 |
|  |
 |
|
Verrucosus
|
|
Hello Everyone,
I have been an occasional SMAC-player for the past two years, but since I have found this forum and read the Strategy Guide regularly referred to here, my enthusiasm for the game has increased dramatically. I have always enjoyed playing it, but now I find myself paying much more attention to details. That is why I would like to ask you some questions regarding the combat modifiers as displayed on the bottom of the screen. There are two issues that bother me.
First, the morale modifier listed in the display seems to be higher than it should be for base guards defending against wild mindworms. In particular, during my recent game as Lal, my veteran trance scout would defend the base with a listed "Veteran + 37%" modifier. They had the usual "Veteran + 25 %" modifier when attacking, fighting outside bases or defending against other units (including Believing mindworms - I know I too had to look twice before I believed it). We are not talking about the HQ base or a base with a children's creche either. Both the planet and morale ratings on the social engineering table were "0", so I really have no idea where the increased morale modifier comes from.
More generally, I have trouble calculating the actual attack or defense value from the various modifiers. On the lower difficulty levels I could not make any sense of the display at all, but now I am on Librarian level and it seems that rather than adding the modifiers and applying the sum to the base value, they are applied to the base value and to each other. In other words the defense value of a veteran trance scout defending against mindworms in open terrain
is not: 2 + (2 * (0,25 + 0,5)) = 3,5
but: 2 * 1,25 * 1,5 = 3,75
This does not seem to correspond to the manual which seems to simply add up modifiers (I'm not quite sure at the moment in which context - maybe base facilities) nor does it correspond to the examples I have read in the Strategy Guide where, in a section called "The Multiplicative Value of Bases", the analysis is clearly based (though not dependent) on the adding-up-
method. Therefore, I wonder whether the display really reflects the "reality" of the game, whether it will correspond to the manual when I reach higher difficulty levels and whether I should better do my own calculations rather than rely on the display.
I hope my questions do not reflect too much the confused state of my mind on this issue. If someone here could help me to find out what is really going on in that display, I would be an even happier SMAC-player.
Verrucosus
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Verrucosus
|
|
Thank you so much for all your information. I've started to read big_canuk's thread; it contains a lot of facts, but most importantly, the testing reported there confirms that the modifiers are indeed multiplied. Until now, I had assumed otherwise, so I may have to reconsider some old habits. As Velociryx points out, the multiplying method tends to favour the defender. (By the way, I really have to thank you for your Strategy Guide. Just reading it was so much fun, and your enthusiasm for the game is contagious.) After my base guards have gained some morale and taking sensor and base bonuses into account, it may often be better to defend against mindworms than to attack them when they move next to the base despite the attacker's 3 : 2 advantage in base values. Of course, I'd forsake the income from planet pearls, but in the early days preventing my tiny bases from being eaten should be my top priority.
In that context, the increased morale modifier when defending a base against mindworms that I mentioned in my original post becomes even more important. I realise that the morale modifier is influenced by the morale value on the SE-table, but in the Peacekeeper game where I made the observation I was running Democracy/Planned only, so my morale value was "0", so I'm still confused about that.
For the moment, I am not certain what the (+)/(-) signs mean exactly, but I think I have seen a (++) sign only when defending my HQ base after having built a creche there. Well, maybe there are more answers to find in big_canuk's thread, so I'll go back reading it.
Verrucosus
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Verrucosus
|
|
I knew it would not take long for someone to find me out. I chose the name because the historical Verrucosus' hesitation to engage the Carthaginians which earned him his nickname "Cunctator" has inspired the way I approach games like Alpha Centauri.
I find it extremely tedious to build tons of units, send them to the front and conduct a war of attrition. I prefer to wait till I'm ready and finish things quickly. Indeed, my proudest victories are diplomatic victories with Lal. When I play him, I try not to have any vendettas at all, submitting to neighbours' demands regarding technology or social choices if necessary and delaying the population boom long enough that my allies still like me when I call the election for Supreme Leader. I just love that outcome: everyone looks down at Lal for being a whimpering idealist, but in the end he takes over the whole place by a simple council vote. Sometimes, it does not work so easily because Yang or Miriam become too strong. In that case, I wait for superior technology and take the time to build a tailor-made attack force, that will allow me to take over enough of their bases in a single turn to ensure my 3/4 majority. After all, Fabius Verrucosus would never have set foot in Hive territory without choppers and drop troops.
Unfortunately, I don't know "Republic of Rome". It sounds like a great game, and if my Roman role-model features prominently, I bet I'd enjoy it. I played a lot of complicated boardgames in my schooldays, but since then, I lack the time for such intense gameplaying weekends. I still play lots of shorter boardgames that can be finished in an evening, because even our familiar faction leaders are no replacement for flesh-and-bone opponents.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MariOne
|
 |
Erewhon in Neverland
May 1999 time: 06:14
|
|
I'm afraid that I have to confirm that psi combat ignores reactors - or rather, if you have a fusion reactor, you take 6 points damage whe you are expected to take 3 - that's exactly as having 10 hitpoints.
< slackjaw >
the great Vell still believed combat is additive???? 
There is ONE case where defense modifiers are "combined" in a specific way, rather than individually multiplied:
the Tachyon Field
Tachyon alone = 100% against all domains (i.e. *2 multiplier)
BUT
Tachyon + Perimeter = 200% mod against Land
i.e. ONE *3 modifier, NOT two *2 ones
Tachyon + AeroComplex = 200% mod against Air
Tachyon + NavalYard = 200% mod against Sea
Beware, this is because the two facilities are seen as a single base defens system, and this is clearly stated both in the manual and the datalinks.
Indeed you see ONE Item in the modifiers list, not two separate ones for the two facilities.
(before someone objects taht you can't build a Tachyon w/out a Perimeter, remember that the latter can get scrapped or sabotaged)
Rereading in the winter holidays thread, I did perform more thorough tests later, but didn't find the time to rescue the thread and post them.
Offhand I found out that Sikander's model perfectly stood the trial.
It was the STRENGTH itself that gets NOT applied as we thought (and declared)!
There is an UNDOCUMENTED modifer to be applied to the two strengths before using them as probability for each single hit.
That modifier went in the direction of FAVORING the unit which already had the greater strength.
IIRC it was something like furtherly adding to the stronger unit 1/3rd of the strength delta it has over the weaker. I should scoop up my buried data to be sure...
I remember I didn't keep track anymore of ecah displayed hit, but only recorded the final outcome of the combat, including the winner's final damage. 100 combats for each test. I must have written the results in a .txt I saved somewhere...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Verrucosus
|
|
Here is some more anecdotal evidence on the issue of the (+)/(-) signs in the morale line.
Last night, one of my Trance Scouts attacked a mindworm boil from within UN Planning Authority. At that time, my Peacekeepers were engaged in heavy pop booming running Democracy/Planned/Wealth, so I had the morale value of -2 on the SE table. UN Planning Authority was not the HQ base, but it had built a Children's Creche. The Trance Scout unit had not been trained at a Command Center. The morale line read: "Hardened (-)(+)(+): + 37 %".
This is surprising because the standard modifier for hardened units is + 12 %, so if it is lowered once and raised twice it should be + 25 %. My interpretation would be that the (-) sign indicates that the hardened unit would actually be a veteran unit but for the -2 Morale Value resulting from Wealth, that the first (+) indicates that this penalty is cancelled by the Children's Creche, so the unit is actually treated as a veteran unit, and that the second (+) reflects the usual morale bonus from the Children's Creche.
I also remember to have seen the (-) sign when the unit's home base was shaken by drone riots, but I have not paid enough attention to be sure.
Thanks to MariOne, I now know where I picked up the idea that modifiers are additive. It seems that base facilities enhancing economy, psych and labs output, too, are additive. On the other hand, it appears from the F2 screen that the research modifier from social engineering is applied only after all base-related modifiers have been taken into account. Oh, I just realise that this is probably an entirely different issue, so I better stop here.
Verrucosus
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|