I just introduced an adjustable orbital resource limit as fraction of population. Currently set to 0.5 for all. Seems to be working fine. At least it is below the OP scope.

[Hagen0]

IIrc you changed the combat formula to i) use a/d as odds for each combat round instead of (2a - d)/d , ii) to make combat more streaky by giving the winner of one combat round an advantage in the next one and iii) reduce hitpoints for later reactors to 10. Is that still the current implementation? Do you have sme insight how that affects combat odds and damage distribution?

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

There were few changes.

1. Changed round attack odds from (2a - d)/d to a/d. That is a conceptual change to make combat odds proportional to strength.

2. At some point I have experimented with multiround combat trying to make it less sqewed toward stronger unit. That could be done by reducing power multiplier from 10 to 5 or something. However, I didn't want to touch it as it is too hard code everywhere. The alternative was to alter round odds each subsequent round which is mathematically equivalent to lesser number of round. Even though this seems like brilliant solution I made it optional as many people didn't like it. The switch is still there if anyone likes to try.

I'll add more links to previous discussions if I find them.

https://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=21371.msg122835#msg122835
https://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=21359.msg122935#msg122935

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Following this thread: https://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=21789.msg133519#msg133519
A question about amphibious.

It does seem like a quite useless ability. Not 100% useless but its application are very rare and specific. The only thing I ever used them for is attacking enemy ocean bases sitting next to my continent. Vanilla AI tend to place them adjacent to land so few of them can be conveniently captured by land units without transportation. After than they are no longer needed. Other than that? Anybody ever built, loaded, and transported amphibious unit specifically to assault ocean/coastal base?

Needless to say AI never uses them. It may build them but not use for the purpose. Which is, actually, is the primary argument for removing it. AI combat tuning is very difficult as it is already.

Anybody objects against completely eliminating this ability?


Another path would be to try enriching its meaning but I advise against it. If such meaning exists it would be proposed already. The fact that nobody bothered with it until now means the ability itself is not very interesting to players and it does not deprive any part of the game if not used. We may disable it now and keep on a back burner if somebody comes up with brilliant idea.

[EmpathCrawler]

Toss it. I've been considering disabling the ability myself just to give the AI less crap to build. They might have kept it in just because Civ2 had Marines. The AI never builds an Atlantic Wall style defense, and there's no reason you couldn't use needlejets and bombardment to get rid of those units even if they did.

[bvanevery]

Anybody ever built, loaded, and transported amphibious unit specifically to assault ocean/coastal base?

Many years ago, that used to be my standard drill for winning vanilla games quickly.  My Chaos Marines = dead AI.  Just run around on Cruisers wiping everybody out.

For some reason I don't tend to do that anymore.  Maybe because I dislike pushing Cruisers across oceans.  Maybe because I'm playing on Huge instead of Standard sized maps.  Maybe because building rails is the one true strategy.  Maybe because I got a lot more comfortable with chemical weapons, sunspots, and legalizing atrocities.

I do use Marines to wipe out sea bases next to a coast, typically Pirate sea bases.  AI is pretty helpless against such landward attacks.

Needless to say AI never uses them.

Not true.  When passing by a coastal base, I've had a Marine in the base shoot at me.  This isn't a very good use compared to putting them on a ship and blasting my sea and coastal bases, but it is a use.

[Neil]

For example, both 6-1-1 and 1-6-1 infantry units now cost 6 rows of minerals. Imagine the simplicity!

A 6-1-1 because of its slow speed is liable to get intercepted and destroyed before it can attack anything important. Indeed, even a lowly scout patrol counterattacking has a good chance against it. A 1-6-1 on the other hand is probably a garrison unit and so the lack of speed isn't fatal. I would argue a 6-1-1 is much less useful than a 1-6-1 and that it would be fair for it to cost less.

[bvanevery]

A 6-1-1 because of its slow speed is liable to get intercepted and destroyed before it can attack anything important.

Base defense.  Rails.  Make it amphibious and attack off a boat.  Accompany it with an armored unit.

[Neil]

A 6-1-1 because of its slow speed is liable to get intercepted and destroyed before it can attack anything important.

Base defense.  Rails.  Make it amphibious and attack off a boat.  Accompany it with an armored unit.

Exactly. It requires more support from other units to do its job effectively, hence why it should cost less.

[bvanevery]

Exactly. It requires more support from other units to do its job effectively, hence why it should cost less.

No... it's a cheap way to kill stuff, that actually works.  You aren't owed a bunch of capabilities in the game "for free or cheap".

Like armored screens.  It's not like you lose your armored screens, just because you're marching around with them.  If you don't think armored units are worth making, that's your problem, not the game's.

Granted, SMACX AI Growth mod and WTP don't have a weapon vs. armor imbalance problem, unlike the original game.

[Neil]

I think things should have a cost proportionate to their utility. I think that one 6-1-1 is less useful than one 1-6-1 and therefore should have a lower cost. If you disagree, that's fine.