Unit cost formula: Alternate approaches (taking requests)

[Yitzi]

My issue about micromanagement verses clean is that if I support 2 free units per city, I don't want the micromanagement of trying to figure out which cities have some unit support left.  I would just rather make everything clean.

Would it help to have each city, when you enter it, just show how much support it has left?  If you tell me how and where you want it shown, I can probably code it in.

I still have no seen a good argument why clean should be different costs on different units.  I still like the idea of 1 row, period.  This way it is a fairly no-brainer choice for most units whether to build clean or not, or to worry about city resource micromanagement.

Perhaps I'll add both...I'll add the scaling support costs earlier, because I like the idea, and then later on I can add the ability to set a fixed cost to clean.

I also don't like the idea of reactors increasing the costs of non-combat units like formers.

Why not?  If they give a worthwhile benefit in exchange then it's worth it, and if they don't you can just build the lower-reactor version.

Formers and crawlers are powerful, and are the key to logistics side of SMAC, and in my opinion, what makes SMAC better than any Civ game before or afterwards (which did not include crawlers, and where formers where much more limited in abilities).  Otherwise, it is just military verses military.  Part of your military goal now must be to protect your logistics side, crawlers and formers.  I think this makes the strategy much more interesting if it were only military verses military.

Makes sense.

I do not like the idea of improving crawlers to crawl more than one resource; I the crawlers are powerful enough as it is.

I feel that is true for much of the game...however, once you get transcendi, specialists (and thus nutrients) are so powerful that even with crawling only one resource, crawling farm/enricher/condenser is generally superior to any option that involves actually working squares.  Thus, the only ways to avoid a boring "everyone crawls f/e/c" are to nerf crawlers and possibly condensers (which will have an impact on the earlier game), or to allow late-game crawlers to crawl multiple resources.  This is largely a question of personal preference; fortunately, my patch supports both.

Since I think formers and crawlers are the most interesting aspect of SMAC, I would take care before I made any serious modifications (like having high reactors result in faster terraforming).  I would not go that route.

Ok, thanks for the input.

The only change that made sense to me is allow formers to use higher reactors with no great cost than fission reactor for the same capabilities.  This gives basic formers a nominal bit of extra defense from the reactor.

It'd be more work to code, awkward, overpowered on armored formers, and not really that relevant otherwise.

You could also simply swap the caviar file names in the game folder. In this case, VW03.cvr becomes VW04.cvr and VW04.cvr becomes VW03.cvr. I had that same issue and found an acceptable workaround so long as you do not exceed the pre-determined range of weapon values for each weapon slot.

Though what about if you want several in one of those ranges?

Have you found where those ranges are described?

On the topic of unit maintenance, I wonder if it is code-wise possible to let a popped independent crawler be re-homed to the closest base of the faction popping it.

Popped?  You mean like from a cloning pod?  I don't really like the idea of automatic re-homing without having to go to that base, and as for AI independent crawlers, that's more a question of the AI needing to be taught to rehome unowned crawlers (and AI is Kyrub's specialty.)

[Geo]

On the topic of unit maintenance, I wonder if it is code-wise possible to let a popped independent crawler be re-homed to the closest base of the faction popping it.

Popped?  You mean like from a cloning pod?  I don't really like the idea of automatic re-homing without having to go to that base, and as for AI independent crawlers, that's more a question of the AI needing to be taught to rehome unowned crawlers (and AI is Kyrub's specialty.)

I meant from a general Unity pod, which cloning is one of the benefits. Basically, in my mod a Unity pod can give a supply crawler directly to the faction that opened (popped) it.

[Yitzi]

On the topic of unit maintenance, I wonder if it is code-wise possible to let a popped independent crawler be re-homed to the closest base of the faction popping it.

Popped?  You mean like from a cloning pod?  I don't really like the idea of automatic re-homing without having to go to that base, and as for AI independent crawlers, that's more a question of the AI needing to be taught to rehome unowned crawlers (and AI is Kyrub's specialty.)

I meant from a general Unity pod, which cloning is one of the benefits. Basically, in my mod a Unity pod can give a supply crawler directly to the faction that opened (popped) it.

It's a fairly unusual case for cloning (I mean, who uses crawlers to pop pods), and your mod is fairly niche, so I think this one is probably going to wait until I'm ready to take votes from the community on what to do next (currently I'm taking suggestions; if I really like one, I include it, if I don't it'll wait.)

[Earthmichael]

It sounds like more bother than it's worth to make formers not cost more with better reactions.  So I will just continue to do what I do now: I obsolete AI designed formers with better reactors (in general) and keep making my own fission clean formers (and clean fungicidal formers) and clean super formers.  The survival value of the better reactor is usually not worth even one row of added cost.  I do find better reactors help with rover formers, but I don't make many of those.  The current solution works fine, so no need to bother with modding formers.

[Nexii]

Would it be difficult to make a flag so that Clean does not work at Negative Support rating (like NLM for Police)?  Similarly, a flag that makes all non-Military units not require Support (i.e. Colony Pods, Formers.  Scout units should require support).  This may be opinion but I feel the Support SE should tie to military units only. 

If this could be done I may try some games where Formers cost 30 instead of 20.

Also I noted in mode #2 (and I assume mode #4) there was a cost bumpup at Fusion but not at Quantum/Sing.  Was this intended?  I can give examples if you need them

[Yitzi]

Would it be difficult to make a flag so that Clean does not work at Negative Support rating (like NLM for Police)?

I'm not sure that it's needed (I did that for Police because as it was -1 Police was too weak a penalty, but -1 Support is quite significant), but it could definitely be done.  Once I start taking requests for voting, it's definitely a possibility.  Not making the priority list, though.

Similarly, a flag that makes all non-Military units not require Support (i.e. Colony Pods, Formers.  Scout units should require support).  This may be opinion but I feel the Support SE should tie to military units only. 

Same: Could be done, not even that difficult, but not making the priority list.  Note that pre-made units can just be given the Clean ability and have cost set to what it would cost without it, though.

Also I noted in mode #2 (and I assume mode #4) there was a cost bumpup at Fusion but not at Quantum/Sing.  Was this intended?  I can give examples if you need them

It is intended, since Fusion is a 100% increase to hit points whereas the others are substantially less proportionately.

[TarMinyatur]

I played a game using unit cost code #4, in which infantry units cost 1x the higher of weapon or armor, mobile units cost 2x, and air units cost 3x. I like how it tends to reward the construction of, say, a single 6-4-1 shock troop, instead of building a 6-1-1 thug and its defensive complement, a 1-4-1, at a low cost.

I would, however, like to try an option in which infantry costs 1x, mobile costs 1.5x and air costs 3x. This would make speeders more economical than they are using option #4. I don't think a speeder should cost the same as two similarly armed infantry, and thus I rarely built them. A speeder's useful ability to disengage may be worth a 50% increase in cost...but not 100%, in my opinion.

[Yitzi]

I played a game using unit cost code #4, in which infantry units cost 1x the higher of weapon or armor, mobile units cost 2x, and air units cost 3x. I like how it tends to reward the construction of, say, a single 6-4-1 shock troop, instead of building a 6-1-1 thug and its defensive complement, a 1-4-1, at a low cost.

I would, however, like to try an option in which infantry costs 1x, mobile costs 1.5x and air costs 3x. This would make speeders more economical than they are using option #4. I don't think a speeder should cost the same as two similarly armed infantry, and thus I rarely built them. A speeder's useful ability to disengage may be worth a 50% increase in cost...but not 100%, in my opinion.

Keep in mind they don't just get the ability to disengage; they also get to get places faster, and are far better for "killzoning".  There are still slots available, though, so I can definitely make one where it's 1.5X instead of 2X.  It'll be in the next patch version.

[Nexii]

I've done a fair amount of playing around with all the new cost modes. 

I think the new mode 1 had resulted in low former/colony pod/crawler costs (20 minerals).  Makes for a lot faster growth.  Military wise the formula was pretty good.

My mode 2/4, I found also that Rovers weren't that great.  2x cost made them too expensive, and the result was 100% infantry armies.  The thing is that although one rover beats one infantry, it doesn't beat two infantry.  If the rover attacks then it can't disengage on the next turn.  I would also value a Rover at approximately 1.5x the cost of an Infantry.

Air at 3x was also a bit steep.  Perhaps less so for Copters if unmodified, but it's steep for Needlejets.  Depends a bit whether AAA is set to -1.  A side issue I have with Needlejets is the "stalling" technique due to their zone of control.  If you rush air you can make a scout needlejet and infantry can't advance past or even around it.  Would it be possible to add a flag to rid their zone of control?  Or allow attacking infantry to be on the same square as an enemy Needlejet (if without SAM?).  I think with Copters, the move:4 fix is a good one.  I'm thinking 2x infantry cost for air would be a bit too cheap.   But 3x is too steep - a 2.5x cost mode on air might be better.  Thoughts anyone?

Yitzi is it possible to add variables for the defensive power of Perimeter Defense and Aerospace Complex?  I think they're reasonably balanced as they are, but I was curious on this.  Mostly Perimeter Defense could use a bit of a boost.  I do think the paradigm of 2:1 (attack:defense) is good.  Defenders should only be able to hole up in cities.

[Yitzi]

Air at 3x was also a bit steep.  Perhaps less so for Copters if unmodified, but it's steep for Needlejets.  Depends a bit whether AAA is set to -1.  A side issue I have with Needlejets is the "stalling" technique due to their zone of control.  If you rush air you can make a scout needlejet and infantry can't advance past or even around it.  Would it be possible to add a flag to rid their zone of control?  Or allow attacking infantry to be on the same square as an enemy Needlejet (if without SAM?)

Both of those would be possible, but not easy.  When I start taking requests, you can ask then.  Meanwhile, you might want to try the effects of moving SAM down in the tech tree; "stalling" fails as soon as the opponent has a few SAM units.

I think with Copters, the move:4 fix is a good one

I think reducing the move from reactor to 0 might work better; it makes for slightly faster fission copters (so they're not too weak), but slower quantum and singularity copters.

I'm thinking 2x infantry cost for air would be a bit too cheap.   But 3x is too steep - a 2.5x cost mode on air might be better.  Thoughts anyone?

Since this is probably going to be something that people want to be able to tweak, I think the best way is just to change the formula to (Weapon+Armor)XChassis/4 for mode 2, and max(weapon,armor)Xchassis/4 for mode 4, and then you can set the chassis cost to whatever you want.  So for 2.5X you'd use 10, for 3X you'd use 12, and so on.

Yitzi is it possible to add variables for the defensive power of Perimeter Defense and Aerospace Complex?  I think they're reasonably balanced as they are, but I was curious on this.  Mostly Perimeter Defense could use a bit of a boost.  I do think the paradigm of 2:1 (attack:defense) is good.  Defenders should only be able to hole up in cities.

Adding those variables is definitely possible; it's not making the short list because they're fairly decent as they are, but once I finish the short list they're definitely possible requests.

[Nexii]

Since this is probably going to be something that people want to be able to tweak, I think the best way is just to change the formula to (Weapon+Armor)XChassis/4 for mode 2, and max(weapon,armor)Xchassis/4 for mode 4, and then you can set the chassis cost to whatever you want.  So for 2.5X you'd use 10, for 3X you'd use 12, and so on.

Yea this would work well.  I've noted some oddness with Missile cost with these alternate cost formulas.  I think, they might be on another chassis cost formula something like air or sea but I'd have to test to check.

[Yitzi]

Since this is probably going to be something that people want to be able to tweak, I think the best way is just to change the formula to (Weapon+Armor)XChassis/4 for mode 2, and max(weapon,armor)Xchassis/4 for mode 4, and then you can set the chassis cost to whatever you want.  So for 2.5X you'd use 10, for 3X you'd use 12, and so on.

Yea this would work well.  I've noted some oddness with Missile cost with these alternate cost formulas.  I think, they might be on another chassis cost formula something like air or sea but I'd have to test to check.

They shouldn't be...let me know what's happening and I can check up on it.