 |
| |
|
|
fluxionman
|
 |
Midwest
Sep 2004
time: 05:37
|
|
I like big maps. REAL big. I've generated and run maps as large as 2048 x 1024, but I find that 512 x 256 is about right for a long, slow game. I like the enhanced realism of a larger planet - somehow the scale on a 128 x 64 map seems cramped and weird to me. But on the really big maps, I run into a few problems. I wonder if anyone else here has experience with these issues and can offer opinions/suggestions.
- Efficiency severely limits the size of empires. According to the hard-coded formula in SMAC, no matter how good your faction's Efficiency rating, any base farther than 64 squares from headquarters loses all energy to inefficiency. On small maps, this isn't much of a problem. On huge maps, it means that your distant outposts are going to be "loss leaders". This is not necessarily bad or unrealistic - most colonies in history have been heavy investments, and military bases on foriegn shores require heavy support. But this effect tends to discourage factions from venturing beyond their established homeland areas.
- AI factions tend to stay home and become hard-core builders - even the "conquest" factions. I prefer not to play with AI factions, but often there's little choice. On big maps, they become very insular. The same can be said with some human players as well - it's easy to sit at home and build roads. But I like to go out and try to find everyone and get the political machine rolling. Perhaps this problem could be solved by setting up a scenario with comm frequencies at the start of the game.
- War is more difficult to wage over long distances. Until missiles, needlejets and carrier decks become available, it's almost pointless to wage war on a distant neighbor. Raising movement rates helps a little, but because sighting/fog of war rules remain the same, raising them too far would through everything off.
I'm interested in finding ways to encourage interaction on very large maps; I'm working on a custom mod with a 512 x 256 map of Earth, and I want there to be a lot of interplay despite the distances. Of course, the obvious suggestion is going to be, 'use smaller maps'. But I wonder if there are other ways to tweak the game dynamic to make it not only desirable to travel outward and scour the globe, but even essential.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
There are plenty of hypothetical ways to make games viable on larger maps (Not that I would ever want to play one that size myself. For me, the game just wouldn't work.) but few ways to implement them because SMAC is largely unmoddable. There are tentative plans for creating a SMAC mod for Civ4. A SMAC clone in Civ4s engine should be as completely moddable as Civ4, if programmed well. Otherwise, I think you're up the proverbial creek.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Theory
Regarding point 1:
Efficiency isn't capped when used in the inefficiency formula. It's possible to have efficiency as high as +11 (Dee/Aki + Demo + Green + Knowledge + Cybernetic + creche), which allows bases as far as 120 tiles away to contribute. However, if your average point of energy comes from farther away than 16 tiles, get rid of your HQ. Rush it in a new base and then rush a colony pod, disbanding the base. Henceforth, all bases count as 16 tiles from HQ. |
I guess that the key term here is "average point of energy" . I find that in an average empire, my bases closer to the HQ are MUCH more developed and contribute MUCH more energy.
I am playtesting Darsnan's latest challenge and the fact that its a flat map means that bases can be considered quite distant. Even running +7 efficiency generally and adding creches, the losses are significant
But instead of disbanding, my approach has been to emphasize minerals on the frontier and build military while my core bases which lose nothing are focused on increasing energy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cataphract887
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Googlie
Although the game seems to accept any input number, it has been proven (by MariOne) that you can't get above 512 x 512
Inset your usual 2048 x 1024 then count the tiles - they are actually 512 horizontal and 511 vertical
G. |
nevermind,i tested it and it seems your correct 
Last edited by Cataphract887 on 26-08-2005 at 20:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Theory
Regarding point 1:
Efficiency isn't capped when used in the inefficiency formula. It's possible to have efficiency as high as +11 (Dee/Aki + Demo + Green + Knowledge + Cybernetic + creche), which allows bases as far as 120 tiles away to contribute. However, if your average point of energy comes from farther away than 16 tiles, get rid of your HQ. Rush it in a new base and then rush a colony pod, disbanding the base. Henceforth, all bases count as 16 tiles from HQ. |
HAX!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Senethro
|
|
Hax: phonetic rendering of hacks.
Hax is traditionally yelled by young impressionable Counterstrike players who believe an opponent of theirs is cheating (by using hacks). Example of usage: "OMG HAX ADMIN BAN PLS".
I personally thing that disbanding your HQ to obtain a C3:C style Communism inefficiency model is much more than just a game "feature". Definitely a bug.
I really don't see how its possible to have fun on a map that size anyway. Especially if a certain style of expansion which ignores inefficiency in its resource gathering was employed. Micromanaging 500 formers would not make a fun game anyway.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-08-2005 21:40
|