 |
|
d=me
|
|
Why don't firaxis or big huge games make a new alpha centauri that is a turn based stragety in the strategic level (country building) and real time on the battle field?
(like medieval tatoal war and or single player mode of battle for dune?)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Most historic battles took days. Very few took less than an hour.
The combat system would probably be turn-based too.
While I have seen something like this (UFO:Enemy Unknown) I'm not sure whether BH Games have the resources or whether Firaxis have the desire.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
d=me
|
|
That's unpleasant to hear, alpha centauri is such a good game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SynthetGod8
|
|
it would be cool, but what would be the point? these futuristic weapons have ranges of miles with little or no hand-to-hand combat. It's not even tactical combat (like in UFO). Think about modern combat these days. An unmanned spy-jet flies over an enemy position and takes a few pictures which it sends back to the leader. The leader determines the exact position of the enemy position (which, I might add, has no idea of what's coming), and orders the tanks, artillery, or aircraft to open fire on that position (which was pinpointed by GPS). So then that position is blasted into smitherines from miles away. Infantry only seem useful in urban areas.
So sure, while having something close up and brutal like Total War would not be practical (you try rendering miles and miles of terrain and then managing units that can actually shoot that far). I think it would be better to have a larger overhead view, where you can see all those miles at once and not have to be burdened by being so close to the ground.
I dunno... I'm rambling. If you can think of a better idea, I'd be happy to hear it (and maybe think of something new too)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bella Hella
|
 |
philly suburbs
Oct 2001
time: 00:33
|
|
just wanted to chime in on liking the gold support cost and no home base in civ 3, too.
i rush wonders by starting to build a palace and then switching to the wonder once i discover the correct tech... everybody probably already knows this, though. still, i think it makes sense to not be able to rush a wonder in civ (except by using a leader of course). i think it's more "realistic."
i really thought culture was an awesome idea, too (at least for border expansion - it sucks when you conquer a base only to have it immediately defect). but i'm not sure how it would work with SMAC. since the factions are ideology-based, they would each have their own unique culture. i can't see a university base defecting to the believers, for example - what university citizen would find a religious culture better than a scientific one? one possibility for culture in SMAC is to occasionally lose a citizen to a different faction. he would then appear in the other faction's base and become a citizen there. like, you're playing the spartans. one of your bases is lacking in "conquer" facilities (no command center, no perimeter defense, etc.). one of your citizens gets fed up and defects to the nearest faction that has a base containing these facilities. *shrug* just a thought.
my favorite things in SMAC not found in civ are the design workshop(!!!), raising/lowering terrain, and sea colonies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CEO Aaron
|
 |
Everything has its price. Even you.
Aug 2002
time: 05:33
|
|
Just weighing in on the quality of alterations between SMAX and Civ3.
Getting rid of rush-building wonders is definitely good, it makes decisions on which wonders to build when far more important.
I'm split on the support of military. It could be argued that paying your troops in cash is more realistic, but the truth is more complicated. An army in the field, especially a modern one, consumes more than just money. Fuel, Ammunition, Spare parts, the list goes on. However, paying your troops out of your capital budget does reduce micromanagement. And on the other hand, limiting your troop deployment on minerals makes for a more balanced early game, at least among human players.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
Is there a way to stop that damn crawler cash in?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CEO Aaron
I'm split on the support of military. It could be argued that paying your troops in cash is more realistic, but the truth is more complicated. An army in the field, especially a modern one, consumes more than just money. Fuel, Ammunition, Spare parts, the list goes on. However, paying your troops out of your capital budget does reduce micromanagement. And on the other hand, limiting your troop deployment on minerals makes for a more balanced early game, at least among human players. |
I like support the way it is done in Civ II/SMAC but the main problem with this model is that AI cannot handle it. They build too many units and deplete production potential of their bases. In Civ III they still build too many units but they pay cash which is easier for AI to handle (especially given that early governments give some free support per each city + AI gets a bonus).
So cash maintenance is probably a good idea overall. Although I would raise maintenance cost per unit. As it stands now, there is very little downside in Civ III for having a bloated military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
I just wanted to add in my own take on the combination of Civ3 and SMAC features.
Personally, I love all the new features SMAC has, and Civ3 doesn't, and all the new features Civ3 has, but SMAC doesn't.
I like the gold support option, and think it's especially appropriate for a sci-fi setup. In our own military, all military units are "completed" in specific places: training facilities. However, our entire economy goes into supporting these units, not just the town that hosts the facility.
On the one hand, I think rush-building WoWs/SPs might be appropriate, since obviously one doesn't have to rely purely on the local economy for projects of national scope. However, since they are secret projects in SMAC, it just might be that one wouldn't want to make the project so public as a sudden realocation of national resources might do. Perhaps one could allocate a small amount of gold-per-turn to it, which just sort of "slips through the cracks" of the budget, so to speak, thus speeding it up a bit.
I *love* the culture aspect, and think it even more appropriate in SMAC, if tweaked a bit. You could have them assigned per faction, and rather than having the likelyhood of defection be based upon "cultural buildup" as in Civ3, you could have it based upon whether or not the occupying faction has certain SE options. Another aspect would be the occupying faction's "preferred" options.
So, for example, imagine a captured University base, captured by either the Morganites or the Believers. The best situation would be if it were captured by Morganites, running Value: Knowledge, and *not* running Fundamentalism. It would be a bit worse if they were running something other than knowledge, somewhat worse if they were Fundy and Knowledge, and worst possible if they were running Fundy with Wealth or Power. (Survival would be neutral).
The Believers, however, would have an inherant penalty because they *prefer* Fundamentalism. In the role-play sense, even if the Believers are running Democracy or Police State for the time being, captured University citizens would forever suspect their true intentions. Thus, rebellion would be even more likely, though less likely than if they were running Fundamentalism currently. (The number of drones would continue to benefit the Free Drones more than any other faction, though.)
Perhaps the level of agression could affect the likelyhood of defection, as well. I can see Gaians being willing to work from within the system, the Morganites willing to give up political power to retain their wealth. I can't see the Human Hive being very easy to manage outside their comfortable, brain-dead warrans, though (constant food and jobs riots), or the Believers being willing to give up their destiny.
One think I consider vital, though, is making the stastics regarding defection more transparent. Perhaps, to avoid defection, you must have, first off, as many troups as necessary to deal with drones, and then troops after those first few, up to your police limit once again, to deal with rebel units. Doing this guarantess no defections. This means, of course, that when occupying a non-political faction (ie anyone but the Believers or Peacekeepers), Police State is the best, which makes sense to me.
Great Leaders seem more appropriate to a historical game than a sci-fi game, if only because just making up names wouldn't be anywhere near as satisfying as seeing a name one can actually know something about.
I think that's it. Sorry for the long post. I just can't help myself. 
Last edited by Ironwood on 19-01-2004 at 03:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Enigma_Nova
|
|
YES! More than 4 SE choices along every row dammit!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2004 14:04
), so this is positive progress. Also anyone who played Civ2 or SMAC/X knows that gold support is an improvement. I mean when were soldiers paid with ore - "here take some iron, ore, dirt and stone and survive". Atleast in SMAC there woulf be no need to micromanage support of units but many concepts are based upon this -SE for example, pacifism etc.
I have yet to encounter a "wonder" in SMAC. I have, however, completed several Secret Projects.
|