 |
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Legend
One of the mistakes I made early in SMAC is to build roads all over the place, this is not civ, you don't get the trade bonus.
|
I actually tend to build roads in almost every square when gang-terraforming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
timotheus4
First off welcome to the forum. New posters and new ideas are always welcome. If you read through some of the old threads you will see a bounty of ideas.
Some of the flippant or sarcastic responses are references to another recent new poster on here that proclaimed their superiority and then proposed tactics that most regular players considered downright stupid before getting banned for a stream of insults at everyone that disagreed with him.
I see you like the university due to their research bonus . .. many people do. I play them a fair bit myself. If I have a monolith or a rolling rainy square I will forgo centauri ecology eatrly in order to beeline to industrial econ (( if not, first centauri ecology and then on to ind auto). I usually play them builder style in hopes to obtain a tech advantage with SE choices being DEmo wealth with turns in both FM and Planned. After pop booming I may often go green to maximize labs while grabbing some IODs and wormhunting.
Thats my basic university strat--Its actually pretty typical of many players on here. Does yours differ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Minute Mirage
I actually tend to build roads in almost every square when gang-terraforming. |
I agree. it saves terraformer time to have the first terraformer start a couple of turns early and get the road down to save time for the remaining terraformers. I do end up with a lot of squares without roads though (usually forested squares)
My road methodology is pretty simple actually
1. I build roads in each and every DIRECTION in which I plan to expand, not in every tile, but enough to craete a highway so that colony pods don't waste time going 1 tile at a time
2. All mines get a road. Aside from the mineral bonus, in a ground war, it means my troops have quick access across the better defensive terrain
3. Any gang terraformed square is roaded
4. bases on the frontier will usually get a one tile road outward in the direction of possible threats/worms allowing my rovers a full attack on approaching enemies and a retreat into the base on the same move
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Legend
|
|
I just found out that land bases take territory priority over sea bases. Taking the sea folk, I build all my colonies near small islands and to my dismay have 2 of them losing all of their land territory to land bases.
So to keep my territory, outer bases are best built on land. I retire in disgust and have to rethink my tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Legend
I'm going for a roadless strategy. But of course I'm taking Sven. 
One of the mistakes I made early in SMAC is to build roads all over the place, this is not civ, you don't get the trade bonus.
Maybe later on, a roadless land game but use airlifts instead just for kicks.
***
|
I questioned the value of roads a few months back and received a considerable amount of advice that suggested that my approach was folly. Some was unkind, but the majority was constructive and enhanced the dialog.
To test out my theory I played a SMAC game as Zak on Transcend and Huge map.
I, despite several temptations to modify my strategy, ensured I did not build a single road other than those on mines to enhance their mineral production. (I was really tempted to build a few roads, particularly from my SSC to its energy park, but held off to fully test my theory that roads were more trouble than they were worth).
I found a few things.
First, the game took a much, much longer time to finish because (I think) of the lack of roads. It took much longer to expand and develop my empire. As others forecasted, it took longer for my formers and CPs to get to where I wanted them. It also took longer for my crawlers to get to where I needed them. Lost time meant lost 'turn advantage', meant longer game. It would probably meant defeat if I was playing against a human player who used roads.
Second, even though I restrained myself to build only on mines to enhance their production, a rudimentary, patchy, road network emerged. This might not happen as much in my current games because I am using boreholes a lot more now (2-3 per base).
Third, as I expected, the lack of roads greatly enhanced the defendabilty of my empire. The few times one of my AI opponents landed an invasion force on my shores I was able to destroy them with Air Power well before they reached any of my bases. This was because there were no roads for them to use to quickly get close to my bases.
Fourth, once I went on the offensive, I was able to use their own road and mag tube network to explode through their empires, taking their entire empires very quickly (Santiago's in two turns, Yang's in 4-5 turns). Because they had such a well-developed road and mag tube network it enabled my invasions to be completed so swiftly that they had little time to adapt and react.
Please note that, like many others, I like and will use the 'chop and drop' tactics on the offensive. I will also make use of the drop abilities of my units for general transportation. Once I get 'drop' almost all of my non-police units will be 'drop/AAA' units. The police ones will be either 'police/clean' or perhaps well-armored 'police/AAA'.
Short opinion on roads what are they good for, based upon my test.
They are ESSENTIAL for quickly developing your empire even though the lack of them makes defending your empire easier for an assault.
Someone, I cannot remember right now who, made an excellent suggestion. It was to allow a road to be made to your empire but destroy part of it, and make that part a chock hold (a kill zone).
My current thoughts is that you should make roads but be ready and willing to cut/destroy them if you face an invading opponent that you need time to deal with.
I should comment that my opinions of what I should do can, and will, be changed if experience and reality indicates that they need to be modified.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fazdaar
|
|
You know Mead, if you wanted to play another game to test this, you could try a combination of the standard roads-everywhere approach and a no-road approach. In the early years, when quick expansion is most critical, you could build roads normally to expand more quickly. Then, after you'r past the critical expansion stage, you could expand outward, away from your road network without building any more roads. In this way you benefit from some quickened expansion, but by the time attackers reach you to try and conquer you your roads are all in the center of your empire, while the outlying bases are defended by a lack of roads.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Legend
|
|
Just play Civ 3, you can build all the roads and railways you want but the enemy can't use them.
A habit I have is to build a road first even if there are no other formers if I am planting forest as roads cost less then. Unless I really need that forest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Actually, build the road on any flat terrain square first, the road is easier to build. For rolling terrain it's moot which you do first, so I typically plant the forest first for the resources and the fact it immediately gets a chance to spread. Then again, I seldom plant forests on rolling terrain anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Urban Legend, you're discovering the perennial gripe that SMAC/X players have: the AI stinks. That's why many people go to PBEM. Maybe they'll open source it like Civ2 and we'll get to rewrite the blasted thing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minute Mirage
|
|
Helsinki
Aug 2003
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
Build roads only if you go for industrious terraforming : ie farm/solar/road or mine/road.
If you go for a natural terraforming (planting forests then fungus all around the place), then just connect your bases and some tactical rocky/mines rocky/bunker tiles. |
I've found that it's useful to build roads even when I'm planting forests in the early game. The formers work in pairs so that one goes first and builds the road, and then both of them plant the forest. This way only the other former loses a turn when moving into position. However, the real advantage comes later when I can get my crawlers a lot faster on those forests, and I can get them fast back into my bases so that I can cash them into SPs.
The advantage is even bigger when I re-terraform the tiles later. My industrious terraforming consists of condensor/farms (+soil enricher later) and boreholes. At this point I terraform with groups of at least four formers, and it's very useful to get the formers immediately into place. Of course, the crawlers can once again relocate fast from the forests to the newly built condensor/farms.
quote:
Originally posted by Pandemoniak
As for the tech advantage, not necessarly. ZAk with -4 in probe is a mine of knowlege that can spare the Hive/Believers/Drones (or Angels, for different reasons) any effort of building research facilities. You can them mine Zak, spend all energy on credits, rushbuild units and finance large probe/SP campaigns.
|
I assume you're talking about single player here? Even if you can probe all the techs from a human player, you're very likely to find that he has already built all the SPs. And I very much doubt that any human player will allow you to consistently steal all their techs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CEO Aaron
If you ask me, the no-road strategy never makes sense. The lack of roads will inhibit your development, and make it much harder to reinforce against a coming invasion. Worse still, if you're not building roads to make an invader's life difficult, you're pretty much assuming you'll be invaded and be unable to trounce his army. A much better strategy is to be the guy invading HIM. |
I agree that roads are essential for development.
However, the lack of roads is a definite tactical defensive plus. With roads your bases might be only two or three turns from you enemy's empire whereas without the roads they might be six to nine turns away. The more turns away from your empire the longer it takes for their forces to get and mass at your doorstep.
If you are invading your opponent you will be using their road network much more than yours.
Because I am a builder/sprawler I will make a number of roads, but recognize that these roads make it much easier for an opponent to use them against me.
Although I have not recently had the AI launch an effective invasion against me, I remember the AI using my own roads to more quickly attack me in the past.
I guess a good approach would be to build and use a well developed road network but be ready to scorched-earth destroy them if you are threatened by an invasion you need more time to deal with (or when you get that tingling at the back of you neck that a current 'friend' will soon turn on you).
Having roads is good. Willingness to destroy them, when necessary, is better.
I guess a good internal road network is good. I would also say that you should ensure that you do not build a road (and tear up any road in your territory) connecting to a neighboring faction until it is either a submissive or you are ready and willing to invade it.
For the builders out there - I am currently finishing a Citizen, yes Citizen, level game to see what SMAX does (Is it me or are the new movies longer in SMAX - cloudbase OK but longer than the SMAC ones?). I have made a road/mag tube network through much of my homeland. Yes, it is fun to watch 8-15 formers travel on the tubes/roads and make farm, condensor, and soil enricher in one turn. No, that couldn't be done if I did not have the road/mag tube network in place. Roads/tubes really enhance the teraforming.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
mead
I think we are thinking more alike with respect to roads now but I NEVER see my roads as a tactical disadvantage. Worrying about the other guys invasion is defeatist thinking and you should build every road you need to effectively expand and terraform your empire.
Personally I don't usually go building roads far into the hinterland. If I build a road, I expect to control it and use it. If someone started using my road, I would cut it in strategic places to set up ambushes.
A typical ambush might be my units sitting on a roaded sensor with the road behind connecting them to my empire and the road extending one tile toward the enemy ideally over a flat or rolling tile and then facing an area of flat/rolling tiles where the road has been cut. Trust me, the AI will send unit after unit up the road and into the kill zone. The combination of poor defensive terrain and possible artillery barrages means their units are dead meat.
One caution-- a smart human will bring a couple of rover formers and instantly build a road to bridge these kill zones ( but a smart human can do this even if you NEVER built a road). So while a static ambush seem to work almost indefinitely against the AI, against a human you would have to keep changing things up or you might get the tables turned on you. Remember though that if they are coming into your territory, the sensor advantages are yours and the terrain should be better known to you. They are the ones trying to advance and assuming equal chassis and morale, they ALWAYS have to come into range of your weapons first. My defensive strategy has always been that you get them to come to where you can kill them.
* These comments are all designed for the pre-airpower era. Airpower changes everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
 |
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:31
|
|
There is one very significant drawback to roads - They Look Ugly - IMhO, there is nothing more hideous than a fully roaded landscape. And . . . As Everybody Knows . . . the faction with the Prettiest Landscape Always Wins!
For those of you who wish to enjoy the transportation advantages of roads, but do not wish to pollute their landscape with those monstrous (I think they would be about 250 miles wide) putrid brown swaths, may I suggest - - Rivers - - they provide the same movement advantage as roads, but with much less visual affront (they are still monstrously large hovever, maybe scaling up to as much as 500 miles wide in the real world). One usually starts out with some preexisting rivers, but even if you have to create them yourself, under some circumstances, they may be even cheaper to build than a comparable length road. Best of all, they add 1 unit of energy to the potential production of each and every tile along their length, a much better deal overall than the extra min you get out of a mine. "And how do you get them to go where you want?", you ask; as if one is not content to 'go with the flow', or one is not satisfied with 'downhill'; well it is very simple: Apply the business end of your stethescope to your monitor (children's model stethescope, with suction cup at business end, works best) while operating your divining rods with both hands - follow the advice given by the divining rods. A nice set of rivers will beautify your landscape, and . . . As Everybody Knows . . . the faction with the Prettiest Landscape Always Wins!
A relatively minor, but also previously unmentioned-in-this-thread, possible negative about roads is their contribution to ecodamage. I say 'possible' negative because in my PBEM experience, I notice that some players act as if they do not share my dislike for receding coastlines and so embrace ecodamage well beyond the 1st pop point, apparently going for the planetpearls, the potential recruits, or the small addition to clean mins. (I must also point out that fungal pops never destroy rivers, but I believe that they sometimes take out roads - even if the pop doesn't take out the road, the ensuing NL probably will take out the road, while they never take out the rivers).
There is one thing that puzzles me about rivers, though:
- Why do Rover based units go further on a river than Infantry based units? -
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2003 09:09
Find out next week 
|