 |
| |
|
|
Senethro
|
|
Though I've been quite happy to abuse insta-build pods when I've got an uber-crawler construction sitting in the closest city, I hadn't previously realised the importance some people assigned to them. While I'm going to modify and experiment with my own playstyle accordingly, could you tell me more about it?
Do Sparta and other momentum factions find it a reliable method of drawing equal or surpassing builders? As I said earlier the ACDG3 does not feature a human Hive/Drones/Uni and some people dispute the reasons for Sparta's position. While, in other games than SMAC, I'm used to picking factions that have wildly variable results because you have to take risks with them and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, I'm not sure this relying on pods is a good thing. Especially when they can be turned off.
PS: I've just reviewed my worldbuilder and I think it might be favouring ICS :/
A lot of people have spoken about disliking the ICS micromanagement. How could this be decreased? And does noone have opinions on whether it is right that ICS can ignore efficiency? All thoughts on any aspect of ICS relevant here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PJayTycy
|
|
I've never used ICS. I usually just look at the special resources available to position my bases (because there ar no restrictions on them).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
 |
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Senethro
People, please, seriously now, VALID examples only. WHile a lot of stuff here is going to be anecdotal, your first time ICSing is NOT a good example of anything to do with ICS.
And what is your definition of a builder? Are you meaning someone who stays small and expands vertically? I would define an ICS builder as someone who just borgs across the entire map if you'll let them. |
I think the fact that I had completed the cloning vats before 2200 demonstrates that my ICSing worked...otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned it...
And I define a builder as someone who concentrates more on building than anything else...hence the name...
Covering the whole planet doesn't make you a builder, sorry...however, builders can cover the whole planet...big difference in choice of words...
Builders will be those people that have 4 formers per base, research hospitals before boats, and boreholes before having ecological engineering...
Last edited by Commy on 19-05-2005 at 01:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
 |
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Though I've been quite happy to abuse insta-build pods when I've got an uber-crawler construction sitting in the closest city, I hadn't previously realised the importance some people assigned to them. While I'm going to modify and experiment with my own playstyle accordingly, could you tell me more about it? |
Well, Im not the best in but things I've learned are:
1.to build a couple rovers early.
2.to go for D:F first (or after CE) and build a couple of those cheap 20 min foils ASAP
3.to go for D:I and MCC after IA
quote:
Do Sparta and other momentum factions find it a reliable method of drawing equal or surpassing builders? As I said earlier the ACDG3 does not feature a human Hive/Drones/Uni and some people dispute the reasons for Sparta's position. While, in other games than SMAC, I'm used to picking factions that have wildly variable results because you have to take risks with them and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, I'm not sure this relying on pods is a good thing. Especially when they can be turned off.
|
Firstly - ANY faction can do that with various success.
In the Girls Night In game I've built MCC, switched to Green and Im going out capturing IoDs at will with my 20mineral 2-1-8 cruisers.
Neural Amplifier helps to defend against enemies at sea as you get a 2(attacker):3(defender) at least.
Secondly:
Yes it's reliable.
Barring that you have high morale and/or Planet bonus, even a MW-filled pod can be a success.
You don't even don't need to kill them - they will go attack your enemy on the continent you popped them.
quote:
PS: I've just reviewed my worldbuilder and I think it might be favouring ICS :/
|
Try SmackSims WorldBuilder Mod
Best mod I've ever seen! 
quote:
A lot of people have spoken about disliking the ICS micromanagement. How could this be decreased? And does noone have opinions on whether it is right that ICS can ignore efficiency? All thoughts on any aspect of ICS relevant here. |
Yes. Micromanagement is a killer. If you have around 400 units to issue orders to (a real-life situation with my Hive at CGN 21 @ 2190) you get pretty tired of it.
To improve the fun in micromanagement following things should be done:
1.Improved governor. Someone who you could tell to ONLY build a list of things and someone who'd understand that if the base is about to grow to size 2 it should build a CP and if it will grow in 10 turns but CP will be ready in 6 turns it should build something else (preferably things that increase output like crawler/former or a police scout).
Also it'd be very nice of a governor was able to understand that riots MUST be quelled BEFORE they appear not AFTER.
2.improved complicated unit orders, especially ability to define your own orders like - forest + road.
or hole + road.
3.a possibility to define GRID of terraforming.
You input like:
ch
cB
where "h" is hole, "c" is condenser, before that forest (there should be ability to define a logical statement if(condensers allowed)->condenser else->forest.)
and "B" is base.
The same ability to make a grid or make "objective" for Colony Pods.
Grid would be like mentioned above, objective would be like - "found CP on bonus" | "found CP on river".
..and many many more which I and other people can think up if only Firaxis listened to us.
I could even code that actually.
quote:
That's the nice thing about civ 3, you don't have to set limits...if only they could add better SE and idealogies into civ...but I guess we'll have to wait... |
How wrong you are.
Civ 3 is a limitation itself. That's why AIs can do so well in it.
Also have you ever tried to save your file with name "multi.sav"  and then load it.
You'd see that your friends AIs have half the mineral costs at deity level.
Just give a SMACX AI +5 industy and I bet you won't have to "set limits" to yourself!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Commy
|
|
St. Louis, MO, USA
Mar 2004
time: 05:20
|
|
Civ 3 is a limitation in itself, I agree, and that's why I like it...and about the AI getting +5 industry...don't they get that anyway on Transcend? Since I play transcend, I think I'd be used to it by now...
The fact is, I can easily beat Transcend, even when I don't use crawlers, probe teams, PBs, missiles, bombers, and force myself to have -5 police...and yet I struggle to survive on emperor level on civ 3...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ka Plewy
|
|
The point is that CIV3 is limited, for the AI to be able to cope, where as SMAC is so much more complex that the AI isn't able to make good decisions.
In the previous three incarnations of civ style games (civ to civ2 to SMAC we were given increasing levels of complexity for the player to enjoy). We did enjoy it, while all the time we lamented at the inability of the AI to cope. Unfortunately took that too heart, and in an effort to make the AI cope, they limited the player.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
 |
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Maniac, you review which map is better for which makes me smile.
People have been discussing over this thing years ago.
Just go to CGN and see the initial threads where they discussed which map would be the best for 4 player tournament. |
Could you please point me to these threads if you still remember them? I did a search on CGN, but couldn't seem to find any. 
Regarding your claims that ACDG3 Sparta proves that large maps are not in favour of builders...
I could give a long and detailed analysis of the Spartan economy, but of course I'm NOT going to give you that information. 
Just replying a couple things.
quote:
You see the general point that many players are missing is that bigger maps benefit momentum/hybrid factions in one particular way.
PODS.
In the ACDG Spartans have popped so many pods that they themselves have made Sparta powerful.
They can than MCC a lot for that, but even without MCC it's a brilliant execution of a strategy most builder players are almost unable to execute at that efficency because of FM. |
I partially agree with your point. While pods are a nice source of additional income and indeed our main source of secret projects (and a couple other neat toys, such as the one floating near your coastal base  (Did Net Warrior post our message?)), they can't make up in regular income the builder disadvantages the Spartans have.
The main boost to our regular economy came not from popping pods, but from conquering the University, doubling our production. And of course we also got all the techs we ever needed from the Zak-Lal alliance. So the ACDG3 Sparta case actually would prove my point: Sparta needs an easy target nearby to be succesful. The larger the map, the further away potential targets are...
But anyway, even supposing that being able to pop extra pods completely makes up for the lack of nearby targets for conquest or partners for cooperation, what are you going to do about the warmonger faction that unlike the Spartans and Cult is not more than average (or even underaverage) skilled for podpopping: the Believers!
quote:
Also the much earlier contact of all factions is a very big benefit if you know what 'diplomacy' means. |
Again proving my argument that great maps are unbalancing. The larger the map, the later contact will be made, and the later the advantages of early contact will kick in, resulting in a loss of comparative turn advantage.
quote:
Morgan had PTS, PEG and HGP.
Sparta had CN and MCC.
Guess who won?
Sparta!
And Sparta is winning badly!
Not just some occasional luck or a sligh difference between turnplayer skills.
It is a good example ICS can be beaten and also a good example big maps are not in favour of builders. |
If the Corporation had one more unit in Morgan Industries, our PTS raid would have failed, and they would be ICSing us all off the powerchart.  So a large element of luck here, as Mead points out.
But anyway, this discussion about ACDG3 is actually insignificant. If you want to falsify my point, you have to give examples of many games, show a regular pattern, where momentum factions triumph over the classical builders.
I'd say to call a game setup balanced,
1) all factions should be considered equally attractive a playing option (within reasonable limits of course - I guess Zak will always be chosen more than Miriam ).
But more importantly:
2) all factions should have approximately an equal percentage of victorious games.
You've obviously played and CMNed more multiplayer games than I have, so you're much better qualified to answer this question:
Do the Spartans/Cult/Believers/Pirates win as many games as the University/Morganites/Peacekeepers/Drones??
Expert SMACers and CMNs may have been discussing the issue of the best game setup years ago, but ultimately I think the only good measuring staff is the question I asked hereabove, and not some lengthy theorizing like we're doing here.
I don't claim to know what's the perfect setup, but I at least don't deny there could be a problem!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maniac
|
|
Gent, Belgium
Jul 1999
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
Yes, Uni/Morgan/Hive and other more popular factions are winning more games.
But the main reason is not their advatages, the main reason is that the percentage of players wanting to take up any of the momentum factions is much lower than the percentage of those who "like uni". |
I meant "Do the Spartans/Cult/Believers/Pirates have the same percent of victories in the games they participate in as the University/Morganites/Peacekeepers/Drones??"
In other words, if the Peacekeepers win four out of twenty games, does the Cult, who is chosen less often, also win the same ratio of 20%, eg one out of five games?
And for the record, personally I'd like to play momentum factions, but due to the CMNs and many players insisting on builder-friendly setups, I have no other choice but to play builder factions...
quote:
Actually I think you should not try to compare factions like Uni or Drones to anyone else. I think and I suppose most people think they're overpowered. |
If you know that, then why not do something about it in the game setup? Place a momentum faction close to them, or something? 
quote:
And these secret projects you have (CN, MCC and CDF IIRC) is what make you what you are now. |
Those are combat-improving SPs, so do you mean we are a conqueror? Fortunately then we aren't playing on a great map.  j/k
quote:
I'd advise a Believer player to go more for building than momentum due to his high support. |
Or if you were the CMN setting up the game, you could advise the players that a standard map would be preferable to enable the Believers to fully use their factional advantages: the fanatic bonus and the stronger probe teams!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
My 2 cents, I think others have hit on it too.
ICS is powerful in that it gives you a lot more turn advantage (you can plant those bases much quicker), makes the most of the land you have availible, and eases defensive efforts.
There should be no firm rule that says you must follow a certain pattern such as:
XOXOXO
OOOOOO
XOXOXO
You try to pack them in as close as reasonable, making good use of you specials and rivers, and taking into consideration the obstacles such as rockies and fungus that are not economically practical to prepare for a base site.
If following ICS, you should try to pack em in closely, but should not blindly follow some arcane spacing plan.
Mead
PS
The same goes for your borehole placement plan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ka Plewy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mead
[...]
There should be no firm rule that says you must follow a certain pattern such as:
XOXOXO
OOOOOO
XOXOXO
[...]
|
Yes, there is a firm rule, it's maximal borehole placement, since you can't drill them next to each other.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ka Plewy
Yes, there is a firm rule, it's maximal borehole placement, since you can't drill them next to each other. |
True, but sometimes it's better to get the boreholes built faster rather than worrying about maximum placement. Plus sometimes if you were to hold to the rigid place system, you would end up placing the boreholes right on top of a nut bonus, or avoid placing the borehole on an energy or min bonus.
Usually, if I'm very serious about borehole maximization I'll worry more about getting my boreholes started before I raise the land, extending the coastline.
Mead
PS
The guidlines are helpful, but are merely guidelines that require some variation, depending upon the Planet you encounter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Yea that is funny. The Freshwater Sea is perhaps Planet's most vulnerable landmark. |
Once, I teraformed on (or adjacent to) the Manifold Nexus. I think I might have put a borhole there.
Anyway, I lost the benefits from having the Nexus. I think I might have destroyed it.
Since then, I have not built anything to close to the Nexus.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cataphract887
|
|
i had a base+borehole and some other stuff all over the nexus,but didnt harm it.just dont raise\lower land near landmarks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sebed
|
|
raise/lower quakes and floods are the only things able to destroy benefits of landmarks...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Net Warrior
Placing a sensor on the the Manifold Nexus will destroy it, as will flooding. |
Makes sense. I was not sure what I built there, but I was pretty sure it took away the benefits of the nexus.
It probably was a sensor. It's more likely that I would put one there than a borehole.
Why does the sensor destroy it? Sensors also destroy solar and condensors too (but not soil enrichers?). Sensors look cool when you combine them on the same sqaure as an airfield.
Mead
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-05-2005 23:37
|