18-05-2001 17:14									#1
	Direct research and Crawlers unfair? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Yes!

At the beginning of my SMAC-life I always played direct research. Now I don't like this anymore. It's a too big loss of balance:

Take a research faction, go for Ind. Autom. as soon as possible and the game is over.

I think about a this simple game-rule (SP or MP-games): Crawler's are forbidden to use... Could be a challenge and direct research would be more playable.

	18-05-2001 17:47									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

IN MP there is no problem since all the humans have the same opportunity to use crawlers.

In SP the no crawler approach would make the game more challenging. I went the other way in my SP games. I went to double blind research and the tech path seemed to leave IND AUTO until there was nothing else to get. It also make the game tougher when you have a hostile neighbor and the tech lotto won't give you a chance at probes or impact weapons.

	18-05-2001 18:18									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In SP, crawlers are indeed the most unbalancing aspect of the game. It is the primary reason the AI is so appalling, even with its significant production/research benefits.

However, in MP, as cbn has said, the advantage is negated. The fact is, crawlers are just a part of the game, and the AI simply hasn't worked out how to use the things. This is one of the main reasons MP is so much more fun than SP.

	18-05-2001 18:34									#4
	Remove this text

Not to mention that humans are just so much more devious than the AI.

	19-05-2001 09:11									#5
	Support Apolyton

I agree. I stopped playing directed research some time ago. As a result, not only is the game more challenging as a whole, but it is really different, game to game. Imagine, for example, not getting Tree Farms until 2350! As well, the AI tends to get its fair share of mid game SPs.

I also have not used the crawler upgrade trick in some time. Now I get into races with the AI to build mid game SPs. Now that is exciting.

I had not previously considered not using crawlers at all. But as I said before, the AI and humans should play by the same rules. So, if this is the case, we should limit our use of crawlers to no more than two, land-based and exclusively crawling energy.

As I said in another post, I think the AI does not use crawlers to boost mineral production because it always seems to have ED problems even without it. If this is correct, the major problem the AI has is not building Tree Farms, Hybrid Forrests and Centauri Preserves in large enough numbers so that it can produce production levels to match the human without ED.

Ned

	19-05-2001 09:33									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

In MP-games Crawlers AND direct research are also an unbalancing-issue. The combination of both is the problem. I have no problem to play with blind-research and crawlers are allowed or direct research but then without crawlers.

If you play Uni oder Morgan with direct research you can get crawlers too fast. These factions are the "early-crawler-factions". No chance, if they are alone and nobody can stop them to use their higher mineral-output.

And by the way: blind research is much more fun to play...

	23-05-2001 01:47									#7
	Put an end to popups!

blind research is more fun to play, as far as crawlers are concerned i never knew what the heck they were for until months after i started playing. i used 'em like civ caravans once in a blue moon later to aid in secret projects but never realized they were for harvest as well. They are a definite advantage but not using them doesn't take anythnig away from the game for me.

	23-05-2001 02:00									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by xeno7667 In MP-games Crawlers AND direct research are also an unbalancing-issue. [...] If you play Uni oder Morgan with direct research you can get crawlers too fast.

I respectfully disagree. In most MP games, I would far rather play the PKs than the University or Morgan, even given their faster early research rates, unless I am part of a team. UoP is certainly very strong, but MP games tend not to be played on very large maps. So stealing the tech, if they will not trade it, is not usually a problem. There are also opportunities to trade techs with other players/the AI in order to reach Ind Auto more quickly. IA is not so far up the tech tree, even reaching it more slowly will not be fatal over the course of a normal game.

Blind research is OK, but in MP games I find it both tedious and unbalancing. Not knowing what I'm about to get makes planning and strategy much less meaningful. If I wanted an MP game of chance, I'd play bingo

	23-05-2001 04:23									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I have lately been playing semi-blind where I set up (and stick to) some research goal(s). I assume that most of the posts so far have been talking about double-blind where you (permanently) set all the goals on or off. There is also the other variation where you change the goal(s) as the game goes on or to try to improve your chances for a specific tech.

I must confess that one of the reasons I do this is that I don't have to think so much about what to research next - I also find it annoying that I am not able to check the datalinks at the point (before your turn begins) when techs are discovered (there may be a way to do that, but if so, I don't know or forgot) thus forcing me to use the hard copy poster which doesn't have info as complete as the datalinks.

Anyway, as has been mentioned, this reduces the AI disadvantage a bit and can be said to be more realistic viz a viz real life research. If you stick to the same research program, it adds a smidgeon of role playing too. If you mess around with the selections to influence the next breakthrough, it mimics attempts a government might make to affect the direction of technology.

As to the objection that the random element is undesirable in MP, I can understand that point. IMhO, a little more randomness is OK (after all, the combat, fungus movement and whatever else are already randomized). If you check the research screen, you can make a pretty good guess as to what will be produced (the color of the progress bar is the clue), making your planning a bit more dependable and it may be possible to tweak it by changing priorities until you like what you see (I don't know if it always goes back to the same thing if you back and forth the priorities).

	23-05-2001 15:12									#10
	Remove this text

Can't you use the shortcut (F) keys to access the datalinks? Pressing F2 ought to bring up the labs report and you can see what you've researched and what you can research, and F1 should bring up the main datalinks.
Hope this helps!

	23-05-2001 16:14									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by johndmuller I must confess that one of the reasons I do this is that I don't have to think so much about what to research next - I also find it annoying that I am not able to check the datalinks at the point (before your turn begins) when techs are discovered (there may be a way to do that, but if so, I don't know or forgot) thus forcing me to use the hard copy poster which doesn't have info as complete as the datalinks.

To check Datalinks use "Right Click" of mouse on any of the Tech choices you are given. This allows full access to the Datalinks.

	23-05-2001 23:42									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

As a long time SP guy and a neophyte MP guy, I recommend not always playing double blind like I used to. It is the most fun way to play but it will hurt you when you make the shift to playing other humans.

MP games tend to be blind=off so you need to know all the tech beelines. The good MP players have the key beelines memorized. But everytime I start researching something new, I always have to drag out my tech tree.

	24-05-2001 04:38									#13
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by johndmuller As to the objection that the random element is undesirable in MP, I can understand that point. IMhO, a little more randomness is OK (after all, the combat, fungus movement and whatever else are already randomized). If you check the research screen, you can make a pretty good guess as to what will be produced (the color of the progress bar is the clue), making your planning a bit more dependable and it may be possible to tweak it by changing priorities until you like what you see (I don't know if it always goes back to the same thing if you back and forth the priorities).

I suppose you could see it that way. Combat isn't really random though - vs native life the odds are displayed incorrectly with higher-level reactors. Otherwise, I generally win the battles I'm supposed to, according to the real odds rather than the "2:3" type summary odds that are displayed. Of course, if it's a really important battle, I'll probably lose it against the odds

Movement isn't really randomised - sometimes you get lucky, that's all. Pods are certainly random, which is why I treat them with caution and some MP games exclude them. Although even then, the odds of a particular outcome are fixed. For example, you can safely pop a pod directly outside a base if native life is your concern.

The colour of the progress bar rarely makes planning in any way dependable. In many random research games, I have repeatedly not researched the tech I'm looking for - in one game 5 times in a row I think, despite researching other techs in the correct category. The more you need a tech, the less likely you are to get it in my opinion

Once it has selected one of the four categories, I am unaware of any way to cause it to change colour other than acquiring a new tech which may or may not have that effect.

If you don't want to spend time thinking about what to research next then I can understand that you wouldn't find blind research a problem in MP. But I spend a lot of time thinking about this :grin: My main objection, though, is that certain techs provide extreme advantage, particularly in war. Air power, MMI, AMA, Superstring and so on. Whether blind research is on or off, one player can acquire this advantage. But in a blind research game, this is a matter, largely, of luck. And the other players can do very little to redress the balance except pray ... It's bad enough being behind on key techs - being forced to research a bunch of useless stuff while you're getting hammered simply adds insult to injury and makes the game, imho, more akin to snakes and ladders than a strategy game. But each to his own ...

	24-05-2001 04:42									#14
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by RedFred ... But everytime I start researching something new, I always have to drag out my tech tree.

So do I.

	24-05-2001 07:36									#15
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I've tried blind research in one MP game. It was a mess. We also used accelerated start, which made it even worse. Never did finish that one as all three of us lost interest. I couldn't plan much of anything because I never knew what I was going to get and therefore couldn't prepare. It ended up being 20 or 30 turns of terraforming before it petered out. Exciting!