 |
| |
|
|
buster
|
 |
Aarhus, Denmark
Oct 1999
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
originaly poste by Honghu
I voted standard map because I was a DA at the time and I would want to change my vote to huge now that I'm a Gaian. However this seems unecessary since what buster said seems very reasonable to me.
I do not have many MP experiences. One thing I have a little concern is that if factions will meet around 20 turns, would it be likely a faction could be wiped out by the Spartans before it has time to develop the necessary defense technology? I do not wish a faction be eliminated this early.
|
Well that you may meet at turn 20 does not equal 10 rovers are parked at your door by then.
Organizing an attack takes a lot of preparations - just the fact that the units of the agressor will have quite some way to go means that while you may run into an exploring unit early (and if he is really agressive you could loose and undefended base) large scale attacks by nature will be quite a bit later.
As a matter of fact the only faction in this game normally capable of launcing a decent sized attack early (realistically maybe 2030 or so) would probably be your own if you manage to amass a decent amount domesticated wildlife. Worms are shitty attackers though unless the base is right next to fungus but decent defenders - but as in all things numbers will make up for individual shortcomings. In any case of everyone present Gaia is probably the one who normally will have to invest the least of their early output towards millitary.
Anyway the plan is not to make anyone sitting ducks - it is not a 2110 slugfest setup - the thing is however that it may not be advisable to only concentrate on expansion and research and that serious consideration will need to be given how much you prioritice what.
In such games defensive terraforming plays a role (ie - you will want to be able to see what is coming - you will want to prevent rovers & worms from attacking without having to park in fron of your base first (that is remove fungus next to a base if you are not gaia - put forest there to slow rovers etc). The standard stuff - lokk at the way your territory is setup - from where someone may be coming, what way they are likely to pick and how to put them at a disadvantage, andwhat units you need to defend yourself. The smarter you arrange it the less millitary you will need. It is the attacker who has long way to go (ie the units you face were produced long ago and reinforcements have long to go wherweas you can rally your defense much quicker). Attacking is never easy - especially not early if it is to be a real threat rather than some annoying harassment.
For the defensive minded all I can say is that the smarter you setup your area the less defense you need - and for the potential agressor - somebody will probably not be listening but if they all are - I guess you wil just have to outsmart them and hit them where they are not prepared for it and harder than they envisioned.
Anyway for this kind of setup everyone has to think things over. You can try to get ahead paying no attention to millitary. After all chances are it will be one of the others who get attacked if any at all a millitary unit not used is basically a waste of resources that could have been used for something else. However - if your luck is bad - such a strategy could make you dead at 2130.
Agressors likewise need to evaluate if they are going to put all on one card. A half hearted attack will usually be easily repulsed unless the defender is wholly unprepared. Ignoring infrastructure and just cranking out millitary means you are staking all on a first assault. If it fails - or even if it doesn't, but if the result is that you you wipe someone out but does not take over much, there is still two others left and they will now be far more built up than you. A really successfull attack either - wipes out your biggest opponent or pays for itself (ie - what you concur must be more valuable than the resources you put into the attack). Otherwise the next attack will be harder and the last really, really hard. Maybe better to build up and go later when the the bases are less likely to get destroyed on taking and you have more infrastructure to support an all out assault, not to go at all but simply do the old "protection racket" or maybe you just give them hell or die trying hoping to spring that surprise on them that will enable you take over what is theirs before they can defend or destroy it.
The point is the game could go all ways and that the setup does not make one way the obvious or only viable way to go. Now settings things up like this is not that easy and things happen (units get catapulted - sometimes gaians get their first capture on turn one or two - sometime quakes alter the landscape and once in a while a faction loose their second base to a worm) but the point is that to make the game equal for all - yes a 2130 or so attack of some size should be a maybe not likely but possible event and that taking a gamble it won't means taking an actual risk of getting caught at a serious disadvantage.
It is not like Sparta sending two rovers your way in 2110 mean you are atomatically dead by 2130 or whenever they may arrive no matter what you do. They will have quite some way to go if they are going at all. The point is if you take for granted they won't you could be. It Estimating the risks and balacing out priorities is your job and making the right choices is your job. Balancing the setup is as I see it about leaving as many options as possible open and not making just one or two the obvious right one.
On the early attack by an agressor on a builder that means not so close that it is the obvious choice for the agressor while he has the edge but no so far that it is out of the question or too impractical to be realistic.
If I can get every builder to worry that they could be both under attack and falling behind at the same time and every agressor to argue internally whether they will be loosing a golden opportunity or wasting the too few units they have by going on the offensive now I will have done my job well.
Last edited by buster on 30-04-2004 at 22:48
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:36
|
|
I'm willing to trust any map designer of good character.
I'd like to campaign for a super-huge-jumbo Planet. Not that I'm biased, of course...
On a serious note, I seem to recall some tweaks done to the tech tree to spread out some of the facilities and abilities, and made the traditional b-lines a little less obvious. I enjoyed the change since it made me work a little harder. I'll check to see if I still have that around. It did require a separate install of SMAC since it modified the tech tree files.
Hydro
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:36
|
|
I'm wondering what kind of starting position will be given to the factions. In the previous ACDG and in many PBEMs all factions get a boosted starting position. But I'm worried, just like the map size which has been discussed before in this thread, isn't boosting starting positions a modification that benefits some factions and game strategies more than other?
Due to a better starting position (extra bonus squares, rivers etcetera...) "standard" economical progress will be easier and faster. However as a consequence other sources of income will become a relatively smaller part of a faction's income.
For example unity pod popping. The benefits derived from pod popping will decrease in importance. This is especially bad for the Spartans with their faster exploration units: rovers and perhaps foils sooner than others. To a lesser degree it is also somewhat bad for the Angels and Gaians who could explore with fast probe teams and mind worms. The faction that would benefit most from reduced importance of pod popping would be the Morganites.
With a faster standard economical progress the Spartan industry penalty also becomes a bigger liability than it already is.
A third effect is on worm farming. Planet pearls and worm capturing will become less useful compared to other strategies. Bad for the Gaians.
So I think especially the Gaians and Spartans would suffer a relative disadvantage if all factions got an equally boosted starting position, while the Morganites would benefit most from it.
Any suggestions how to prevent this unbalance?
Last edited by Maniac on 09-05-2004 at 20:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaunk
|
 |
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
Morgan benefits from pod popping just as much as other factions due to the independent units it can provide. Giving better territory doesn't mean that pod popping is less important for any faction. It may delay the desire to pop pods for some factions, but if by the time you come to pop a pod, someone else has, then you've lost out entirely!
Better territory will also aid any momentum drive, as the territory captured would be of better quality, and therefore more easily developed.
Please do explain why fungus trawling becomes less relevent though. I'd see a large worm army is just as effective in good territory as in bad territory no?
Also the comparrision between research and industry isn't a good one. +2 research will indeed be doubly useful when producing 20 labs, but +2 industry doesn't become more useful. Instead you get diminishing returns as the amount of mins produced increases.
For example compare morgan and sparta. Morgan probably running +1 industry from wealth, sparta probably +0 from planned. Morgan therefore needs 18 mins for a 2 row unit. Sparta needs 20. Thats 2 extra mins, but the better terrain will help to produce more nuts. 1 extra worker (Say, 5 instead of 4) could work a forest and make up those 2 mins. Morgan would then have to build a hab complex, or more crawlers, to get more mins, or compensate in other ways.
I don't see how improved terrain is anything but a help for all factions.
C 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jtsisyoda
|
 |
COO, Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Jul 2003
time: 00:36
|
|
I don't agree with Maniac on the industry thing, unless I'm still not getting it. His argument would seem to imply -1 industry becomes more crippling as buildings and units become more expensive. It's just a proportional disadvantage no matter how you look at it, which means the relative disadvantage is the same.
I mostly agree that good home territory makes it easier to "turtle", and relatively less advantageous to explore. However, good territory also means you don't have to spend as many resources with formers, etc. to improve your land, and instead you can make military units or whatever. Consider the extreme of jungle forest on every square. Due to resource restrictions, planting bases, popping pods, and pumping out units becomes much, much better compared to improving your territory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chaunk
Morgan benefits from pod popping just as much as other factions due to the independent units it can provide. |
1> Due to their economy bonus which other factions don't have, pod popping income would most likely be a smaller part of the Morgan total income than that of other factions. Reduced importance of pod popping compared to other strategies is less bad for them.
2> Morgan doesn't have easy access to rovers, foils, probe teams or mind worms, so they're less likely to pop many pods.
quote:
Better territory will also aid any momentum drive, as the territory captured would be of better quality, and therefore more easily developed. |
But your opponents will also be harder to beat in the first place...
quote:
Please do explain why fungus trawling becomes less relevent though. I'd see a large worm army is just as effective in good territory as in bad territory no? |
Worm farming becomes a smaller part of the total faction income. This is bad for factions who are good in worm farming.
The ability to capture your units (mind worms) instead of building them becomes relatively less useful if due to a better starting position and thus a higher mineral production it becomes easier to build more units.
Edit: Here's a simple fictional example about worm farming.
Morgan is producing 25 credits per year. 20 from "standard" economy (they're better in that due to +1 Economy), on average 5 per year from planet pearls.
Gaia is also producing 25 credits per year. Their income division is different though: 15 from standard economy and 10 from planet pearls (they're better in that due to +1 Planet).
Now give both factions a boosted starting position, making standard economic progress better, in this example doubling it.
Now Morgan is producing 45 credits per year. 40 from standard econ, 5 from pearls.
Gaia is only producing 40 credits. 30 from standard econ, but still only 10 from pearls.
So you see, Morgan benefits more from a boosted starting position in this example.
quote:
Also the comparrision between research and industry isn't a good one. +2 research will indeed be doubly useful when producing 20 labs, but +2 industry doesn't become more useful. Instead you get diminishing returns as the amount of mins produced increases. |
Could you please explain a bit more? (I don't see how your next paragraph is relevant to this.   )
quote:
For example compare morgan and sparta. Morgan probably running +1 industry from wealth, sparta probably +0 from planned. Morgan therefore needs 18 mins for a 2 row unit. Sparta needs 20. Thats 2 extra mins, but the better terrain will help to produce more nuts. 1 extra worker (Say, 5 instead of 4) could work a forest and make up those 2 mins. Morgan would then have to build a hab complex, or more crawlers, to get more mins, or compensate in other ways. |
How many size 5 bases do you see in the early game? The advantage of higher base sizes before having to build hab complexes only kicks in later in the game, while a better starting position counts from day one.
Last edited by Maniac on 10-05-2004 at 00:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chaunk
|
|
CEO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
Apr 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
The problem is that mostly when terrain is imporved, it's with nutrients not minerals. That means that growth impared factions are actually more hit than factions with an industry penalty.
The spartans poor industry is the reason that they aren't played in MP much - it's a big disadvantage. But they have advantages that counter than disadvantage - more police meaning more workers on the terrain, increased morale, meaning their units are more effective than others. This means that, sure, they'll take longer to produce units when size 1, but they'll be able to have more pop without riots, meaning more production (This is amplified far more than a mineral deficiency. When a map is improved, it's extremely rare for it to include boreholes min specials a plenty etc. It mostly has more nuts. This leads to a faster population increase for all factions, an increase that sparta is very well set up to deal with) The units they'll produce will also be better quality than other factions.
Shall I complain about an improved terrain because of more nuts as morgan? I can't pop boom, am likely to get no growth benefit for a long time, and am limited to four pop before a hab complex! No surely not, those negetives are balanced by positives. More nuts leads to faster CP production which leads to more bases (Which would be true for all factions). These bases produce more energy, and so I may not need to pop boom, as I can ICS instead. Disadvantage, worked arround, advantage.
I do not see how sparta is overly disadvantaged compared to any faction if there is an increase in terrain. To be honest Maniac, I feel as if I'm being trolled. You're asking for worse terrain! Maybe we should go for an all flat arid map, and see who wins then eh?
C
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Googlie
|
 |
Commanding Officer, CRYPTEIA
Apr 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
As a CMN I must respectfully disagree with Maniac's thesis
The start position
The tweaked start positions (usually a nut special, a river, maybe a monolith in the HQ base radius) only affect that first base and it's what a faction does with that first base that becomes crucial
Gaians, Angels and Spartans can all run Dem, Planned, and build creches, and can maintain that HQ base at size 3 by churning out colony pods from it (using the nut special for growth and the monolith for minerals)
Morgan is pretty much committed to growth the old fashioned way, surplus nut by surplus nut to fill the box, and in any event prolly wants to make the HQ the site of the merchant exchange (to minimize loss through inefficiency
So in calculating the value to the faction of the "better start position" you have to factor in the contributions made by the "daughter bases" of the other 3 in comparison to Morgan
****************************************
Pod-popping
In some old OWO posts, scenario runs by, I believe, CEO Bernard and Bingman showed that after a faction changed to FM, and then wealth, the incidence of popping worms dramatically increased (I recall that it was over 50% when running both) Gaians can't run FM, and Sparta can't run Wealth, so they are more likely to pop techs, credits or units than Morgan
And it's not a given that Morgan can convert those MW's into pearls either. Gaia can capture them with their +1 Planet rating, and Sparta can kill them easier with their +2 Morale. The Angels are closest to Morgan in that they can run FM and Wealth, and start with the same morale for their troops as Morgan
So I do think that reducing either the number of pods - or restricting them to landing sites only - is a definite advantage to both Morgan and the Angels
******************************************
"Equal" start positions
A competent CMN will ensure that each faction has some features that enable their faction charicteristics to flourish
For example, to start the Spartans or the Angels on an island would be to negate the rover chassis feature that both possess (for the Spartan rover and the Angels probeteam). Likewise, not to give the Gaians some juicy fungus clumps around their start position would be to negate their early mindworm capturing capability. So Morgan needs a nearby river tumbling from heights so that it can plonk down a solar panel or two - and a rocky tile with maybe a mineral special so that it can get a mine up and going (start 10 games, using quickstart, as Morgan, with "look first" de-activated and see how often you start with a river, mineral tile, couple of pods etc)
To give every faction an "equal start position" (such as a river, nut and mineral special) is detrimental to Morgan moreso than the others
G.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:36
|
|
Chaunk:
quote:
The problem is that mostly when terrain is imporved, it's with nutrients not minerals. That means that growth impared factions are actually more hit than factions with an industry penalty. |
What makes you think that terrain is mostly improved with nuts? In eg the current ACDG all factions (except the Consciousness  ) started with some rocky minerals in their HQ neighbourhood.
quote:
The spartans poor industry is the reason that they aren't played in MP much - it's a big disadvantage... ...The units they'll produce will also be better quality than other factions. |
For the reasons you mention the Spartans would be pretty balanced on a standard map with normal starting positions. However on a map with boosted starting positions the Industry penalty is amplified while the Spartan's advantages remain more or less the same. Except for the +1 Police. Due to that you may indeed have a point increased nuts is more beneficial for the Spartans than for eg Morgan. Though other factions just need to ICS a bit more and the Spartan advantage already disappears - for the Spartans' Industry penalty there doesn't seem to be such a quick workaround. So I consider the downsides bigger than the advantages of increased nuts and mins.
Democracy / Free Market / Golden Age / Children's Creche
quote:
and am limited to four pop before a hab complex |
Again: how often do you see size 5 bases in the early game?
quote:
I do not see how sparta is overly disadvantaged compared to any faction if there is an increase in terrain. |
Even if the Industry penalty wouldn't be amplified (which I dispute), there would still be the issue of decreased importance of pod popping and worm farming.
quote:
To be honest Maniac, I feel as if I'm being trolled. |
...
quote:
You're asking for worse terrain! |
Where did I ask that? I would ask for either:
a) normal starting positions
b) if you per se want a terrain boost, IMHO the Gaians, Spartans and to a lesser degree the Angels should get a bigger terrain boost, or get other extra advantages that amplify their bonuses like more fungus and worms for Gaia, and more rovers and pods for Sparta.
Googlie:
As a relatively experienced civplayer I must respectfully disagree with some things you say. 
Are you saying that a boosted starting position doesn't decrease the importance of pod popping and worm farming, and doesn't amplify an Industry penalty?
quote:
Gaians, Angels and Spartans can all run Dem, Planned, and build creches, and can maintain that HQ base at size 3 by churning out colony pods from it (using the nut special for growth and the monolith for minerals) |
Then the Spartans still suffer more from their Industry penalty compared to the Angels and Spartans than they would with a normal starting position.
quote:
Morgan is pretty much committed to growth the old fashioned way, surplus nut by surplus nut to fill the box |
Demo/FM/GA/CC. They can popboom too. This means Morgan can do the same trick as the other 3 factions you describe above (with some psych boosting facility I guess).
quote:
So I do think that reducing either the number of pods - or restricting them to landing sites only - is a definite advantage to both Morgan and the Angels |
So here you support my thesis, if I understand you correctly?
quote:
For example, to start the Spartans or the Angels on an island would be to negate the rover chassis feature that both possess (for the Spartan rover and the Angels probeteam). |
AFAIK a faction not starting on an island seems to be a normal starting position though on medium water maps. Boosted starting positions aren't.
quote:
So Morgan needs a nearby river tumbling from heights so that it can plonk down a solar panel or two - and a rocky tile with maybe a mineral special so that it can get a mine up and going (start 10 games, using quickstart, as Morgan, with "look first" de-activated and see how often you start with a river, mineral tile, couple of pods etc)
To give every faction an "equal start position" (such as a river, nut and mineral special) is detrimental to Morgan moreso than the others |
Are you suggesting that Morgan should get a better boosted starting position than everyone else??
Anyway, why exactly do you consider an equal starting position detrimental to Morgan. Because you say they can't pop boom (which they can)?
***
Btw Chaunk and Googlie, if you claim that there isn't any difference in faction advantages between a boosted starting position or a normal one, or that a boosted one is even detrimental to Morgan, then it shouldn't matter to you if we all started normal and unboosted. Right guys?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Googlie
|
|
Commanding Officer, CRYPTEIA
Apr 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
I have no problem with starting on whatever the map gives - but remember that the game engine searches for likely start positions with a good mix of features - a CMN might want to place factions in particular areas so that interaction is fostered. A good CMN will ensure that there is no disadvantage to that faction by his doing so
If your premise is that boosted starts are unfair, then I agree with you. But I disagree that they only penalize the Gaians and sparta, which is what I inferred from the posts. I maintain that even Morgan is comparatively disadvantaged by the giving to other factions of equal goodies.
(If you freshstart a game, with "look first" disabled, then activate the Scenario editor after the first turn is complete, you'll see how the game engine allocates start positions)
The usual reason, though, that a CMN boosts the start position is usually to give PBEMers something to do for those first ten to fifteen awfully boring turns
Thus extra colony pods, extra scouts, maybe 2 or 3 formers - then give the formers something to do by supplying terrain squares that can be worked such as mineral, nuts and rivers
Does that imbalance some factions?
Yes, as you maintain. But I suggest that all factions are in some way disadvantaged, and that it usually affects only the HQ base it's really no biggie.
I've no problem in vanilla start positions - in fact a couple of my most enjoyable games have been on arid and rocky terrain games (Chiron Winter being one of the best that went, alas, unfinished)
So, to summarize, I agree that it is imbalancing, but I disagree that it affects only the Gaians and Sparta
G.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kody
|
|
If life's standing still and your soul's confused
Jun 2003
time: 14:36
|
|
In my opinion boosted starting positions mainly make their impact on play style rather than specific factions.
Faster development in the early game means that the mid and late game comes around faster. Hence the window for an early mometumn rush is reduced. There are other things that effect the playstyle too depending on what the boost is. However, that particular one is the one that is more difficult to adjust to, as you can't count on doing as many things in the early game.
So I guess it depends on whether you're convinced that your faction needs to be played as mometum.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-04-2004 19:57
Then start me off next to the Spill Mountains with a Sziztletang Brone (and sorry if I'm butchering the spelling - I'm at work and don't have my Niven collection with me!) - gotta go and find that matter transducer, you know!
|