 |
|
Frankychan
|
 |
In the Kingdom of Hawaii (CPA Member)
Sep 2001
time: 19:22
|
|
The creation of 1-1-1 clean police. Usually I make my police units garrison-and-base attackers as well...but that got expensive. I forget who recommended this interesting tidbit.
Last edited by Frankychan on 06-10-2002 at 01:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vitamin j
|
|
My game changed a lot for the better after reading here about the power of nutrients and use of specialists. In the absence (sp?) of commerce, specialists are a great way to generate gobs of energy. 2 nuts = 1 librarian/technician/engineer/etc. There've been some pretty good threads on the subject, but I can't remember the names of any of them... Maybe "all-specialist bases" was one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MariOne
|
 |
Erewhon in Neverland
May 1999
time: 06:22
|
|
Hey, a very interesting thread, for once! 
Actually, Apolyton contributed in improving my game in some ways, allthough long discussions had been already long underway on the OWO forums.
But since after OWO death, Poly had definitely become *the* SMAC technical reference site (apart from a big party of apolytoners who lobby to ban perfectly acceptable game mechanisms just because they develped their own play before figuring them out, and didn't learn to tackle them... ).
First, I'd like to have my take on the eco-damage issue...
Ned, Fitz & Blake did an impressive testing job on the ED formula and mechanism, and they found out one undocumented feature.
This is to say that I don't intend to belittle their achievement, I indeed commend them.
For the sake of precision tho, there had already been a long debate prior that they took on the matter, and consensus was already reached that the dtalinks formula is practically correct, barring minor quirks.
It's just expressed in obscure ways, so that the main issue was *understanding* it, not devising something new.
Then came N,F&B great ED finding, namely the cumulative and faction overall effect of building TreeFarms (et al.) after the pops, which was undocumented.
That was their *significant* contribution to the ED issue.
I have to say tho that it had little impact on my gameplay strategywise. As it might be viable against a dumb AI, do you rreally expect me to SCRAP a TF and rebuild it wasting all those minerals only to avoid some ED, when I'm faced with bloodthirsty human opponents?
___
Now to the outstanding useful strategies/tactics I actually learned here at Poly (i.e. that I could not devise on my own or learned from other sites).
Pods Factory
(credit: OgieOglethorpe)
It requires the PTS, which will make your newly founded bases begin at size 3.
Best used in combination with some boreholes (or rocky mines) and crawlers, and without Demo SE.
You devote one (or more) poor-nutrient sites to churn out Colony Pods.
You found a base, and produce Colony Pods out of it as fast as possible. With the 3rd Pod, the base will be disbanded and founded anew on the same turn, restarting the cycle from size 3 again.
In optimal conditions, you'll have 2 new colony pods every 3 turns (every 4 with Demo SE).
Once you run out of places for new bases, you use the extra pods to speed the growth of already established and infrastructured bases.
This turn out to be impressive for the Industry intensive Hive, and indeed it represents a practical alternate way for him to boom (regardless of Growth SE value...), but it's viable for any faction.
___
SSC, All-Specialists, use of Condensors, etc.
Actually, it's not that I didn't know the elements of this (or "these") strategy...
I just didn't focus enough of the practical aspects and details, and did not put it effectively to use, until I saw the matter debated here (and I hope to have contributed to it a little too...).
This issue goes hand in hand with ICS and optimal base-packing/spacing.
Many are the contributors here, and credits can't be awarded.
Should I name one poster whose word must be heeded on the subject, and whose posts helped me refine my technique, I'd say Sikander.
___
UPGRADING CRAWLERS!
Yes, I admit I never thought of the cost effectiveness of this tactic, until Mongoose pointed me out a thread at Apolyton inventing it (I think he learned it from here too, I can't recall who was the dicoverer).
Although there are many opposers toit. the trick was invented here.
I am one of its most fervent advocates (and without immodesty I think I built a solid expertise on it).
I know, it *does* alter somehow the balance of certain game aspects.
But the technique is deeply intertwined with the whole issue of cashing/disbanding, and upgrading ANY kind of unit, not only crawlers (so that there is NO logical and smooth way to ban it, as I have demonstrated to all those who discussed it with me when setting up a pbem). It's just that with crawlers it becomes damn cost-effective, and changes the approach to Projects planning and building, that many players are "scared" of it...
_
Forced Growth (or POD-booming)
This one too, is nowadays mainly opposed by apolytoners, but it was invented here!
In short, the game allows you to join a Colony Pod to an existing base (I hope you don't oppose to THIS!). The controversial issue arises when by doing so you bypass the Hab-facilities limitations.
When I first came to knew about it, I strongly opposed to it as I thought it went against an intentional game-design limitation.
But two posters with a more open mind than mine, swiftly and easily demonstrated me as it CANNOT be considered a cheat or a loophole, at most some player may agree not to use it in their own pbems if they're too scared of using legal, extreme tactics.
Thos two posters were Misotu and JAMiAM, and the thrad in which thse two illuminated players enlightened me on this tactic must still be here somewhere to be found...
___
Strategywise, Vel's guide is a true mine.
But I rarely found the occasion to actually apply his theoretical methods to actual gameplay...
I think that's it.
Of course then I refined the quality of my whole style by looking at other players, and by discussing here, but I dont' think there's any other strategy or tactic that I truly "picked up" here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MariOne
|
|
Erewhon in Neverland
May 1999
time: 06:22
|
|
Another thing I was frgetting:
Trained Shells and Units Upgrading.
I was only using it to a limited extent, and I do NOT believe in its overall effectiveness, so I don't espouse the strategy as exposed here.
For sure, you can find here extensive insights, helping you to grab the deatils, and to understand when it's actually effective/useful to deploy it.
And of course, the latest, ongoing, self-destruct tactic debate.
I didn't pick it up from here tho, I just mention it for it's breaking news.
I saw it used in a pbem by Mongoose & Pagan against JAMiAM, where I had been reduced to the role of a dying spectator, alas... and I recently saw it mentioned at CGN before here. But old posters here claim that it was know and debated here in the past, up to you to check it...
For sure, I knew about it but never applied or examined it in detail, thus you can say that I'm picking up actual detailed knowledge on this issue right now from here
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spartak
|
|
I learned lots and now I learned more from MariOne's post in this thread.
Am I right that MariOne= Mose?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vitamin j
|
|
I could be wrong, but I think the infantry transports thing refers to the fact that an infantry or rover based transport can carry a combat unit one square (or three road squares, etc.) while leaving the unit able to move or attack on the same turn. So you essentially get an extra "free move" from your combat unit. If the unit is elite already, it's even better... It's more commonly done with naval transports, but it's the same idea. I'm pretty sure that a rover transport is no better than an infantry transport for this use. Hovertanks on the other hand do add one more move point. Support costs are a major consideration, but transports are pretty cheap to build and the increase in combat effectiveness could be well worth it depending on the circumstances.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by vitamin j
I could be wrong, but I think the infantry transports thing refers to the fact that an infantry or rover based transport can carry a combat unit one square (or three road squares, etc.) while leaving the unit able to move or attack on the same turn. So you essentially get an extra "free move" from your combat unit. If the unit is elite already, it's even better... It's more commonly done with naval transports, but it's the same idea. I'm pretty sure that a rover transport is no better than an infantry transport for this use. Hovertanks on the other hand do add one more move point. Support costs are a major consideration, but transports are pretty cheap to build and the increase in combat effectiveness could be well worth it depending on the circumstances. |
But its even more than that. Use of the infantry transports can be used to facilitate terraforming if you are still using infantry formers and gang forming. Load a former up (or two) move onto a square, unload the former and build a road and then move the rest of the gang into the square and begin terraforming. It thus has the potential of increasing your t-forming ability by a significant amount of turns (assuming you have scads of infantry (i.e. cheap) formers) that otherwise would have lost forming time by moving into an unroaded square.
Same holds true allowing you to place colony pods. All in all resulting in the much covetted turn advantage. For my money, Probably the biggest most important concept I picked up from these boards courtesy of Vel.
Others would be nerve gas suicide choppers via JimmyTrick. Spacing discussions via Vel. Power of submissives via Zsozso. Others I'm sure I'm forgetting. Mario's comments always allow edification.
Of course the early discussions on specialization and all specialist approaches was a fun endeavor. Hopefully I was also able to add something to the mix on that particular topic. But no question, Sikander took that whole topic and defended against its naysayers the best of all posters at 'Poly.
Topic of infantry transports is
Santi Going Speedo less
Og
Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe on 08-10-2002 at 01:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:22
|
|
I learned an immense number of things about SMAC / X on these forums. Aside from Vel's quite useful guide, David Byron's ICS strategy was a large early influence. Ogie helped me a lot with tech beelines and early game SE choices, including getting me to use FM in the early game. By beelining to crawlers I found that they were almost unbelievably powerful in the early game, and not merely a mid-game boost. Blake taught me a couple of very useful things, perhaps the most important was that by lowering terrain you could build a borehole almost anywhere. I'm sure a lot of people must have already known this, but for some reason it was news to me even though I had been playing the game and participating here for at least a year by the time Blake broke the news to me.
I remember when my own interest in specialists and base spacing coincided with an interesting series of threads by Ogie and Bondetamp (among others), which led me to experiment heavily, and over a long period with hybrid and then (almost) all specialist bases. Certainly this area of the game has been the funnest part for me, I really enjoy the economic side of the game, and really wanted the holy grail of the perfectly balanced base placement and forming style that was powerful throughout.
I learned a million things about the game here in fact, from the vagaries of native life, the usefullness of artillery (in SMACX at least), and a thousand strategies. There are too many people who have influenced my knowledge of the game who I have forgotten to mention, and many others who have improved my enjoyment of it either directly or by sharing their experiences here on these forums. Throughout it all Marione has been a very useful source of institutional memory, a debunker of bogus information, and an energetic tester of many ideas and game systems. I recall in particular his (and others like Fitz etc.) efforts to once and for all determine exactly how the combat system functioned in the game.
Ned and Fitz and Blake's ecodamage work was also useful. Though my approach didn't change at all (by happenstance I was already playing in a way that took good advantage of the game system), the certain knowledge of exactly how this part of the game worked allowed me to refine my game.
Finally, Kudos to the game designers for making such a fascinating game. It's been the game that has given me the most pleasure and maintained my interest for the longest time. I'll always keep a copy of it around and fire up a game from time to time, even as newer games demand my attention in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mongoose
|
|
Harrisburg,PA USA
Apr 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
The crawler upgrade is perhaps the most powerful play in the game.
Example, your basic everyday crawler - 0-1-1 model takes three rows of minerals to build. It can be used 1) to convoy one of any resource type from one base to another, 2) to harvest ALL of the resources of any one type from a single square (where it must be deployed and given the 'convoy' command (O)) or 3) used (and thereby eliminated) to advance the construction of a Secret Project or a prototype, the amount of the advancement being equal to the mineral cost of the crawler.
BUT, if you upgrade that same basic crawler to a 0-3t-1 model, at the cost of 110 ec, you can cash it for prototypes or SPs for nine rows of minerals! Six additional rows of minerals for the cash cost of 110 ec. At 0 INDUSTRY, that's 60 minerals of a SP for 110 ec. Cash rushing those same 60 minerals would cost at least 240 ec.
Savings are even greater on rover chassis crawlers and they explode after fusion power is available.
A 0-1-2*2 fusion speeder supply cost those same three rows to build. Upgrade it to a 0^-4+-2 for the cost of 350 ec and you have enough minerals to build a Fusion PB in a base with a skunkworks (32 rows). Used toward a SP, that's a gain of 29 rows for 350ec.
Play with the Design Workshop with crawler designs, there's usually one to fit almost any need!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kajak
|
|
southwest
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
Speaking of different upgrades and
Not perhaps 'useful' but it was a lot of fun. Several turns before a win by Assention, I made a big batch of basic colony pods with drop pods and dumped them all over the open spaces of the hive. It was like putting a stick in an ant hill.
Last edited by Kajak on 09-10-2002 at 20:31
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drago Sinio
|
 |
New Jersey, USA
Oct 1999
time: 05:22
|
|
Another side benefit of the infantry transport is you can park it outside a newly captured base, to hold a zone of control, or keep a valuable terraform improvement from being destroyed by artillery fire. Also make sort of a movable bunker for your unarmored units to retreat to.
One tactic learned here I use all the time when playing a builder type game against the AI, is to make a lot of el cheapo needle jets , and use them to bomb the AI's terraforming, sort of like a siege tactic. If you have enough of them, you can keep "air cover" over the enemy base, depriving it of its mineral and food squares, and reinforcements. If you dont plan to take the base, you can "bomb" all the improvements and destroy all his formers.
It all tends to make the AI ask for peace after a few turns.
When you are not using your needlejets for this, you can set them on Auto, and they will often fly out and destroy an unprotected enemy unit you didnt even know was there. That is almost a cheat, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dmm1285
|
|
damn, if I only knew about the eco thing before! Ive always played the game mr. green, going through many games without even one fungal pop, and just shooting myself in the foot. Ive alwyas wonder why I couldnt get the formula included with the game to work!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-10-2002 10:49
That's possible!?!? Didn't know that, i'll try it out soon.
|