Nerve Stapling shouldn't be considered an atrocity, but Nerve Gas and Planet Busters should. Simply because Nerve Stapling involves your own cities (it's not like you're nerve stapling your rival's cities).
Citizens of your own country are not property. It may not be a war crime, but it is still an atrocity.
As to whether or not atrocities should be allowed in multiplayer, I agree that it should be down to whether or not the Charter is in effect, if it's tournament play. In the absence of in-game sanctions, it should be considered "cheating" if the charter is in effect.
I remember I built a PBEM once called "What Lurks beneath the Surface" or something like that where I had the AI Spartans and AI Hive committing atrocities against once another, to the point where sea levels began to rise. The human players ended up not being very happy with me over that. FYI on that slant regarding atrocities, especially in PBEMs where players literally spend months working on a game.
Personally, I believe that whether or not you do atrocities almost never depends on the diplomacy hit.In an all human game, I will nerve staple from the outset. In a game with a lot of AI players, I will not, because this puts me at a significant diplomacy disadvantage. I can often get some tech trades in with AI players, and some treaties and pacts for awhile. But if I nerve staple a few times, the AI players generally start beligerent or worse, and very little tech trading or treaties can be done.
Of course, the Pirate player was commiting attrocities as often as possible, and laughing the whole way.
On a large map, I consider Merchant Exchange and Weather Paradigm much more important the EG.
Kirov, would you be interested in a 1 on 1 game? My favorite scenario is 2 factions vs. 2 factions on the balanced Vets map, but I would consider any balanced scenario.
On the copters:
I remember I tinkered a bit with txt files and I have the impression that increasing the chopper cost doesn’t solve the problem. You’d just have less of them, but they’d still comprise the most of your army. They are simply that good. The idea I can offer is to cut down the movement of air units in half (or by one third). Then you would be forced to rely on ground units.
I still firmly believe that the best unit in the game is your humble supply crawler. :)
On the SPs:I don't discard good intel carelessly. If my probe team gets to a base, you can be guaranteed I will infiltrate before any other mission, even if I am drooling over some tech the enemy has. But on a large map, the value of infiltration does not really have a big impact on the game until we get into conflict. And once we get into conflict, I am fairly certain I can achieve infiltration regardless of how hard you try to prevent it. I have been known to give up a border base to an enemy exploratory force, just because I knew that I could infiltrate before I took it back, and the worst the enemy could do to me is sell off one building per turn.
I must say your opinion really piqued my curiosity about your gameplay. For one, it’s the first time I see an experienced player disregarding good intel so carelessly. I’d pay a medium-sized base to get enemy’s infiltration and then another one not to get infiltrated.
And I can’t really follow your choice of SPs, either. It’s interesting that you make an impression of an aggressive (tho I prefer the term ‘proactive’ ;)) player, eager to send an armed excursion. On the other hand, you picked the two SPs which only fully shine midgame, with the advent of EcoEng/EnvEcon, and seem perfect for a micro-managing avid builder. So I’m curious, which is it?
On the copters:
I remember I tinkered a bit with txt files and I have the impression that increasing the chopper cost doesn’t solve the problem. You’d just have less of them, but they’d still comprise the most of your army. They are simply that good. The idea I can offer is to cut down the movement of air units in half (or by one third). Then you would be forced to rely on ground units.
Wait, if you go choppers (or even CBA), can't the other guy just get AAA units to defend more cost-effectively? Or interceptors to scramble and kill the choppers?
These solutions are not as cost effective. AAA defensive units and interceptors cost more. Choppers are cheap to build.
One of the main problems with choppers is that a single chopper can mow down half a dozen terraformers and supply crawlers in a single sweep. Even if you do wipe out the chopper afterwards, the single chopper may already have taken out enemy units that were many times his cost.
If the opponent can reach with interceptors, use the cheap copters to draw out the interceptors. Then mow down all of the interceptors with your own air superiority units.
As for range, I just drop down a colony pod, or build an air base formers, or capture a city to get the base of operations that I need.
You also need to look at the defensive side of things. If I have a couple of choppers helping defend a city, I can mow down a pile of grounds attackers, and still retreat to the safety of my city, where any air attacker has to contend with my AAA defenders with an areospace complex.
As for the air superiority battle I mentioned early, the interceptor normally takes a bit of damage typically 10%-20% killing the copter, so the air superiority copter can usually win. And when it wins, it does not have to hang around for another interceptor to kill it, but the helicopter can retreat back to the safety of a city or airbase, something a needlejet cannot do.
You also just have to look at actual games. On any game where copters are not banned, they simply dominate the game in terms of production of copters verses production of any other combat unit. Can you honestly tell me that your games have not been like this???
I have been known to give up a border base to an enemy exploratory force, just because I knew that I could infiltrate before I took it back, and the worst the enemy could do to me is sell off one building per turn.
On the other hand, benefits from ME starts with turn 1, and WP helps very early as well. I get to enjoy the benfits maybe 50 turns earlier.
Perhaps you have failed to pick up on some of the subtler benefits of ME. Since I like to get it, it is probably to my advantage to not blatantly state why I like it, to reduce the competition for it.
If overwhelmed, he should have just traded the base to the AI.that is usually forbidden in MP. in fact rule #9 here (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=1519.0) says so.
I haven't really played multiplayer, but often the easiest fix to a strategy is just finding the counter.
that is usually forbidden in MP. in fact rule #9 here (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=1519.0) says so.
Far from saying that WP or even ME are weak, I just think their full potential shines mid-game. On the other hand, PTS, VW and HGP work 100% early on to generate the turn advantage.I totally agree about PTS and VW. But we were talking about EG, and if I start comparing it to SPs that cost 50% more, OF COURSE they are more powerful. As for HGP, you can keep it; I would definitely take WP or ME over it.
I totally agree about PTS and VW. But we were talking about EG, and if I start comparing it to SPs that cost 50% more, OF COURSE they are more powerful. As for HGP, you can keep it; I would definitely take WP or ME over it.
Perhaps you have failed to pick up on some of the subtler benefits of ME. Since I like to get it, it is probably to my advantage to not blatantly state why I like it, to reduce the competition for it.
Yitzi, I believe Earthmichael is right. If you use AAA defenders and the enemy has choppers, then the initiative and mobility (well, and flexibility;)) is on his side. He may freely take out your crawlers/formers, bomb improvements, block your movements with ZOC.
And if you have interceptors, he brings them as well, so it's again all about air power.
In fact, one of the most powerful if slightly less subtle strategy is the infamous "drop & chop", when you mow down defenders with choppers and jump in with parachuters. Deadly and brute, and basically you need only your best attack choppers and some cheap drop units.
Let's agree to disagree, but I still will try to ban EG in 4-player games I'm in. And I'm willing to discuss the atrocities in return. ;)
Except that if he has that many interceptors, and his base is that close (I seem to remember that interceptors have reduced range), you might be able to just march on his base with a force that includes AAA defensive units. Air units are powerful in economic warfare, but tend to fare poorly in direct conflict (since a AAA defensive unit will generally beat an equivalent-tech air unit at comparable or lesser cost).
How is that powerful? It fails if the enemy has AAA defenders, and fails even harder if the base has an aerospace complex (which not only gives a huge bonus against chopper attackers, but prevents air drops in the vicinity.)
Earthmichael said it all on the topic on gaining a foothold - you bring a colony pod, construct an airbase or just plain take over one of his peripheral bases. It's not terribly difficult
and you can reach quite far with your 12 movement.
Let's assume you play against someone, you grow stronger and stronger and you feel it's the time to test his defence. Now, you could prepare a mixed ground unit assault - sentinels, rovers, what have you. Then you load it all on transports and set sail. Then you attack, get a foothold, probably must defend it and then you can slowly move on. Even if stronger, you can still lose, because it's his turf and his lines of supply are shorter. But even assuming it's going well, it's gonna be slow. And he has time to build up, maybe finish that SP or get fusion power.
Now imagine you get MMI first, quickly grab some choppers and simply beat the living hell of him.
It's similar to what happened to me in one 1v1. I was at D:AP first. I sent the first needlejet down to the enemy. Then another. As he had no D:AP, he surrendered and that was the end of the game.
As for drop & chop - we can discuss what you would do or compare rows of mins, but I saw it working and I'm sure it's overkill. Once I was a replacement for a very strong faction (Hive), in the middle of a successful drop & chop run. Sure I was already stronger than the others, but not so strong enough that I would take 3-4 bases per turn with ground assault, and with choppers I could.
Aerocomplex can be circumvented, you just air drop some stronger units as close as possible and attack on foot. This turn you will take only 2 bases, and maybe you lose a chopper. But reinforcements keep coming and your enemy's economy is already devastated.
Funny you mention the house rule. I checked one of my old games and, although Empath Guild was allowed, choppers were banned from attacking base tiles. Just a little idea.
As for Empath Guild - it's not just my fancy, I took the idea from experienced players at Apolyton, who very often regarded it as one of the strongest. Same story here: There is a race, the winner grabs it all and suddenly he gains a significant advantage over other players (especially 4-player games).
I prefer to water down several overkills I see in SMAC. Air power is one, infiltration is another. If I will recall another one, I'll definitely mention it. It takes something away if you won just by being first to something.
Y, I want to encourage you to keep doing what you're doing - but point out that these guys really know what they're talking about. Extensive experience against people instead of short-bus AI really matters...
"Why didn't he build (or upgrade to) AAA defenders and just keep his formers and crawlers out of range?"
Sometimes, he does not know that they are in range until it is too late.
I usually rush to D:AP, and so do most other players. Building AAA is on a different tech path. So there are quite a few turns where air power just rules, and until an opponent gets the tech to either build his own air units, or to go defensive vs. air, he is toast.
And while needlejets can take out a unit every other turn, choppers can take out multiple units per turn, increasing the pain for every turn until the opponent get the technology to respond.
Yes. So it looks like the primary issue here isn't that choppers are overpowered in general, but rather that choppers are overpowered if both sides beeline for D:AP and one has a substantial tech lead (enough to get MMI before the other gets D:AP). Which raises the question: If you're behind on tech, why not give up the D:AP race and just go straight for AMA, which is lower-tier, provides a counter, gives you a nice social engineering option for wartime, and gives you a leg up in the race for fusion?I think you are missing the point here. ANY unit that can attack multiple times per turn without costing any more is broken. If we could research a QuikRover, which cost the same as a regular rover, but could attack as many times as movement points, or could attack and then withdraw back to a base, it would be broken too! It is a HUGE extra capability with no extra cost!
Yes. So it looks like the primary issue here isn't that choppers are overpowered in general, but rather that choppers are overpowered if both sides beeline for D:AP and one has a substantial tech lead (enough to get MMI before the other gets D:AP). Which raises the question: If you're behind on tech, why not give up the D:AP race and just go straight for AMA, which is lower-tier, provides a counter, gives you a nice social engineering option for wartime, and gives you a leg up in the race for fusion?I think you are missing the point here. ANY unit that can attack multiple times per turn without costing any more is broken. If we could research a QuikRover, which cost the same as a regular rover, but could attack as many times as movement points, or could attack and then withdraw back to a base, it would be broken too! It is a HUGE extra capability with no extra cost!
You may be right here, but that just points out another difference: The rover only has 2 moves, and if it takes 50% or more damange, it is reduced to 1 move. So unless it is elete, it can at most attack twice. (Can someone verify whether a rover can attack twice?) The copter has 12 moves, and can take 90% damage and still have 12 moves.
A hovertank, to get an extra move, often costs an extra row of minerals. For example a Fusion Rover or Fusion Chopper with Fusion reactor costs 4 rows of minerals. An identical Fusion Tank costs 5 rows of minerals, to get one extra move. Why should a Fusion Tank cost more than a Fusion Chopper???
The chopper has to land, you might say this balances it out. But it does not. Often I will move 8 or more moves to attack an enemy base up to 3 times, knowing that I have forces that can take the base once I clear out the defenders, and I can land my choppers in the base the same turn that my choppers attack in and my land forces take it. So this is not really a problem.
Y, I want to encourage you to keep doing what you're doing - but point out that these guys really know what they're talking about. Extensive experience against people instead of short-bus AI really matters...
How do you get 12? I get 8, 10 with CBA, and if you spend more than half of that then you're not going to get back to base byt the end of the turn and are essentially suiciding your unit.
I'll believe choppers are overpowered when you can find a case where someone who wasn't already substantially in the lead managed to use them to get ahead, despite the other guy trying what should have been the natural counters.
Why didn't he build (or upgrade to) AAA defenders and just keep his formers and crawlers out of range?
How do you devastate the enemy's economy with an attack just on his periphery?
Why 4-player games in particular, rather than 2-player or 7-player?
And Empath Guild is pretty nice, but so are a lot of projects. The weaknesses of Empath Guild are that it doesn't really do anything to strengthen you directly, and that its major effect can be copied, albeit with substantially more effort.
While not of the "first to something" variety, some more overkills I see in SMAC are energy focus, free market, crawlers, and ICS.
You’re right, I think I recalled fusion units.
AAA just won’t do
You can try it in SP. Start a game with your standard settings, build a decent empire, maybe up to the point of EnvEcon, boreholes and tree forests. Then save. In the first option, grab D:AP/MMI and start pancaking the AIs.
By periphery I don’t mean one distant base in the middle of nowhere. When you do the trick Earthmichael mentioned, you try to get access to several bases at once.
1) What Earthmichael said about teching is very important. Going AMA before MMI is a huge no-no. Not only you give away CBA and CF, you also at that moment don’t have decent weapons.
2) Another important factor is initiative. With chopper v. AAA, the chopper guy decides if and where to attack, and you can do nothing about it. You scatter your AAA units between several places where they are needed most, but the enemy may simply attack the weakest one, or surround a base with needlejets’ ZOC and take down the defence.
Neither Earthmichael or me claim that 6-1-10 Chopper beats 1-4-1 AAA unit. It doesn’t. However, in a situation like that the chopper guy either forces the defender to turtle up, driving formers to bases and bombing improvements (which is what would have happened in the game I described, giving me victory by attrition)
or wastes some choppers to conquer a weaker base
or simply comes back with nerve gas
He decides what will happen and where and you can just watch him flying over your head.
However in practice you could never pull it off against a reasonably good opponent
Infiltration of a good player may be very costly and is fraught with risks you can’t do much about (NL is just a first part). And there are players you will never infiltrate by probe in the peacetime.
While not of the "first to something" variety, some more overkills I see in SMAC are energy focus, free market, crawlers, and ICS.
Also Yitzi, you're welcome to join us in the game below and just put to the test the things we're talking about. ;) Seriously, we're looking for players.
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2562.0 (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2562.0)
Yes, copters (without CBA) are speed 10.
Copters can bomb terrain enhancements, but they take damage doing so
Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of copters should look at my Nomads game. I did not start my attack until after I got copters, and I quickly blitzed through my entire continent in no time flat. No defending bases had aerospace complex, only some AAA defenders. The problem for the defenders was, even when I lost a copter or two getting through the AAA units, my remaining copters could quickly wipe out everything else: rovers, police, etc. So they had no means to counterattack when I waltzed up to take the base with my land unit. Of course, my copters usually landed in the just-taken base.
I think that all of these suggested changes would overly weaken the air power tree, which would end up making needlejets and gravships underpowered.
The chassis should cost at least 1-2 more rows than the Hovertank chassis.
As for supply crawlers, sure they are useful, but they are an essential part of the game.
At most, I can see limit crawlers to only the basic style
I think terraformers are just as powerful if not more so than crawlers
Without them, I might as well be playing Civ 4.
Nor is FM overpowered. There are a LOT of negatives to deal with for FM.
There is no need to increase hurrying cost to 150%, either, since low cost hurrying is only limited to structures.
And whats with reducing Democracy growth by one? Democracy is not overpowered.
And as for ICS, it is not a viably strategy except in a huge world is so widely separated that the opponent cannot reach you until turn 100 or so, so I do not consider it overpowered.
I just don't play worlds large enough that ICS could work; games take far too long to complete. The Vets map is the largest map that I play regularly, and I would not play a game in anything larger. And I can definitely reach you on the Vets map before you can get ICS going.
I'm pretty sure it's 8 without CBA, 10 with CBA.
So the issue is specifically making copters weaker as compared to needlejets and gravships?
Although even so, air power is strong enough that I think lowering AAA to Optical Computers and giving it +150% defense vs. Air and pricing it like Trance would not weaken it too much.
How so? What do they (supply crawlers) accomplish that the game would suffer without?
What is the basic style (for crawlers)?
I'd say they (terraformers) aren't (as powerful as crawlers), for two reasons:
1. They cost support (at least until clean reactor), and are therefore limited in numbers.
2. They improve worked tiles, but do not themselves work the tiles, so their economic usefulness is limited by your bases.
Earthmichael said: "Nor is FM overpowered. There are a LOT of negatives to deal with for FM."
Such as? You can't go on the offensive, and you need empath units to deal with mind worms. That's pretty much it. I'd like to add one more, namely that you can't have anywhere near as much minerals/advanced terraforming without running into ecological problems.
Yeah, for units it's the "build cheap units and upgrade them" tactic that's the problem. So perhaps a hurrying cost increase isn't needed, at least once energy parks are made impossible. (Energy parks produce far more energy/square than you can feasibly get min/square, so if they're allowed to remain the energy-to-mineral ratio would have to be weakened to depower energy focus to not be the only valid choice.)
I got the idea from Marid Audran's mod (http://apolyton.net/showthread.php/166661-Marid-Audran-s-SMAX-Mod), and my reason (for weaking Democracy) is the same as his: To make it impossible to get an "easy" pop boom.
So why does it seem that a lot of people use it (ICS)?
So then what city layout is generally used on smaller maps? Somehow, I doubt it's the "20-25 squares per city" approach that I favor in SP (and which is vastly superior in the late game).
On my straight planet test game, copters have speed 10. With Nomands scenario, they have 12. Try it yourself. Let me know if you get a different result; that means there might be a problem with my normal settings.
I think they are just too cheap for what they do. So the simple solution is to make them cost more. No further tweaking needed.
I don't think it is needed. Needlejets can at most attack once every other turn (and less often if they need to repair between). When they attack, they are completely exposed for a counterattack.
How so? What do they (supply crawlers) accomplish that the game would suffer without?
In fact, this question seems backward. If supply crawlers are not that critical to the game (in your way of thinking), then why mod to remove them?
What is the basic style (for crawlers)?
2. Supply crawlers usefulness is limited by your bases as well.
3. A terraformer can turn a useless square into a square that generates 12 resources. It reduces movement with roads and magtubes. It can raise land out of the sea (or reverse). It can build sensors for defense. It can create new rivers. It can build bunkers. And more, much more versatile than supply crawlers. As much as I like supply crawlers, if each faction could choose to only have either supply crawlers or terraformers, I would take terraformers.
First, you lose the ability to use police. Once non-lethal methods are discovered, this costs at least two drone controls per base. This is a major negative, especially in the early game.
Third, you have MUCH more trouble with ecodamage. You have to greatly limit the mineral output of your bases or spend lots of resources building ecological facilities. Otherwise, you will have swarms of mindworms coming at you constantly, made that much harder to deal with because of the hugely negative planet rating.
Fourth, being forced to build dedicated empath and trance units IS a big deal.
And the easiest way to deal with mind worms, air power, has huge drone consequences.
I am not sure how much experience you have running FM in a multiplayer human game
Yeah, for units it's the "build cheap units and upgrade them" tactic that's the problem. So perhaps a hurrying cost increase isn't needed, at least once energy parks are made impossible. (Energy parks produce far more energy/square than you can feasibly get min/square, so if they're allowed to remain the energy-to-mineral ratio would have to be weakened to depower energy focus to not be the only valid choice.)
Mineral parks can easily produce 4 to 6 minerals per square worked. Energy parks are typically limited to about 4 to 6 energy per square. I don't see the big difference here???
Furthermore, it takes 2 energy (at best) to substitute for 1 mineral for building
I see no problem with the Democracy/Planned/Creche pop boom.
I think some factions with a growth negative, that this is supposed to be part of their penalty, that they cannot pop boom in this way.
If I felt a pressing need to weaken something to prevent this pop boom, I would weaken Planned rather than Democracy.
QuoteSo why does it seem that a lot of people use it (ICS)?
Probably because they have not played me. :)
The best layout on smaller maps is opportunistic, taking most advantage of the terrain and specials with your initial cities, and then either expanding further if the opportunity is available, or filling in gaps if it is not. Of course, this is not pretty; it will not preserve a perfect ICS grid. But I assure you that if the other player is the slightest bit aggressive, you will not have time to complete your ICS grid before you will have to shift anyway to defend yourself on a smaller map.
So now let's compare three factions with those settings. One is running FM, one is running planned or simple, and one is running Green. So let's see how their minerals/base compares:
The eco-damage formula, when it's not perihilion, is {minerals over clean mineral limit}X{Diff modifier (3 at librarian and below)}X{techs known}X(3-PLANET)X{native life level (2 for average)}/300. Crunching the numbers, that comes to (for all of our test factions): {minerals over clean mineral limit}X(3-PLANET)X0.8. Using our safe value of 5 ecodamage per base, that means that {minerals over clean mineral limit}X(3-PLANET) can be up to 5/0.8=6.25. So:
-Our Green faction (PLANET rating 2) can afford 6 minerals over the clean mineral limit.
-Our "neutral" faction (PLANET rating 0) can afford 2 minerals over the clean mineral limit.
-And our FM faction (PLANET rating -3) can afford 1 mineral over the clean mineral limit.
So by running FM, and getting +1 energy every square and +2 commerce rating, he's forced to give up...5 minerals per base (10 with a Centauri Preserve)? That doesn't seem like a lot, especially when you consider that it's not lost minerals; he can produce something else instead of those minerals.
So yes, running FM should force you to greatly limit the mineral output of your bases and/or spend lots of resources building ecological facilities. But it doesn't. Changing that fact would be quite sufficient to balance FM.
A player MUST have some counter to needlejets fairly soon after his opponent can bring them to bear. Otherwise, when the opponent gets into range, each needlejet will probably kill an average of 1 unit every 3 turns. So one can either have their own needlejet interceptors, defensive antiaircraft tech, or offensive antiaircraft tech. So hopefully whatever tree one is researching will give one of those 3 solutions.
We have a diffierence of opinion as to what is game breaking. Making a secret project soon after you get the tech, assuming you have planned well on your crawler build, is just good sense, not game breaking. It is the reward for getting there first, technologically speaking.
Moving energy to your HQ just makes sense to avoid as much corruption as possible.
I don't think there is a need to limit crawlers; essentially, crawlers are limited by the space you can control and project, just like bases are. Any space you service with a crawler is a space you cannot use with a base. On non-huge maps, the space you control and protect is always going to be your limitation; it is your choice how you split this between bases and crawlers. You say this is a "negative effect". I don't see it. As I said, it increases the strategic options BOTH players have, which to me is a "positive effect".
I don't see this at all. I never have enough formers. I can always use them to create land if I don't have a better use for them. Then this land can be used for more bases and/or crawlers.
What exploit are you thinking of here?
This is not a realistic scenario. All multiplayer games are played on transcendant by default.
It is fairly hard to get. You have to build a creche everywhere.
ICS is fairly inefficient in the short run. It takes a lot of terraforming and tech to get in going well.
To clarify about mineral crawlers, I am not talking about a literal field where they are all colocated, just that all of the mined rocky terrain and boreholes taken together can form a substantial pool of extra minerals.
This allows all bases to build something useful (without hitting ecodamage limits), since no matter how much minerals I give a single base, I can only build one thing per turn.
Even with fusion, I don't think it affects movement unless you have antigrav struts.
That's got the same problems as land units using nerve gas: You lose commerce, too much and everybody declares vendetta, and it's still only a 50% bonus.
Why can't you just march on his base? It has to be close for air power to work, so a rover force should be able to make it in a few turns (and with AAA units in the stack, he can't use his choppers to defend at anything near cost-effectiveness).
snip
but then the choppers get than ridiculous attack bonus
What ridiculous attack bonus are you referring to?
So I've come up with the following, which should depower air power enough:
1. AAA tracking only requires Optical Computers, gives a 150% bonus, and is priced the same as Hypnotic Trance.
2. Air Superiority requires AMA instead of Doctrine: Air Power. Obviously you can't put it on Needlejets until D:AP, but you can make SAM units.
3. Doctrine:Air Power has as its second prerequisite AMA, instead of Doctrine: Flexibility. Note that this adds 3 (in SMAC) or 4 (in SMAX) techs to the tree leading up to it (plus information networks, which you probably had already), making it that much less of a tempting target for beelining.
4. Air chasses have their cost doubled (16 instead of 8), and movement reduced as needed to reduce fusion needlejets to 8 movement. (So if they do get extra movement based on reactor, then 4; if not, it'll stay at 8.)
I meant of course the attack ability, i.e. multiple attack.
FYI, I just checked. With four different types of reactor, air units get 10, 12, 14 and 16 mp. Units with SAM get 8, 9, 11 and 12 mp, respectively.
Your ideas look fine by me, although I'm afraid it's not gonna be easy to find a sparring partner in order to test them in human vs. human. :(
OK, you have officially swatted a fly with a sledgehammer.
The only real problem here are copters
IF you find yourself behind the tech battle, then sacrifice a border base to the enemy, then probe the heck out of it.
With copters more expensive or banned, you are going to be primarily dealing with Needlejets, which do not have nearly the same momentum as copters since they can only attack at most every 2 turns.
These changes would never make it through to be accepted as standard, AFAIR the SMAC community never accepted any changes to the official rules apart from bug fixes.
I wonder about the possibility, since we're imagining extensive .exe modding anyway, of inserting a new screen where one can check off what mods the user wants enabled/disabled...
Yitzi, you may have a problem with airpower in general, but the only consistant airpower problem I see discussed by the COMMUNITY is copters.
They are clearly broken, giving the only non-land multi-attack capability at the same cost as a needlejet.
If you have a problem with Needlejet ZOC and other airpower issues, you could consider just banning air units completely.
There are several cases other than air power where probes are needed to restore techology parity before you get stomped on.
In actual play, air power is rarely a problem as long as the map is at least a medium size, since odds are that even the slower researcher can get airpower before the other player can expand enough to attack.
The G part is ease itself - I imagine anyone who could track down and alter everything involved in making the code changes you want would find organizing some on/off switches to various subroutines finger-painting by comparison. I can make the graphic part in an hour or less. Maybe.I wonder about the possibility, since we're imagining extensive .exe modding anyway, of inserting a new screen where one can check off what mods the user wants enabled/disabled...
As mentioned in the other thread, GUIs are way too difficult. Making it depend on variables in the alpha.txt file, though...that would be quite doable.
I had an interesting experience just a few minutes ago with the Nomads scenario. I was using a Hovertank to attack an enemy base with two moves left. I had a strong attack advantage, so I figured I would easily have over 50% hit points left to take the base after the attack. I ended up taking 40% damage (more than I expected, but I thought, OK, still no problem), but then my hovertank would not make another move! Apparently, 40% damage was enough to reduce the movement. So though officially ground units may be able to attack multiple times, practically speaking, it seems like it rarely works.
In contrast, my Copter with 90% damage does not lose a single movement point.
I wll be posting an AAR after I finish winning Nomads, which will show very clearly how copters are so devastating.
QuoteIn contrast, my Copter with 90% damage does not lose a single movement point.No it doesn't, but if you attack with it there's a serious chance of losing it.
True, but the point is to be able to move back to safety.QuoteI wll be posting an AAR after I finish winning Nomads, which will show very clearly how copters are so devastating.Doesn't Nomads give air units bonus movement? The power of copters depends very much on their movement available, so Nomads will be worse than most, and giving them Antigrav Struts (legitimately or through a bug) also makes them extremely powerful (but of course that's an endgame ability except when bugs are involved).
I think someone said that it was not the Nomads scenario, but it was the Fusion reactor that resulted in the speed. Which may be a bug; I am not sure of the designer intent here.
True, but the point is to be able to move back to safety.
I think someone said that it was not the Nomads scenario, but it was the Fusion reactor that resulted in the speed. Which may be a bug; I am not sure of the designer intent here.
However, 8+2Xreactor is far too much, especially for copters, so I think it will be necessary to reduce air unit speed in order to balance it. What do people think about reducing needlejets and gravships by 2 (so 8 with fission, 10 with fusion), and copters by 4 (so 6 with fission, 8 with fusion)?
Cutting movement points seems like the best option to me. You don't have to worry so much about reactors, in many games you'll see only fusion, anyway. :) And I was thinking about what somebody said that air units enrich the game and so on, and I can't find myself to support such view. Of all the possibilities which the unit workshop gives us, I would use many more options if air was banned or significantly reduced, maybe transports with repair bays, abilities like ECM or Polymorphic Encryption, who knows, maybe even submarines.:)
In the actual multiplayer games I have played with copters banned, there is a much broader range of forces used. There are some needlejets, but I would not say that they are the dominant unit. Without copters, I am much more likely to rely on a balanced attack, with artillery bombardment to soften the defenders, particularly in a city or large stack, some air units to punish those with no air defence or attack, tanks, infantry, probe teams, etc.
I am OK with making anti-air easier to get, but I don't think we need to make D:AP any more difficult to get. My suggestion if you feel a need to change this is to make SAM and AAA available at Gene Splicing. That guarantees counters are available at least two techs before D:AP can be achieved (actually 4 techs if you include D: Flex and D:Mob).
But I do not think you have to make the SAM and AAA cheaper and more effective.
And choppers really have to go; reducing their range is just not enough. Using choppers on defense does not require much range, and a single chopper can decimate a ground attack singlehandedly.
I would preference achieving the minimal necessary change for the desired effect rather than worry about whether the tech name made sense. If you must, just change the tech name to something you feel does make sense. If you must, instead of Gense Splicing, one could rename the tech "Ground Launched Crop Dusters", or something equally silly.
Can I ask why you are so insistant on keeping choppers? What indispensible role do you think they have in the game?
Yes, you may be able to assemble just the perfect anti-chopper force, but so what? The very fact the choppers made you unbalance your forces in a way that you would not have done for needlejets is half the problem.
For example, with no choppers, I would focus more on SAM than AAA. With choppers instead of needlejets, the SAM is relatively useless, because the choppers will always retreat back to base.
The other thing you have to consider is initiative. The choppers get to control the time and place of the engagement. They pretty much force your attacking stack to be clumped, make you more vulnerable to defensive artillary.
But there are a few issues with your scenario:
1. Defense of 4 is available, but only attack 6. I think it is extremely unlikely that the D4 technology would be achieved before A8 for most players. The most typical scenario for early air is A6 vs D3. I just don't believe players will prioritize polymorphic software, advanced subatomic theory, and silksteel alloys above other priorities to get D4. If they do, I will probably win just from secret project advantage, since these are three technologies with no secret projects associated with them.
3. Your attack force actually retreats instead of attacks.
4. But even if the attack force was trying to attack, since no SAM units were included, I could block the advance pretty easily with a couple of copters ZOC for several turns
5. The threat of copters causes you to make a homogeneous attack force, so that every unit can defend against the copters. (Otherwise, you risk the copters killing the dedicated AAA defensive unit in a stack, and then clobbering the rest of the stack.)
Instead, (assuming D3 is the highest available from point 1), you would have a balance of AAA 1/3 (3 rows) and SAM 6/1 (3 rows). This would easily defeat a needlejet defense, but would fall to a copter defense, since the SAM units would be nearly irrelevant to the copters (it just would not permit them the delaying tactic).
Of course, if you only had AAA 1/3 units, then when you got to the city, 1/3 defenders would be difficult to defeat. So copters pretty much force you into the 4/3 homogeneous attack force, instead of a more diverse force.
...As a fair test of this, I would like to see you two play this out as a MP game. Twice. Switching sides after the first time...
3. The attack force should have at least 1-2 SAM units. Decide what the stats of the SAM units would be, and sacrifice enough of the 4/3s. This keeps the attack force from being stalled indefinitely due to copter ZOC.
What is the clean minerals mechanic, and why do you consider it an exploit?
1. The defender would definitely have a sensor (or two). I won't insist that it be under the base, but it should be at least beside the base, so that is it not so easy for the attacker to reach and destroy.
2. The technology allows 6A/3D
2. The defender would have a couple of 1/3 units (2 rows) providing defense and police. Remove 1 copter (4 rows) to provide this two units, and keep balanced minerals.
4. Yitzi should decide the exact composition of the attacking units given the rules above. Assuming that someone can help Yitzi with getting the AI set up to attack properly, I will play the scenario a few times and report the results.
As for the other arguments, if you push D:AP up enough, then Chaos will be available, making the situation A8/D4, nearly identical to the A6/D3 that you seem to want to avoid, but which is the natural state of things in SMAC, i.e. the attack will typically be about double the defense at any given time.
Air Power is a stepping stone to two of the best SPs in the game.
What is the clean minerals mechanic, and why do you consider it an exploit?
I think it is interesting that you are going to great lengths to try to weaken air units in general, when the main reason air units are problematic is because of copters.
In my experiments, sensors do affect copters attacking ground units in range of the sensor. Do you have experience otherwise?
The point I was trying to illustrate is how powerful copters are on the defense, even with the movement reduced.
Most of the needlejet issues listed above can be addresed by moving SAM and AAA earlier in the tech tree, as I have already suggested.
I will be happy to play the scenarios I suggested. You add way too much complexity to what should be a simple test. I don't want to bother with that. Let's just try 6/3 and 6/4, with needlejets and copters as I proposed.
I am also not going to argue about the value of CBA even in a builder strategy; it is just too obvious. Cyborg factory is also very useful, even if it just helps survive mindworms.
I never sell my tree farms or centauri preserves. They are too useful. I just build lots of them, which is not an exploit.
I do not think satellites need a nerf. They are expensive, and the value is halved in cities without an areospace complex. I rarely see satellites built to maximum capacity; if they were overpowered, all players would quickly build as many as they could use, but they do not.
I do not play ICS, and I have never lost to ICS. If anyone who thinks that they can win with ICS on the vets map wants to try, let's set up a game.
So the worst things are actually needlejet-based, and the only really unbalanced copter-based thing is due to it not getting a move penalty.
Oh, and I can confirm that you don't need SAM to attack copters; the image (with colors off because I have not yet loaded that fix) is attached.
Still, you can work around that if you give your chopper at least armour 2. Then a synthmetal chopper may be put on top of your units, designated defender and thus it will protect the entire stack against collateral damage (it just needs low weapon, otherwise it'll cost an arm and a leg). Of course you still have to worry about artillery damage, but still I can imagine quite a number of situations where you'd like to protect your stack like that against strong ground units.
And funny thing I just noticed - the rules seem to change if your stack with a chopper stands on an airbase. For one, you can designate your normal armour 1 choppers as defenders and they will work normally, i.e. protect the entire stack.
Of course, if he knows you're doing that he can work around it by attacking with a few impact rovers first to get rid of the choppers and then using his main force for collateral damage.
Do you mean "protect" as in "prevent collateral damage" or as in "non-SAM units can't even attack it"?