 |
| |
|
|
Zoetrope
|
 |
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Sep 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
vmxa1: why don't you like diplomacy?
Croesus: but even in moo2 strategic battles, fleets fight it out, and from what i've observed there isn't the "spearman killed a tank" effect: a fleet of early-tech laser cruisers is not going to take down a similar sized fleet of late-tech cruisers.
Brutalisk:
Fair enough, given those rules of competition. I shall await with interest further developments and more information in due course.
I lack extensive experience with combat design, but among those i have seen (basically civ2's and some rts's) moo2's certainly impresses me with its variety and, as you stated, the overall competence of the AI, discounting annoying oversights such as firing missiles before rushing forward in preparation to fire more missiles. It's a curious and widespread phenomenon that programmers can implement complex tasks, but get wrong something as simple as that: given the other (comparatively sneaky and effective) tactics that the AI employs, it seems unlikely that it was made to act like a fool then in order to make it easier to beat: it more resembles an unfixed bug.
I do think that the AI should have more rational self-interest when negotiating. If the aim is to make its decisions stupid so that it succumbs easily to the human player, then I would rather it simply surrender to me, as that would save my time.
Best of all if the AI would see the writing on the wall and offer to become, in the SMAC sense, a submissive pact partner, so that what remains of their empire would retain its special features that I cannot inherit by capturing their colonists.
Shared wins would also be a pleasure (as they are in SMAC), instead of having to turn on my strong ally to secure a win after the galaxy has been secured. At the very least, you should be able to call a Vote whenever convenient if you have sufficient population.
Another change I'd like in strategy games generally is that the AI not be automatically Omniscient. How can I practise stealth strategies in single-player (or derive any joy from using them) if the AI magically sees me coming, regardless of whether it has the Omnscience trait or not?
For that matter, why make the Elerian computer empire spend pick points on Omniscient when all other CPs have that quality for free?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:24
|
|
I just do not like to be be bothered making deals and raping the AI and that is what happens in most games.
In Moo2 if I am not repulsive they are always calling me up to offer a deal or threaten or demand or something. Who needs it. Now if you make a deal, as soon as it goes positive, you can expect war.
It is just boring, so I play Rep and they do not call me up.
In Civ3 I will make some trades, but not alot. I will make some alliances, but not many. That is what is good about AW, you met, you declare and that is the end of it. I like Sid because it is nearly an AW.
Actually Moo2 is probably the main reason I don't like it. It was so easy to demand sysyems, it wrecked the game. They toned it down a bit, but you can still do plenty.
It is just my preference, not right or wrong. I also do not like spying in games. That is why I got Aaron to make spying an option in SE4.
Spying tends to not work well in most games. Yes I will use it, but it is often an exploit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zoetrope
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Sep 1999
time: 05:24
|
|
vmxa1: what is an "AW"? All-out Wargame?
Yes, diplomacy is desperately irrational in MOO2 and MOO3, but I don't let that bother me, and I don't exploit the AI by demanding systems.
Playing MOO2 with a very high charisma rating (Telepathic + Charismatic) greatly ameliorates the AI's behaviors however, making for a very different experience.
In Alpha Centauri, diplomacy is more complex, yet understandable - there's ample feedback to explain the situation as it changes under various influences, including one's own actions.
Clear feedback is essential in every strategy game. That's why I play MOO2 battles in Tactical mode. When I was new to the game I used the (default) Strategic setting, and the statistically presented results of battles told me only that they were unpredictable; that's just frustrating.
AC's victory conditions are so constructed that you can have allies to the end of the game.
The weakness of alliances in Alpha Centauri is chiefly in the war engine: allies try to assist, but the AI is nearly clueless about concerted assault. Usually units act independently. Only one time I did see a computer player coordinate a long-distance attack by two land units. That was so pleasantly surprising yet so unmistakable, that I wondered why Brian Reynolds hadn't made such sensible behavior the norm.
Spying is annoying in MOO2 because it's too easy, in MOO3 and SE3 because it's too hard. MOO1 seems better - the player wants some measure of control. This is why espionage is fun in Civ2 and Alpha Centauri: spies/probes can be sent on specific missions and the reasons for failure are visible.
Last edited by Zoetrope on 02-05-2005 at 05:48
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
|
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:24
|
|
Yes AW is Always War, when you make contact you have to declare and never make peace.
I played AC to death, it was one of my favs, except for the happiness issue (staple the suckers). I have not played in a few years and no longer have it.
I still have Vels guide for Smax.
Last edited by vmxa1 on 04-05-2005 at 19:39
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
AFAIK the 29 turns are in ADVANCED.
Brutal plays average here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brutalisk
|
|
Zoetrope: as you said though bud, you used a cheat race.
I used a normal custom race, with no special parameters for the orion game and under normal playing conditions.
It would be interesting to see others give it a try. I've tried 3-4 different race setups so far (some of them repeatedly), one of them has been particularly successful. The one I made it within 101 turns is the one that was originally at 145ish and then down to 133.
edit: down to turn 87 now 
Last edited by Brutalisk on 10-05-2005 at 05:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
heh.
I thought u were ontopic...and that u have referred to record in advanced. 27 or 29 turns iirc. (This was mentioned some months ago.)
(Dont know what colonize-thingi has to do with blitz records where u just invade planets and capture enemy ships.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
siron
|
|
It is not "my challenge" dude. I have never blitzed in a huge gal. I just remember that it was mentioned here. 27 or 29 turns iirc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BaladNaran
|
|
Braunschweig
May 2005
time: 05:24
|
|
If someone is still interested in Brutalisk's 'Quest':
Yesterday I did two games, one in 101 turns and one in 100.
In the first I was some lazy, and in the second I had bad luck, so I think I can do it at least 10 turns better.
I'll keep trying ...
And the race to use this? I think it's obvious to take tele. Then you have to have fast ships, so transd is given!?. The only good race i know with these picks is uni tele transd rhw lhw rep -gc -sd. That's the one I used.
Are there other options? Some feud-race, maybe?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BaladNaran
|
|
Braunschweig
May 2005
time: 05:24
|
|
With the above race after some games with ~105 turns I did one with 97t (-pop instead of -GC, -SD)
Then I changed the race: To be faster I took Omni, so:
Feud, tele, transd, omni, rhw, war, rep.
After some bad maps, I didn't played, I had a verry good map (and an early nav-leader), and I won by conquest in 73 !!! turns.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-04-2005 03:47
Keep a SAVE file of one turn just before the end of the game and be honest with yourselves. Don't use the "save/load" approach. Just play it and use save only in case the game crashes. 
|