The Deleted Technologies?

[Yitzi]

Tech stagnation and other things that slow down research have the effect in most multiplayer games of the game being over before much more than 1/3 of the tech tree has been discovered.

How does it usually end in that case?  I presume by conquest, but with what units, and against what defense?

[Mart]

SMAC was designed as a game promoting offensive play, I remember reading something about it. Maybe even in Vel's strategy guide. The game on small maps would typically end earlier. That can be changed in mods, that would place more emphasis on defensive playstyle. I think civ4 is like that, at least to larger extent.

[Yitzi]

SMAC was designed as a game promoting offensive play, I remember reading something about it. Maybe even in Vel's strategy guide.

I seem to remember reading it too, but don't think it was Vel's strategy guide.  But to say it was designed as a game promoting offensive play, rather than just that it was designed in a manner that unintentionally promoted offensive play, you'd need a source from the developers or similar, and I don't think that exists.

[Green1]

Yitzi, I do not think there is a source but rather observation from a forum board somewhere. I do not think there has been an official dev observation on this.

The more modern Civ paradigm seems to be more geared towards siege warfare/ combined arms/ defensive advantage. Civ 4 cranked it up to where you really need artillery or you are not getting to capture any city past a certain point. Civ 5, you need several units to take even the weakest city.

You rarely see one unit take a city in more modern 4x games anymore.

[Earthmichael]

Tech stagnation and other things that slow down research have the effect in most multiplayer games of the game being over before much more than 1/3 of the tech tree has been discovered.

How does it usually end in that case?  I presume by conquest, but with what units, and against what defense?

This depends upon map size.  I played two tech stagnation games on the Vets map, which is a fairly large map.  At the end of the game, MMI had just been discovered, and had no effect on the endgame, just to give you an idea of the tech level a the end.

Most of the game was fought with attack 4 or 6 attackers against defense 2 or 3 defenders.  Needlejets came into the mix after they were discovered, but the battles had been raging long before then.

I also played a tech stagnation game on a medium map.  The majority of the game was attack 2 and 4 against defense 2.  On the medium map, Sythetic Fossil Fuels was the last major tech discovery, and it speeded the mop up quite a bit (although I felt the game had already been decided before the discovery).

Both games were completed by conquest, as you expected.  There was a mix of units used: dedicated infantry attackers, dedicated defenders, artillery, and attack speeders.  The attackers used defensive units to mitage counterattack on their positions.  Artillery was primarily used to soften up heavily defended cities with perimeter fences.

[Yitzi]

Most of the game was fought with attack 4 or 6 attackers against defense 2 or 3 defenders.

So that's tier 2-3 attackers against tier 1-2 defenders?  No wonder it was over before the top of the tech tree.  If someone had gone for Silksteel (and air power was nerfed enough that not going for it was not too devastating), the game might have lasted quite a bit longer.

I also played a tech stagnation game on a medium map.  The majority of the game was attack 2 and 4 against defense 2.  On the medium map, Sythetic Fossil Fuels was the last major tech discovery, and it speeded the mop up quite a bit (although I felt the game had already been decided before the discovery).

So again, tier 1-2 attack against tier 1 defense.  It seems the reason that the game ends earlier is simply that people go for attack techs more than defense techs.  Any idea why that is?

[ete]

Attack techs give larger % bonuses to combat ability, especially early. 2->4, 4->6 against 2->3, 3->4. Even for defending, you really want good level weapons to counterattack. The combat system is designed to give the attacker an advantage generally (though there are plenty of defensive bonuses which counteract it partially), and that's no bad thing in my opinion. Plus I think many attack techs lie on better beelines, while defense ones don't immediately lead to much of importance?

[Earthmichael]

In addition to ete's comments (which I agree), there are several advantages to the attackers:

1. The beeline to synthetic fossil fuels is attractive because of raising the food limit.

2. If a city is well defended (like silksteel D4 defenders and perimeter defense), then you go around it.  If it only has silksteel defenders but no fence, the A6 attackers will clobber them.  At any tier beyond 1, attack strength is somewhat greater than defensive strength.  Eventually, I can bring artillery to weaken heavily defended cities.

3. Attackers have more flexiblility.  I could just take the lightly defended cities, destroy all terraformers and supply crawlers, and then continue to build.  The attacker's production ability is slightly increased, while the defender is ruined by loss of these terraformers, supply crawlers, and the less defended cities. 

[Yitzi]

Attack techs give larger % bonuses to combat ability, especially early. 2->4, 4->6 against 2->3, 3->4.

True.  On the flip side, defense techs let you take advantage of perimeter defenses, which are a HUGE boost early on.

Even for defending, you really want good level weapons to counterattack.

True; you essentially want both.  But when trying to defend your own empire rather than conquer someone else's, they're attacking from outside bases so a weaker attack level will still give you parity (or superiority if they didn't get defense as well.)

The combat system is designed to give the attacker an advantage generally (though there are plenty of defensive bonuses which counteract it partially), and that's no bad thing in my opinion.

It's designed to give the attacker the advantage in the field, but the defender the advantage when defending a properly-defended base.

Plus I think many attack techs lie on better beelines, while defense ones don't immediately lead to much of importance?

I think the only real examples of that are Missile (A6) and Gatling (A5).

1. The beeline to synthetic fossil fuels is attractive because of raising the food limit.

True, and you'd definitely want that.  But on the flip side, the beeline to silksteel includes ECM, which is fairly strong if you're trying to defend yourself.  Essentially, you're likely to want both.

2. If a city is well defended (like silksteel D4 defenders and perimeter defense), then you go around it.

And if all bases are well defended?  Or if there are also attack troops there (which might be weaker, but are still good against your weaker defense)?

Eventually, I can bring artillery to weaken heavily defended cities.

Artillery does cause a bias toward attack...

3. Attackers have more flexiblility.  I could just take the lightly defended cities, destroy all terraformers and supply crawlers, and then continue to build.  The attacker's production ability is slightly increased, while the defender is ruined by loss of these terraformers, supply crawlers, and the less defended cities.

True...although anything that reduces use of supply crawlers and heavy former use would reduce that substantially.  Still, thanks for something to think about.

[ete]

If bases are in all-out defense mode, the attacker can just sit around and blow up terraforming, or focus everything on one base and kill it for a place to recharge. Defenders have no power to force engagements, and the supply mechanics mean that covering each base with enough all out defenders to hold off a focused army is going to cost more than the army will cost the other player by a long way.

As I said before, I think this is a good thing. Making attacks effective and the best defense a strong counter-attack makes for an interesting dynamic game, and reduces the sometimes very long "I have won but have to actually kill them" stage. I LIKE there being very strong offensive lategame units, and believe this was entirely intentional, my objection to 'copters is simply that they're much too cheap for their power.

[BFG]

If bases are in all-out defense mode, the attacker can just sit around and blow up terraforming, or focus everything on one base and kill it for a place to recharge.

I've found that increasing Base Defense and Defense due to Sensors by 25% apiece helps to balance that a bit better.  And of course, once you have aerial units, setting them to auto defense can help shore up bases suffering from a pinpoint attack.

[Earthmichael]

Sensors can be a HUGE help, IF you can defend the sensors.  Sensors and monoliths are the only reason I am still hanging in there on WFOS verses Usurpers.  If you have your formers organized well enough to build sensors under your peripheral bases that are most likely to come under attack first, this is ideal.

Most people do not, so the sensors only last until a unit gets there to destroy them.

[Yitzi]

If bases are in all-out defense mode, the attacker can just sit around and blow up terraforming, or focus everything on one base and kill it for a place to recharge. Defenders have no power to force engagements, and the supply mechanics mean that covering each base with enough all out defenders to hold off a focused army is going to cost more than the army will cost the other player by a long way.

As I said before, I think this is a good thing. Making attacks effective and the best defense a strong counter-attack makes for an interesting dynamic game, and reduces the sometimes very long "I have won but have to actually kill them" stage. I LIKE there being very strong offensive lategame units, and believe this was entirely intentional, my objection to 'copters is simply that they're much too cheap for their power.

The problem isn't really in the lategame, but rather the early midgame; having attacks against bases too strong in the early midgame can make for a game that's essentially cut short.

It occurred to me that the best approach might be to add in a defense module of strength/cost 4 at Advanced Subatomic Theory (perhaps call it Particle Shield), increase the strength (and cost) of Silksteel and Photon Wall by 1, and remove the Probability Sheath (Probability Mechanics will still be an important defensive tech for the Tachyon Field.)

As for copters, I feel that instead of increasing copter cost, it might be better to decrease copter power by decreasing their speed (which copters are extremely dependent on), and help out anti-air defense (since a copter's ability to attack numerous times per round is a lot less useful if the first one reduces it to such low health that another attack will destroy it.)

I've found that increasing Base Defense and Defense due to Sensors by 25% apiece helps to balance that a bit better.  And of course, once you have aerial units, setting them to auto defense can help shore up bases suffering from a pinpoint attack.

All that still does mean a tendency toward attack techs over defense techs, though.

Sensors can be a HUGE help, IF you can defend the sensors.  Sensors and monoliths are the only reason I am still hanging in there on WFOS verses Usurpers.  If you have your formers organized well enough to build sensors under your peripheral bases that are most likely to come under attack first, this is ideal.

Sensors-under-bases are also considered cheap by many.

Most people do not, so the sensors only last until a unit gets there to destroy them.

Of course, if the sensor is behind the base, that still means that the unit has to go behind the base, which increases the vulnerability of the attack force somewhat.

[Earthmichael]

Normally, if you want to get past the early midgame techs before serious combat, then you need to do two things:

1. Don't use tech stagnation or any other tech slowing mechanism.  If you slow down research, of course you will not get very far into the tech tree before serious combat.

2. Space the factions fairly far apart, as is done on the Vet's map.  The earliest I have seen serious combat on the Vet's map is after turn 70, and it is usually even later than that.

I presume if people are using tech stagnation and/or a small map, it is because they want to encourage low tech combat.  So there is nothing to fix; they have achieved what they wanted.


As for the sensor under the base, I do not think this is a cheap tactic all all.  It is very difficult and requires a lot of planning to achieve without greatly slowing down expansion.  So if some does pay the price in terms of rapid expansion to get a sensor under their base, they deserve the benefit.

[Yitzi]

Normally, if you want to get past the early midgame techs before serious combat, then you need to do two things:

You misunderstand.  I have nothing against early combat.  I just want that, if the early midgame is reached without the game ending or being decided (i.e. a builder's game rather than a momentum-based quick game), it shouldn't end until people have gotten well up the tech tree.

This is for people who want lower-tech combat to be possible, without it being decisive.

As for the sensor under the base, I do not think this is a cheap tactic all all.  It is very difficult and requires a lot of planning to achieve without greatly slowing down expansion.  So if some does pay the price in terms of rapid expansion to get a sensor under their base, they deserve the benefit.

It just seems like something that was not intended to happen when the game was designed.