|
AlexanderIII
|
|
Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
I found this stuff on the a thread of the 'Strategy' forums, and since it was a creation issue, thought I'd open up the discussion here...
quote:
Originally posted by Helium Pond on 12-01-1999 03:08 PM
First off, I apologize to anyone who will feel, having read this post, that I called them a whiner. I just wanted a catchy post title.
A lot of people have complained about the mandatory seven-faction feature in SMAC. I thought of a compromise that would be easy to implement, and add some fun new user-configurability to the game.
The gist of it is a new parameter that one could modify in every faction's text file: SUBMISSIVE. Using it, one could make any faction automatically submissive to any other faction. For instance, if you wanted to make the Gaians submissive towards Yang, you would modify the Gaian text file to say "SUMISSIVE, YANG."
That's it. That's the whole idea. It would make certain factions automatically form permanent power blocks, and be harder to fight. I mean, imagine fighting a Yang who was permanently allied with Zakharov. Wouldn't that be cool?
I know this does nothing for the folks who want to have *more* factions in one game, but it's kind of a compromise for the folks who want to have *less,* right?
And it seems to me that all the necessary architecture for this is already in the game, it just needs a little bit of coding to work...
What do you think, Firaxis? Is it too late to make the patch? |
...
...
quote:
Originally posted by Helium Pond on 12-03-1999 02:20 AM
That's not the same thing at all. That's a scenario parameter, and would have to be tied to a specific map, specific starting locations, and specific objectives. That's too limiting. What I'm talking about is an ability to modify factions to be presisposed to form power blocs, no matter what the map or other parameters are. That seems like it could add a new level of challenge to the game. It would be dull to have to design a new scenario each time you wanted to do this. |
...
...
quote:
Originally posted by Biddles on 12-03-1999 09:00 PM
Think morgan/UoP/spartan alliance.
UoP do research, gives to sparta.
Morgan earn cash, give to sparta.
Sparta buy really advanced, moraled up units.
DAmn that would be hard to beat.
- Biddles |
...
...
quote:
Originally posted by Aaron Burr on 12-09-1999 01:47 PM
The idea as I read it was that this was a way for the "AI" to have unbreakable alliances and thus be a more formidible opponent to the human player.
This seemed like a good (and possibly easy-to-implement) idea to me. |
...
...
quote:
Originally posted by AlexanderIII on 12-11-1999 04:55 AM
I don't know if anyone's thought of this, but two factions that have the same social priority, say, Green Economics, would become natural allies. It's how the game determines who would most likely be you allies/enemies -- those factions who's social priorities match your current social engineering priorities will easily form an alliance with you, and those who's social restrictions (i.e. cannot use green economics) match your current social engineering priorities would be most likely to declare vendetta upon you.
So in order to have factions be natural allies and form a 'bloc', simply set the faction social priorities of those factions to be the same. This kind of ruins faction distinctiveness, and to be truthful isn't very realistic, but it's the only way I can see of programming permanent alliances between factions short of setting it in-scenario or cheating. |
Any thoughts on this anyone?
|
11-12-1999 15:09
|
|