19-06-2005 04:12									#121
	Inflate your Upload Space

Endgame – yup. That’s where ‘Hydro’ comes from. It is rather linear and uncreative, but it works.

Hydro

	19-06-2005 05:35									#122
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Senethro Didn't someone once suggest that you could need a specialist to work crawlers? Perhaps the first two crawlers are free but above 2 crawlers a base, you need one "crawler specialist" for every 4 crawlers otherwise the resource is not gathered.

I suggested this a long time ago...but I doubt I was the first...the idea of it is to stop ICSing...not necessarily because ICSing is the best strategy against humans, but because the AI can't relate to it and therefore can't even compete...

If citizens can't be productive specialists, but have to represent crawlers, I think that makes ICSing pretty much obsolete...atleast, until satellites...

	19-06-2005 05:41									#123
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think that, like Civ 4, units should have "powers", not an attack and a defense...

One way to do this would be to only have technology for weapons...you get laser, and then particle impactors, then missile launchers...

The workshop would still be there, and you would add special abilities...perhaps you'd still choose which armor you wanted, but it would give combat percentages for attack and defense....

So for example, a 2-1-1 unit would have an attack and defense of 2...a 2-2-1 unit would have a combat percentage of 10% (10% for each armor point) and would have a power of 2.2....

There is probably a better way of doing this, but I definitely think that having separate attack and defense values needs to get the boot...Civ 4 will probably (hopefully) do a good job of this...

	19-06-2005 06:09									#124
	Put an end to popups!

Commy,

If I understand you correctly, your “powers” are simply another way of representing what we know as armor, weapons, abilities, etc. You can express the current attack and defense factors as percentages if you like – it really doesn’t matter. If this is true then Civ4-like ‘factors’ are so much window dressing. If I’m in a cynical mood I might suggest it is a way to dumb down the game.

It also may be a challenge to have linear ‘powers’ accommodate the features we’ll expect in a SMAC2 workshop. Much will depend on implementation, and this may be an example of how a retrofitted Civ4 may not work for SMAC2.

Like I’ve said before, I’m not going to hold my breath for Civ4. Games with mass-market appeal that are not twitchy and have a depth greater than a kiddy wading pool are wildly difficult to craft.

Hydro

	19-06-2005 07:18									#125
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Hydro It also may be a challenge to have linear ‘powers’ accommodate the features we’ll expect in a SMAC2 workshop. Much will depend on implementation, and this may be an example of how a retrofitted Civ4 may not work for SMAC2.

From a re-programming perspective (i.e. a cIV----> SMACX Mod), why as far as the cIV subroutines that we don't need, we can simply just edit out, no problem. I have already discussed this with bT and we both agree this is not a significant stumbling block for a mod.
However, you raise a very valid concern regarding the Unit Design Workshop, and I really appreciate you bringing that to our attention. The Design Workshop almost definately won't be a part of cIV. This then presents a problem to our community in that we would then have to build the whole subroutine(s) for the Unit Workshop from scratch. I can honestly say that I don't possess the skills to do this, and I'm not sure anyone in our community possesses these skills, either (bT: any input on this?). Also, since you pointed this area out, why I am sure we will encounter several, if not many, other areas where cIV doesn't have an analogous subroutine to directly link to SMAC(X) basic functions, meaning we will probably have to build from scratch many subroutines. Thats probably going to end up being an extremely significant investment in time for those working on this area of a mod.

quote: Originally posted by Hydro Like I’ve said before, I’m not going to hold my breath for Civ4. Games with mass-market appeal that are not twitchy and have a depth greater than a kiddy wading pool are wildly difficult to craft. Hydro

I agree with your statement completely, and can simply add to that by saying that this is probably the same reason we are still playing SMAC(X) 7 years on after its release - games of this level of accomplishment are very rare indeed. As far as cIV is concerned, why we can only hope.....

D

	19-06-2005 15:14									#126
	Inflate your Upload Space

Darsnan: about this workshop, units get 'promoted' in the field after succesfull combat, and as such a 'workshop on the field' is possible. If abilities can be lined to specific units, there's still the possibility to improve units, although not instantaneous.

Btw, perhaps it is possible to mod cIV so that promotions are put upon a unit after/during production? That way a player can 'force' a certain (also modded) ability on any newly created unit?

	19-06-2005 18:16									#127
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So this means you can select from, say, three 'historical' units for a city's production queue and then modify them as 'promotions'? That sounds like a Workshop Lite, at best. It also sounds a tad limited, perhaps a Workshop with 1/10th the flexibility and ability to experiment. It also sound like it may be fairly linear, which was a severe problem that sucked the wind out of the sails of early and respected Civ3 proponents (including the vaunted Vel).

Hydro

	19-06-2005 18:30									#128
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GeoModder Darsnan: about this workshop, units get 'promoted' in the field after succesfull combat, and as such a 'workshop on the field' is possible. If abilities can be lined to specific units, there's still the possibility to improve units, although not instantaneous.

Heah GeoModder,

I'm writing from a perspective where I want to make a cIV mod into as close a doppleganger of SMACX as possible, but with an enhanced AI. What your saying doesn't fit in with the ideal that I've been driving towards, however your thoughts probably more closely reflect the realities (and difficulties) that will be faced when trying to mod cIV.

quote: Originally posted by GeoModder Btw, perhaps it is possible to mod cIV so that promotions are put upon a unit after/during production? That way a player can 'force' a certain (also modded) ability on any newly created unit?

These are good thoughts, and I've seen some other good ideas as to how to approach a SMACX mod from others as well. I think what its boiling down to is that one (or more) of us needs to actually see the cIV code, break it down as to what can and can't be done with it, and then start thinking about how is the best way to approach a mod from there. Already I'm seeing several critical areas that are going to truly shape the project:

1. The cIV and Python code and what it can and can't do in regards to a cIV--->SMACX mod.

2. Resources: Python is already an established programming language with many good websites, and The Vaults of Parnassus has a good selection of development tools. However, how many in our community are skilled enough to work with these in order to create a fully fledged mod? It could be that we have to scale the scope of our mod based upon human resources in this area.


D

	20-06-2005 01:09									#129
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I too had heard about Civ4 giving victorious units special abilities. I was wondering if it would be possible to jury rig a design workshop out of that. Perhaps increase the number of special abilities a unit possess to 6 or some sufficiently high number and then the current value used for unit power becomes unit attack, special ability 1 becomes chassis, special ability 2 becomes defense and so on for reactor/Trance/X.

Of course, it all depends on the Civ4 code.

	20-06-2005 05:11									#130
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Hydro If I understand you correctly, your “powers” are simply another way of representing what we know as armor, weapons, abilities, etc. You can express the current attack and defense factors as percentages if you like – it really doesn’t matter. If this is true then Civ4-like ‘factors’ are so much window dressing. If I’m in a cynical mood I might suggest it is a way to dumb down the game. Hydro

Yes, powers are another way of representing armor and weapons, but not special abilities, and it would certainly not "dumb" down the game...

Let's put it this way...If I have a 6-1-1 unit, there is a 50% chance that an equally experienced scout patrol could destroy my unit...in my opinion, that's just wrong...rather, make the 6-1-1 unit a 6-1 unit, with a power of 6...its attack and its defense is 6, which makes more sense and is a lot more realistic...

There is one problem with this, how is armor implemented? Armor is, after all, a big part of combat...

The fact is, I wouldn't mind having units in SMAC be like units in civ 3...you have pre-set units, with preset values...what I don't like about civ 3 is that you can't add the special abilities on to whatever units you want...

...unfortunately, by doing so, you would effectively ruin SMAC and its combat strategy, so, while I may believe pre-set units is not a bad idea, I don't believe they should be implemented into SMAC...SMAC is supposed to be different from Civ....

But, I still think that "powers" instead of individual attack and defense should be implemented...

	22-06-2005 07:02									#131
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by girlfight_club ...Now, I've liked the Sims and SimCity, but they're nothing compared to my passion for SMAC. Turn-based god games rule. But I wonder if there couldn't be a kind of scalability brought to SMAC. Work your way up to be a base governor, or even the faction leader. More authority as you go. Less RPG than the Sims or WoW, but slightly more than SimCity-- political intrigue, but your orders to build and attack still get carried out. At its top level (which should always be an option, at least with a cheat code) you're playing a perfected old-school SMAC with extra 2.0 jinglies: Faction leader, conquering Planet. ...SMAC deserves the vertical expansion WarCraft and SimCity have received-- because a political intrigue game is half the reason I prefer it over the rest-- and that with only a handful of original characters!

Yikes, and have to clean up the messes the AI makes as you go? Yeah, it would be great as an immersive rpg, or even a regular TBS played like the Demogames.
What about some other SimCity/CaesarII type features built into a TBS? Instead of having people wander around a map use the citizens already in the Base display.

In SMAC and all other Civ derivatives those citizens are static. Instead they could shift from image to image representing different people of that particular type. Clicking on them gives you feedback; turn the feature off during play if you don't want the distraction.

You could even have half units, so if you don't have an even Psych value for the base a citizen could be half drone, half worker or half worker, half talent. The image would interchange appropriately, and a static image divided diagonally would also be provided.

Note: This would also eliminate the odd-city-size Golden Age/Celebration problem that has existed since Civ1.

	22-06-2005 07:05									#132
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Straybow You could even have half units, so if you don't have an even Psych value for the base a citizen could be half drone, half worker or half worker, half talent. The image would interchange appropriately, and a static image divided diagonally would also be provided.

Must... resist... urge... to demand... reals...

	22-06-2005 08:05									#133
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Linear population model would take care of that even better than reals


I would want to see more land chassis types available (roughly in order of development).

• Infantry
• Wheel (cheap, off-road move cost x2)
• Speeder
• Track (tougher, move 3, road cost x2)
• GEV (move 2, off-road cost 1 except rocky, cross coastal water tiles, chance of sinking if end turn on water)
• Walker (move 2, ignore fungus) [not necessarily Lucas-style]
• Gravcraft (move 6, cross water, off-rail/maglev cost 1)

All chassis types would be interchangeable in terms of upgrades and conversions because the fundamental unit is the personnel rather than the mode of transport. Want to convert your Speeders to Tracks? Move to a base, plunk down your money. Part of that cost is retraining the crews for the new gadgetry. Note that also the chassis type determines the power and cost of the weapon used. Infantry arms are inherently limited compared to vehicle-mounted arms. Step up to ships or fixed artillery for greater power.

Obviously the ship chassis types need work, too. For ships the chassis is the unit, and the flexibility given ground units doesn't apply.

• Boat (same as SMAC/X "Foil")
• Hull (Light and Heavy versions, etc)
• Hovercraft (move 6, can move 1 non-rocky/non-fungus tile inland, chance to sink if end in non-coastal water)
• Hydrofoil (move +2, Boat or Light Hull only)
• Gravship (€xpen$ive, move +2, all Hull sizes)

The base cost for ship chassis above Boat is going to much higher than a ground unit chassis. These are large structures demanding much more resources and construction expense.

For transports start with a capacity of 10 for Boat, 20 for Lt Hull, 30 for Hv Hull, more if larger Hull sizes included. No land transport units (that's what rails and the Wheel chassis simulate). Land units have a size rating approximately 10 plus chassis, weapon, armor and other factors (std probe teams would be half the size of a Scout unit).

Why stop there? We've got airframes to correct. Implement separate frame size and propulsion types. Start with props and ducted fans, then jets and choppers as mfg precision improves, finally to Repulsors. Fix the movement/combat model, too.

... oops let that one out of the bag

	22-06-2005 17:37									#134
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: (bT: any input on this?).

Skill is not a problem, time is.

And there's always a question which system is better and more realistic.

I think it's clear we won't get to completely rebuilt SMAC from the cIV code, either by resource reason or others.

I propose not go too far with assumptions we need to rewrite something before we haven't seen it.

If the special abilities given during combat are splitted in types like "offensive" - "defensive", Im sure we can make those abilities be added through Workshop (just need to call the same, but modified function on "U" keypress).

Also if they come out to be multiplier-like, e.g. SAM gives your weapon *2 when attacking air, Im sure we can make some abilities to resemble weapons / armor, which is a pretty interesting and perspectively more realistic way.

The idea is:

1.To give all units equal "power" (unless better reactor).
2.Make some special abilities look like weapons/armor graphically
3.Make those abilities mutiplay your attack/defense.

say you have a 1-1 basic unit which resembles a 1-1-1

add the "Impact weapons" ability (which gives *4 attack) and you have 1-1, impact which resembles 4-1-1.

The same goes with armor.

What's most amazing you can have such abilities have different values in different combats.

E.G. you know "Gun" weapon is not any good against hi-air due to gravity/ballistical problems.

So you give it like 0.5 against air attack.

Etc, etc.

And I must admit, I have to wrap my mind around what Straybow wrote - pain to understand.

	22-06-2005 17:40									#135
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: I too had heard about Civ4 giving victorious units special abilities. I was wondering if it would be possible to jury rig a design workshop out of that. Perhaps increase the number of special abilities a unit possess to 6 or some sufficiently high number and then the current value used for unit power becomes unit attack, special ability 1 becomes chassis, special ability 2 becomes defense and so on for reactor/Trance/X. Of course, it all depends on the Civ4 code.

Sorry, I reinvented your idea.
I just can't keep up with this thread lately.

	22-06-2005 17:49									#136
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: However, how many in our community are skilled enough to work with these in order to create a fully fledged mod?

I want to repeat this question now and to larger scale
later.
And we will need testers and storywriters (Im sure there will be additions in this field too) as well, so everyone who wants will be able to contribute.

Also - seeing all the features you describe here, all the new ideas and almost unlimited freedom the released code would give to us I'd like to admit (although it's a bit against what D posted here before) that the cIV--->SMACX Mod (we really should register this TM!) will be more like SMACX 1.5, not the same old buggy terranx.exe.


And, guys, please don't talk about disabling ICSing or any other strategies.

Instead of diabling strategies which humans use against AIs, we will teach them and their counterparts to AIs.

I've always wondered how stupid the manufactured AIs are.

I've been modding AIs since AoE first came out and I bet you can't even imagine how much better it can do just by changing a few values.

This time I will get down to the code!

	22-06-2005 17:52									#137
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: So for example, a 2-1-1 unit would have an attack and defense of 2...a 2-2-1 unit would have a combat percentage of 10% (10% for each armor point) and would have a power of 2.2....

Got your point, idea itself sounds good, but I doubt it will be very good in the exact way you present.
The percentage should be bigger and both values should actually give percentage, so a 2-2-1 would look like 1.2-1 (two times 10% increase).


Sorry for many posts, was looking back to pages.

	22-06-2005 18:14									#138
	Remove this text

Addressing Hydro (as our hydrological authority):

quote: Some things I’d like to see: Terraforming: More realistic terraforming – trees, farms, river, solar collectors are all fine. BUT, drilling to an aquifer to make a river makes no sense at all (this is a pet peeve – I’m a hydrogeologist, after all). Likewise, raise and lower terrain violates the conservation of matter – no small thing to consider. Where does all the extra soil/rock come from or go? And consider the scale! A sector is something like 10,000 kms square. Raising a tile 500 m over that area is a stupendous amount of material! Now, if these types of terraforming were available as uber high tech that would be OK.

Here I'd like to note one thing - please propose replacements/solutions.

I think noone wants his favourite "drill to aquifier" command just washed away (anyone has it favourite? ).

So, please, Hydro and other hydro/geo - logically educated people here - what type of operation would make a river come out of nowhere?
Probably replace it with "dig a channel"?

About raising-lowering terrain.
Yes. I agree, it's extremely stupid.
My proposal:

1.Remove "no lower ground adjacent" requirement for holes.

2.Make sea level rising be a lot slower (huh, boys, really can you get plus 1km/20yrs on earth?) and make and "Ice pool" which would mean that one point rising simply stops as there's no more ice to melt.
Some other things should occur then as massive rainfalls somewhere and massive aridness at somewhere else.

3.Remove drastic effects of quakes/volcano appearance.

4.Move raising/lowering terrain to Adv.Ecol.Eng (I guess).

Opinions.
Please detailed and in organised posts, so people can read.

quote: Movement: More realistic representation of distances wrt unit movement, and tile utilization (already well discussed by others).

Agreed. But this will need some advanced testing and evaluation.

quote: Support: Better representation of support (well discussed by others).

Here I must say Im very much against global support, but people get it explained correctly I could give some ideas on it as well.

I don't see a way how mistical upkeep for each base from some support mineral pool makes good sense.
It actually adds to micromanagement because you'll need to check each base for info can you afford more units.
It will also become extreme issue in situations where you lose mineral production rapidly (crawlers harassed by enemy).

quote: Eco damage: IMPORTANT – keep the concept of ecological damage, BUT make those that violate Planet pay through the nose. Right now eco pollution makes it possible to pollute more. Surely a programmer made an equation error since, in my mind at least, any ‘white blood cell’ reaction to pollution by Planet would make Planet more sensitive, not less, to future pollution. So, pollution without mitigation will not pay.

So you suggest if a fungus kills my mine and I put my worker on other one resulting in the same pollution amount, I should get even more pops?
Seems a bit weird.
It needs some counter-measure.

Probably make fungus have -1 pollution in the same way forests do? As if fungus eats your pollution?

Other solution?

quote: Tech rate/ability: Make technology available based on what you do, and maybe your SE or faction agenda. For instance, an industry and pollution heavy faction should have a very difficult time getting Planet friendly techs. This might be done by giving certain factions a bonus toward some types of techs (eg – Gaians to Explore, and Morgan to Build), but negatives toward others.

A bit like Galactic Civs.
Im afraid we will need to turn this down while making this first mod.
It will be pretty hard to implement such cost changes, though some little values could have an effect on it (your avg. pollution per base e.g.)
Strongly against tieing SE to it.
It could make Morgan be halfway to Secrets Of Alpha Centaury, then switch to Green, complete it in next turn and switch back then.
I think its not what we (including you) want.

quote: Tech function: Another possibility is that a tech may simply not work at all or very well if your actions (eg – ecopollution) or faction disposition is wrong. So the Gaians might steal Morgan’s industry tech, but have a bit of a struggle getting it to work. Likewise, the Morgans might really struggle to get farms, forests, etc to work well on Planet since they just don’t get it.

This will be easy if defined right.
We can add something like fungus penalty for negative planet rating to anything we want (at more or less effort).

	22-06-2005 18:27									#139
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

My last post for 4 days I guess - about that whole crawler/specialist thing.

We need some conclusion on it.

Ideas presented:

1.Technician working a crawler.
2.A city can't go 100% effective as there's always some stupid/lazy people.
3.Fiddling with production values.

Address:

1.Its not a bad thought, but has a downside - imagine you're Hive and want to max out mineral output per base till ecodamage (which is a worthy strategy) - you'll need to have too much technicians to work on crawlers and you're not gonna get em as you're popboom-retarded.
So my conclusion crawlers need crawler-based penalty.
Like paying 1 mineral support (so useless on 1 min square and not very good at 2 min squares - forests?).
Hiverians will object this for sure unless we give them cheap mines proucing 3+mins from around the time IA is there.
This solution is actually the most realistic IMO as crawlers would be no different than other units IRL - just some machines.

2.True, that's why many specialist cities lose their base energy production to inefficency.
You suggest making Specialists subject to efficency?
Then efficency needs a lot less penalty for faraway bases.

3.Disagree. Think up something else.
Crawlers already have a penalty of not being able to work all 3 resources and I think it's quite enough.
If we put them to supported units they will have their penalty they need.

	22-06-2005 18:40									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin I think it's clear we won't get to completely rebuilt SMAC from the cIV code, either by resource reason or others.

I am coming to the unfortunate conclusion that your statement is probably correct, for better, or for worse....
One reason I was pushing for building as close an approximation of SMAC(X) as possible is that it would eliminate a lot of questions/ comments/ feedback/ arguments that are inevitably going to be involved in deciding what path to follow in regards to how a cIV---->SMACX mod would be built. As an example I have to go no further than the number of opinions you just posted above in your replies, and know that there will be a certain number of people in our community that will disagree/ have different ideas/ have arguments about your ideas, and that a certain percentage of these people will also be so disenchanted with the directions that we will need to choose that they will back out of helping in such a project.

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin I propose not go too far with assumptions we need to rewrite something before we haven't seen it.

I am not going to disagree with this statement, however I don't want to mislead people into thinking this will be a simple task. I do agree though that the code should be reviewed first to define what can and can't be done with the code (based upon available human resources), and that we then begin to define the cIV--->SMACX mod from there.


D

	22-06-2005 18:50									#141
	Support Apolyton

quote: will also be so disenchanted with the directions that we will need to choose that they will back out of helping in such a project.

We shouldn't really go so far and some people should also understand that we haven't got the resources to completely rebuild SMAC from cIV code.
They should understand that most of the SMACX features in the new mod will be modifications found in cIV, so they could and in certain situations would behave differently.

On the way to making such modifications we can take in count the ideas posted above thus changing the behaviour of some features for more realistic/less exploitable/less micromanagement requiring (Im for this as Im also often strapped for time on MM) because it would be not more difficult to do it or it will be even easier comparing to implementing the actual SMAC equivalent

Also please note this thread is SMAC2 wishlist and we're not gonna make SMAC2 at first, so we can just skip some things found here (giving a reason, of course).

quote: I am not going to disagree with this statement, however I don't want to mislead people into thinking this will be a simple task. I do agree though that the code should be reviewed first to define what can and can't be done with the code (based upon available human resources), and that we then begin to define the cIV--->SMACX mod from there.

Of course, but everyone is welcome to do his brainstorming here (giving some explanations/arguments as well) and who knows, he might see the thing implemented in

cIV--->SMACX Mod.

You wanted a way to name the new game..
Read above.

	22-06-2005 20:53									#142
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin Of course, but everyone is welcome to do his brainstorming here (giving some explanations/arguments as well) and who knows, he might see the thing implemented in

Good point!

Have a good holiday, bt!


D

	23-06-2005 03:07									#143
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I state again I will buy civ4, only to help with modding it to smac2. As for my experience : I'm a student Computer Science Engineer. This year I got 1 examn called "Artificial Intelligence" (completely useless for the AI we are discussing here though). I've got a little experience with modding games not meant to be moddable.

We can discuss now all we want about how we want the workshop to be, we don't know what will come. If civ4 is truelly moddable enough, I am sure we can re-implement it completely.

And, when the game is released, we might find out some of the beta-testers have done some of this yet (I bet they have to beta-test the moddabillity too, and what else can they try to do??)

	23-06-2005 22:02									#144
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by binTravkin My last post for 4 days I guess - about that whole crawler/specialist thing. We need some conclusion on it. Ideas presented: 1.Technician working a crawler. 2.A city can't go 100% effective as there's always some stupid/lazy people. 3.Fiddling with production values.

You forgot limiting the number of, or income from, crawlers contributing to the base. Production values stay the same.

	24-06-2005 05:11									#145
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Darsnan One reason I was pushing for building as close an approximation of SMAC(X) as possible is that it would eliminate a lot of questions/ comments/ feedback/ arguments that are inevitably going to be involved in deciding what path to follow in regards to how a cIV---->SMACX mod would be built. As an example I have to go no further than the number of opinions you just posted above in your replies, and know that there will be a certain number of people in our community that will disagree/ have different ideas/ have arguments about your ideas, and that a certain percentage of these people will also be so disenchanted with the directions that we will need to choose that they will back out of helping in such a project.

While I'm no programmer, may I suggest that those who SERIOUSLY want to mod SMAC for a SMAC2 perhaps should make their own website with forums...

Ask for some ideas on Apolyton, but don't tell anyone your final decision...then, suddenly (and unexpectantly) release "SMAC 2" and just tell people that's what they get...

Hopefully this will prevent people from saying "that idea sucks" or "your mod is going to be horrible" or whatever....as quoted above, many people will have many ideas, and not announcing what you are going to do might prevent people from trying to annoy you by arguing there idea, whatever...

I know you can run a free website on www.freewebs.com and think also on geocities...freewebs I know has the ability to create forums...

But of course, it's all up to the programmers who wish to undertake such a difficult but glorious task...

	24-06-2005 06:07									#146
	Inflate your Upload Space

bT,

River – rivers are largely the product of regional rainfall and topography. Water (as all other things) is conserved, so if you make a river you are taking that water from somewhere else – and that ‘somewhere else’ may not be to your liking (“Glorious Leader! You have your river! But, the water table dropped 100 meters, the Glorious Capital wells are dry, and all nearby the farms have gone arid…”)

Ecopollution – my understanding is that each fungal ‘pop’ increases the future max minerals a city can produce w/o eco damage. So, it pays to pollute so you can increase your industrial potential. This strategy combined with eco friendly structures can massively increase your industrial potential through a game. My observation is that strong players intentionally create pollution to get as many ‘pops’ as they can before and during the building of tree farms, hybrid forests, etc. Others have parsed out the details of this oddity, but to me this seems dead wrong if xenofungus acts as white blood cells to find and eliminate invaders – as is stated in Datalinks. Why would Planet reward ‘bad’ behaviour?

Hydro

	24-06-2005 06:48									#147
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Commy Ask for some ideas on Apolyton, but don't tell anyone your final decision...then, suddenly (and unexpectantly) release "SMAC 2" and just tell people that's what they get...

Actually thats step 2 in my thinking: essentially step 1 is get all the hardcore SMAC'ers who have programming experience together onto one team and hack out as close an approximation to SMACX as we can get. Then step 2 is that everyone goes their own seperate ways (with each individual having the combined knowledge from our community of how to redesign the whole game!), and designing their own "ideal" version of SMAC(X)2, which they can then unleash upon the world as they so choose. Here again ideally speaking if all the really important files are encapsulated into the game file (which is passed from player to player) , then this simply amounts to downloading a file and playing the "game" as designed (or "seen") thru another's eyes!

quote: Originally posted by Commy Hopefully this will prevent people from saying "that idea sucks" or "your mod is going to be horrible" or whatever....

One need only revisit the early threads from Civ3 to know how that avenue fared....

quote: Originally posted by Commy But of course, it's all up to the programmers who wish to undertake such a difficult but glorious task...

I'm hoping to get our whole community involved, at some point or another....

D

	27-06-2005 13:06									#148
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: bT, River – rivers are largely the product of regional rainfall and topography. Water (as all other things) is conserved, so if you make a river you are taking that water from somewhere else – and that ‘somewhere else’ may not be to your liking (“Glorious Leader! You have your river! But, the water table dropped 100 meters, the Glorious Capital wells are dry, and all nearby the farms have gone arid…”) Ecopollution – my understanding is that each fungal ‘pop’ increases the future max minerals a city can produce w/o eco damage. So, it pays to pollute so you can increase your industrial potential. This strategy combined with eco friendly structures can massively increase your industrial potential through a game. My observation is that strong players intentionally create pollution to get as many ‘pops’ as they can before and during the building of tree farms, hybrid forests, etc. Others have parsed out the details of this oddity, but to me this seems dead wrong if xenofungus acts as white blood cells to find and eliminate invaders – as is stated in Datalinks. Why would Planet reward ‘bad’ behaviour? Hydro

Dear Hydro.

As you see in my adress above I completely understood your ideas about what's wrong in SMACX.
I understand also the idea of water level and how it interacts with waterflow and other geological concepts.

But what I asked in turn was you to understand that nothing should be just taken away on the ground that it's unrealistic.
If we took away all things that are at least a little unrealistic from SMACX, we would be taking away 50% of the game at least.

Thus, you, as a hydrologically educated person, are asked to propose a solution to this problem, a replacement or whatever what would make people not think that the terraform options are chopped down in an ugly way.
Probably you can provide ideas on even more terraform options.

Waiting for your reply,
bT

	27-06-2005 19:53									#149
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: If we took away all things that are at least a little unrealistic from SMACX, we would be taking away 50% of the game at least.

I also completely agree with that. It's not realism that makes SMACX a wonderful game, it's only a game after all.
Gameplay MUST pass before realism.

I think we should discuss more the things we want to KEEP, and what make us prefer SmacX rather than Civ3, so that some zealous firaxian programmer would not erase them thinking it would be best (with all my respect to the said programmer).

For my part I loved in SmacX:
- Unit Workshop :
Before finding smacx I've tested a lot of games in order to find one with this concept, and I'm really glad that this feature is present among also excellent others in this Game.

But it still need improvement, for instance:
*To be able to save units designs in a specific file.
*Easier navigation : I think windows explorer folder system would be excellent.
*To be able to customize units : more chassis looks for one standart type (eg "rover") as it already exists between humans and aliens ; chassis "faction tags" (as in homeworld) ; colors ; etc... with maybe the capacity to toggle to a standart view in the general view (as for "toggle flattened terrain").


- The whole interface :
A way lot better than in many games which soon became boring due to clumsy gestion system.

But it also need improvement, maybe using many windows would be a good choice. ( See also Space Empires game series)

	27-06-2005 21:51									#150
	Tired of ads?

Here are the few things I want to see:

Graphics:

- 3d Voxel maps with dynamic lighting. I mean, it'd look great to see a base on the dark side of the planet all lit up, with lights in the mines, and lens flares on the solar panels on the bright side.

- Visual representation of units. Because my SoD is a bit shaken when I see one man pushing a fancy laser conquer an entire colony.

- Properly animated and detailed battles, via live rendered 3d cutscenes: If it's some laser infantry defending against a tank, and the infantry are in heavy cover, I want to see troops taking cover behind the rocks, shooting at the tanks. Not predone FMV, but a live little animation in a box, with Source-level graphics.

- Animate lanscapes. I want to see spore launcers pulsating, mind worms writhing, fungus slowly growing, formers actually builing things, bases bustling, tidal generators spinning, Maglevs humming. Also, I think the props to show what tiles are being worked on are a great idea, as they add to the immersion of the landscape. So only the imrpovements which are being worked animate.

Gameplay:

- Automated units interact and coordinate attacks themselves. Like if I have a needlejet in a base 5 tiles away from an enemy base occupied by one unit, and a rover nearby, they work together to kill the unit and capture the base. Etc. with transports and lan units.

- Artillery that are actually useful, and always reduce the defense value of terrain for a turn. Think about it, would a bunker be as good defense if it had been bombarded with balls of chaos for a year?

Interface:

- A better build menu.

Here's my idea: http://img27.echo.cx/img27/7779/smacthing4sx.jpg

E: Just thought of another tick-box at the top: Show autodesigned units On/Off.

The four divisions of units are for the different kinds. So Formers+Crawlers+Pods fit in build, Scouts+Transports in explore, Militaria in Conquer and Artillery in Discover. Artillery don't fit with discover, but the Conquer would be too crowded otherwise.

Of course, the user would be able to rearrange the sections if they wish.

- A MUCH smoother way of pruning units. So a button saying "Delete Design" instead of "Retire" and "Obsolete".
Because, who brings back obsolete designs? Also, the computer would pick up on that you don't like the designs,
and say "Deleting this will cause X bases to have no orders.:
Replace these orders with [User seleceted]
Keep Design


More ideas to come