Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => Modding => Topic started by: Yitzi on November 11, 2012, 05:11:47 PM

Title: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 11, 2012, 05:11:47 PM
I'm thinking about how to improve the game and make it less of a "first to get X wins", and the more I think about it, the more I conclude that the culprit, over and over, is the supply crawler.  Here's what the supply crawler does:
1. It lets you "ramp up" your production at an alarming rate.  This favors a focus on early advantage at the expense of long-term planning, meaning that whoever's the first to get things (be it restriction lifting, crawlers themselves, or more bases) has a substantial advantage.
2. It lets you build projects very quickly (especially if they had crawlers prepared before they even got the tech), meaning that whoever gets the tech first will get the project and its substantial advantages.  Removing crawlers would mean you'd have to not only get the tech, but then build the project (or hurry it very expensively), which would give more mineral-focused factions a chance to catch up.

And that really seems to be all that crawlers are good for, so I think that banning them would make for a subtler and more complex game.  (There's no question that it would make for a very different game; the only question is in what way.)

So, can anyone think of any other ramifications, positive or negative, to disabling crawlers?
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Petek on November 11, 2012, 06:19:33 PM
Disabling crawlers would remove one of the facets of the game (the other main one being the Unit Workshop) that distinguish it from other entries in the Civ series. As I see it, the real problem is that the AI doesn't use crawlers, at least nearly not as well as a human. Kyrub tried to improve AI crawler use in his patch but the AI still lags behind the human players.

Instead of removing them, why not merely weaken them? They could, for example, be moved higher in the tech tree or made more expensive to build. Right now, it's practically a no-brainer to build crawlers once you have IndAut. Modify them so that humans would have interesting alternatives (to pumping out crawlers) would add variety to the game. Of course, a human player could simply choose not to build crawlers, or at least not exploit them, as the game is configured now.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 11, 2012, 07:20:49 PM
Disabling crawlers would remove one of the facets of the game (the other main one being the Unit Workshop) that distinguish it from other entries in the Civ series.

There are a few other facets that distinguish it from other entries in the Civ series:
-Social engineering.  In earlier Civ games there was just one government and that's it.  Later Civ games have multiple areas, but still don't have those areas interacting with each other and with natural faction bonuses the way SMAC does.
-Native Life.  Civ has barbarians (an early-game threat) and pollution (a late-game concern), with no connection between them.  SMAC combines the two, makes them relevant for most of the game, and has a far more complex mechanic for it; beyond everything else, that (and the resulting need to balance stability and production, assuming the "magic facilities" rule is banned and energy focus depowered/mineral focus made viable) is what really defines SMAC to me, as compared to other elements of the Civ series.
-The fluff/story is head and shoulders above any other Civ game.  In fact, the main page of this site reads:
"The game is praised for its complex gameplay, the science fiction storyline and the immersive atmosphere created with in-game writing and voice acting. However, the sci-fi elements came somewhat second after the speculative vision of the future society elements.
The player embarks himself on a transhuman journey and this ascent is depicted in a series of quotes and movies, giving remarkable depth to a genre normally impersonal and cold."

So story and complexity; crawlers have nothing to do with the first, and IMO they detract from the second by minimizing many of the potential trade-offs that there could be.

Quote
Instead of removing them, why not merely weaken them? They could, for example, be moved higher in the tech tree or made more expensive to build.

I considered that, and would go for that (much higher in the tech tree, much more expensive) if I saw a need, but as it is I can't think of a single use for them which does not translate into either "helping the guy who's ahead get even further ahead" or "making energy focus vastly superior for grabbing projects" (and we all know that energy focus needs a hit, not more help).

Quote
Right now, it's practically a no-brainer to build crawlers once you have IndAut. Modify them so that humans would have interesting alternatives (to pumping out crawlers) would add variety to the game.

Sounds like a good alternative, but I just don't see what supply crawlers contribute to the game.  To put it another way: Once crawlers are depowered enough for there to be interesting alternatives, what would be the cases in which crawlers should still be used?
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Petek on November 12, 2012, 02:40:27 AM
You always can disable crawlers in your Alpha(x).txt.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 12, 2012, 03:45:15 AM
Naturally, and if crawlers are to be disabled that's how to do it.  I was looking for anyone who might catch something I was missing for why they shouldn't be disabled; nobody in this thread did, but Earthmichael made a convincing case in another thread that removing them entirely is undesirable.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Impaler on November 12, 2012, 11:25:57 AM
Ah the eternal Crawler debate, Nerf or eliminate completely.

While agreeing with all the assessments of the Crawlers ludicrous power I must admit I still like them as a concept, if a flawed one at that.  Crawlers really make your Civ game feel like it MIGHT be set in the future ware manual labor in the rural environs of a city isn't people predominant occupation anymore.

My strategy for modding em is to move them up the tech tree a modest amount, of course I am also considerably slowing my tech rate to around 1/3rd of normal so their is that aspect as well.  I find my territory has been built up with more mixed use terraforming by then and I use the crawlers only on big Nutrient bonuses or rocky mines ware their is no waste.  I'm probably not using the Crawlers to their maximum effect, my habits have not been honed in the crucible of Multiplayer and I can completely understand people being unable to just 'pass' on optimum play to give the AI a fighting change as it takes a lot of enjoyment out of the game to hold back like that.

Increasing the row cost of the Crawler weapon might be another option to nerf the collection portion of their role, but you would still be able to use these more expensive crawlers for Project rushing (Indeed people make some 'Projects on wheels' super luxury crawlers with maxed armor plates and superfluous enhancements so they can more easily to cash em in on projects).  Without rushing projects crawlers might just be balance-able actually.  Alternatively you might increase Secret Project costs but I suspect the AI would be screwed by this big time.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Kilkakon on November 12, 2012, 12:56:35 PM
In LE I remove them almost completely. They are unbuildable, with 1 faction starting with 2 supply crawlers with hyptonic trance and synth armour. The Unity wreckage has the mining laser turned into a crawler as well.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 12, 2012, 02:30:23 PM
My strategy for modding em is to move them up the tech tree a modest amount

That does stop the beeline to crawler tech, but it won't work to balance multiplayer, since they can always re-terraform.

I identify the following uses of crawlers, and associated problems:

1. They're used to get resources independent of population.  Unless crawlers are limited by population, this is irreparably imbalanced.
2. They're used to ferry resources from one base to another.  This may be broken if used to ferry all energy to your HQ, for instance, but is overall a valid use.
3. They're used to rush projects; this is not really broken if just used to allow you to put more than 1 base's production on a project, but is broken if you store up crawlers before you start building the project.

Quote
Without rushing projects crawlers might just be balance-able actually.

Perhaps, but they'd still need a huge nerf.

Quote
Alternatively you might increase Secret Project costs

So that you have to use crawlers?  No thank you.  And it still wouldn't fix the "storing up crawlers before you even have the tech to build the project" plan.

----------

How does this set of house rules (it's completely impossible with alpha.txt modding, and would be a pain to code even with an exe mod) sound:
-Crawler cost is decreased, down to that of probe teams, because we'll be severely nerfing their functionality.
-When you start building a crawler, you must declare it (to the CMN if there is one; otherwise all house rules will have to work on the honor system, so so will this) for one of two purposes:
  A. Resource convoy.  If you declare the crawler for this, it may be hurried or upgraded freely, but may only be used to convoy resources from one base to another (no convoying from a tile, and no adding to projects.)  At first, a base may gain up to 1 FOP per point of population from convoying; when you learn Industrial Automation that increases to 2, and at Matter Transmission it increases to 3.  Even after learning the later techs, you're limited to 1 FOP of each type per point of population.  (So a size 10 base could at first get 5 minerals and 5 nutrients, but not 5 minerals and 6 nutrients or 11 nutrients.  Once you learn Industrial Automation, it could get 5 min/6 nut, but still not 11 nutrients.  And once you learn Matter Transmission it could get 10 of each, but still not 11 of any one.)
  B. Project or prototype aid.  If you declare the crawler for this, you must choose a project or prototype that you are currently building, and then you can add the crawler to production for that project or prototype only.  (Exception: If the project is completed by another faction, and you immediately switch a base which was building it to another project, you can add the crawler to that base.)  A crawler declared for this may not be hurried or upgraded, though you can still add on any bells and whistles you want when you build it.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Pickly on November 13, 2012, 05:36:06 AM
Going the "any possibility I could imagine" route, I'd probably limit crawlers per city by support in some way, possibly support + industrial production (to provide some limit other than population, since that seems a better fit for a robotic resource gathering method.)  Costs could than be adjusted as needed.

Using the txt available methods, eliminating or not using them seem a fine use, or just limiting the use of them in some agreed way if playing in multiplayer.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 13, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
Going the "any possibility I could imagine" route, I'd probably limit crawlers per city by support in some way, possibly support + industrial production

I considered a limit per city, but that'd encourage lots of small bases, which is already an ugly but effective strategy.  Limiting it in a way that depends on industrial production might work, though...I do think that INDUSTRY is a better one to use than SUPPORT, though...

How does "{base's free mineral production}/(10-INDUSTRY), rounded down" sound?  (As a bonus, this has an in-game meaning already; it's the maximum number of rows for a unit or facility in order to be able to produce it in 1 turn).  At 0 industry rating, a decent-sized city can support 2 or maybe even 3 crawlers, but widespread use will not be supportable until you get late-game mineral boosters/Nessus mining stations.  Throw in the project/prototype limits I mentioned earlier, and that should work.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Kilkakon on November 13, 2012, 03:02:30 PM
How hard would it be to keep track of those things? It seems like a lot of knowledge is required about the cities themselves and a good 10 seconds of math
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 13, 2012, 03:21:18 PM
How hard would it be to keep track of those things? It seems like a lot of knowledge is required about the cities themselves and a good 10 seconds of math

Yeah, the mathematical calculation is the downside...unless we just say "if a can't build an X-row unit/facility in one turn, it can't have X crawlers crawling tiles to it."  That's a fairly straightforward rule and usually easy to test.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Impaler on November 14, 2012, 09:05:03 AM
Why is "getting resources independent of population" inherently wrong when population is just an accumulation of nutrients (sometimes just a row or two), ware as a crawler is an accumulation of minerals.  Sure population requires nutrients perpetually but they are vastly more productive then a crawlers.  If I had collected nutrients to grow population instead of minerals to build the crawler I might have a comparable or even higher resource income.

Everything is just an accumulation of nutrients, minerals or energy that gives yet more of the same in a 'catalytic expansion' (aka snowball).
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 14, 2012, 12:26:11 PM
Why is "getting resources independent of population" inherently wrong when population is just an accumulation of nutrients (sometimes just a row or two), ware as a crawler is an accumulation of minerals.

Usually, population is a lot more than a row or two or even three (3 is all that's needed by crawlers, whether it's your first crawler for the base or your tenth), and on top of that it's limited by location and (unless you build more bases, which require their own infrastructure) hab complexes/drone control.

Also, please try to use proper spelling and punctuation; it makes you look more intelligent.

Quote
but they are vastly more productive then a crawlers.

"Vastly more"?  You can get an average of 4 energy (+1 with FM or Morgan+Wealth, +1 per elevation over the first) per square with an energy park, or 6 nutrients with farm/enricher/condenser.  What can population produce that exceeds that by so much?  (Forests are 7 FOP, only 1 more, and boreholes are substantially more limited in where you can place them.  Farm/enricher/solar-or-echelon can produce 4 nutrients and 4+bonuses under optimal conditions (naturally rainy with rolling terrain), but by that point you can get engineers and therefore farm/enricher/condenser with specialists is even better.  Since each point of population takes up 2 nutrients, the only strategy superior* to "crawl everything" is "crawl some of the spaces as condenser/farm/enricher, and work the rest as boreholes."

*And that's only until the most advanced specialists come along; crawling a borehole and having a citizen as a transcend is more productive than having that transcend work that borehole.

Some other changes (to specialists and ecodamage rules) might change that, though, which could make crawlers more balanced.

Quote
Everything is just an accumulation of nutrients, minerals or energy that gives yet more of the same in a 'catalytic expansion' (aka snowball).

And that snowball needs to be hugely slowed down if the game is to be more than "grab as much as you can as fast as you can".
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 14, 2012, 02:40:31 PM
Y!  Manners, man; manners.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 14, 2012, 02:45:44 PM
Sorry.  But he should know that many people do judge people (especially in logical discussions) by their usage of spelling and punctuation, so he's likely to get a better response if he's careful about such things.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 14, 2012, 03:00:59 PM
I didn't speak up because I disagree; I spoke up because bringing it up so abruptly and bluntly to someone you just met is rude.  As it happens, I agree strongly, and a high level of written English skills is one of the things I like best about our community.  But I also imagine it's nothing Impaler doesn't know.  Some care more than others, and it's in the nature of social interaction that you gotta grit your teeth and pick your battles to get along.

Back in the day, I got to know Darsnan before I pointed out the your/you're and their/there/they're rules - to absolutely no avail.  He still makes me wince a little with almost every post, years later.  Some things we just have to put up with.... :)
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 14, 2012, 03:28:33 PM
I didn't speak up because I disagree; I spoke up because bringing it up so abruptly and bluntly to someone you just met is rude.

Unfortunately, I have never been able to get the hang of telling someone something not-abruptly and not-bluntly, on the internet or in real life.  Do you have any suggestions for me?
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 14, 2012, 03:32:24 PM
A good start would be something like "I don't mean to be rude, but it bothers me when".  A little diplomatic intro makes a diference...
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 14, 2012, 03:55:21 PM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 14, 2012, 06:12:12 PM
I've thought about it some more, and it seems that if condensers are limited (probably via an ecodamage mod), then crawlers should be pretty balanced until either satellites come out or specialists can easily produce more than 2 non-psych energy; the effects of satellites can be mitigated by making the orbital defense pod the first satellite available (hence, satellites become difficult to keep up during wartime), and specialists producing more than 2 non-psych energy can be moved from "as soon as the base is large enough for specialists" to the late game (and both changes are probably desirable anyway because otherwise a nutrient focus strategy will be too powerful even without crawlers).
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Buster's Uncle on November 14, 2012, 06:18:54 PM
Good point - satellites break the game a lot harder, being so much tougher to get at...
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 14, 2012, 07:24:45 PM
So I'd propose the following fix for them (strictly as part of a variant set of rules, which no doubt some people will greatly prefer and some won't):

-Orbital defense pods are available with Orbital Spaceflight.
-Sky Hydroponics labs require Self-Aware Machines.  (With satellites, nutrients become the most valuable resource, so they should be at least tied for the last to become available from satellites.)
-Nessus Mining Stations can stay where they are (Self-Aware Machines), but if hab domes are moved slightly earlier (perhaps desirable to encourage more spread-out bases), they can be moved to Super Tensile Solids to compensate.

Another question is where to move the advanced specialists; since every crawler frees up a citizen to be a specialist, they're a major portion of why crawlers are so powerful and so need to be moved to the late game.  (Except for empaths, since psych is more limited anyway, and large bases really could use the help.)  I'm thinking engineer to quantum power and thinker to Eudaimonia.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Impaler on November 15, 2012, 12:43:23 PM
I am sorry if my writing can be a bit grating, I assure you it is not from any haste or intentional sloppiness on my part, I've had profound difficulty with spelling (below bottom 10th percentile) from a very early age, I do make use of every highlight the spellchecker provides me, but some stuff slips through regardless.

As for your recommendations I like them as a means of slowing down the late game orbital explosion, though they seem to be getting a bit away from the crawler issue.  My rather crude modification was to just triple the cost of all of em so they are near Secret Project cost and to insert another tech 'Orbital Construction' to slightly delay them as well.  Your solution is more subtle and I think I will incorporate something like that into my own mod.

As for Specialists I use a 2-3-6 pattern, initial specialists all produce 2/0/0, second tier 2/0/1, Transcendi produce 2/2/2 to perfectly obsolete all the earlier ones.  This is a considerable nerf vs the original output in research and credits so mass specialists combined with mass crawled food should be less powerful.

The overall thrust of your desire to 'slow the snowball' is exactly what I've endeavored to do with my own modding, you should check it out.  So far I've just posted snippets but I'll eventually provide a zip of the whole thing.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 15, 2012, 03:05:27 PM
I am sorry if my writing can be a bit grating, I assure you it is not from any haste or intentional sloppiness on my part, I've had profound difficulty with spelling (below bottom 10th percentile) from a very early age, I do make use of every highlight the spellchecker provides me, but some stuff slips through regardless.

As for your recommendations I like them as a means of slowing down the late game orbital explosion

Thanks, I'm also considering lowering the price of Defense Pods to 80, and raising Hydroponics Labs and Mining Stations to 180, in order to make it more difficult to keep satellites up in wartime.

Quote
though they seem to be getting a bit away from the crawler issue.

They are connected.  Crawlers are most effective when you're planning to focus on one resource type anyway, and satellites mean that focusing on nutrients is by far the most effective.  Make satellites less effective, and prevent widespread use of crawlers somehow, and worked forests (with hybrid forest) become much closer to competitive with crawled spaces even once specialists are producing 4 energy apiece; they're slightly inferior, but between the more difficult terraforming and the cost of crawlers, it should be ok.

Quote
My rather crude modification was to just triple the cost of all of em so they are near Secret Project cost and to insert another tech 'Orbital Construction' to slightly delay them as well.  Your solution is more subtle and I think I will incorporate something like that into my own mod.

Thanks.

Quote
As for Specialists I use a 2-3-6 pattern, initial specialists all produce 2/0/0, second tier 2/0/1, Transcendi produce 2/2/2 to perfectly obsolete all the earlier ones.  This is a considerable nerf vs the original output in research and credits so mass specialists combined with mass crawled food should be less powerful.

I sort of feel that if someone wants to go transcendi to pump their score via Transcendent Thought when they could have won anyway, they should be able to fairly well.  On the other hand, even 2/0/1 is fairly unbalancing in the earlier portions of the game, not only for crawlers but also for base size/density (more effective specialists favor more bases, since the base square doesn't need to be worked and therefore is effectively an extra specialist.)  So I'd go with initial specialists all producing 2, empaths produce 2 psych 1 economy (yes, this means that psych is effectively half the cost as labs or economy when you get it from specialists; this is a good thing because it makes larger bases more appealing and tight packing of bases less appealing), engineers produce 3 economy 1 labs and require Quantum Power, thinkers require Eudaimonia, and transcends require Threshold of Transcendence.

Quote
The overall thrust of your desire to 'slow the snowball' is exactly what I've endeavored to do with my own modding, you should check it out.  So far I've just posted snippets but I'll eventually provide a zip of the whole thing.

I might as well provide a list of my changes to slow the snowball (I have ideas for changes for a few other purposes too, some of which overlap); some of them are marked by an asterisk, meaning that they can't be done with .txt modding and require .exe modding (the .exe modding would make the change dependent on the .txt file, so that people don't have to go with the change if they don't want to.)
-Satellites changed as I've already said.
-Specialists changed as I said in this post.
-Hybrid Forests require Sentient Econometrics.  Hybrid Forest is a "tier 3" facility like the quantum lab and nanohospital, so it should have comparable tech requirements.
-In SMAX, kelp farms only grant 1 nutrient, and tidal harnesses grant only 2 energy.  Otherwise, adding an aquafarm/thermocline transducer on top of that is just too much.
-Recycling Tanks grant +1 nutrients, but not minerals or energy.  (Really, whose bright idea was it that base squares should provide 7 FOP without being worked?  That's just begging for ICS.)
-Air power (which makes snowballing worse because it's such a huge advantage if you're ahead in tech, especially if you abuse it with ZOC and protecting stacks) is nerfed in a number of ways:
  -Doctrine: Air Power now requires Advanced Military Algorithms instead of Doctrine:Flexibility (this doesn't increase its tier, but does add a few extra prerequisite techs, making it harder to beeline for it.)
  -Air Superiority only requires AMA, though of course it can't be put on an air chassis until Doctrine: Air Power.
  -AAA Tracking only requires Optical Computers, and gives a 150% bonus instead of 100%.
  -*Aircraft only have 8 movement (+2 with CBA, +2 with fuel nanocells) unless you give them Antigrav Struts (which requires an endgame tech as usual.)  This is what the rules seem to indicate should be the case anyway, so I consider it to be a bug fix and therefore if I do the mod it will probably not be dependent on .txt modification.
-*Crawled spaces produce ecological damage from improvements.  Condensers and mirrors are as damaging as boreholes, and the bonus ecodamage from all three is not affected by tree farm/hybrid forest (but is affected normally by forests.)  On top of that, the bonus damage from mirrors and condensers applies to any base with a radius or crawled space next to the mirror/condenser as well.

Oh, and I almost forgot:
-Reduce Democracy growth bonus to +1, to make it hard to pop boom.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Impaler on November 16, 2012, 01:13:47 AM
I was incorporating the satellite changes and decided to go with this sequence, Space Flight gives Pods which cost 12 (rows), Advanced Space Flight gives Power Transmitters which cost 24.  AdvSpace and NanoMininturization are the prerequisites of Orbital Construction my new tech (which itself leads to Super Tensile Solids), it gives both Nesus and Sky Hydroponics which both cost 36.  I think having minerals and nutrients higher then energy is wise because they are much more snow-ball inclined then a few raw energy.

More good stuff, I've also put Empathi 1/2/0  (Credits/Psych/Research), but nerfed the Engineer down to 2/0/1 (I also renamed them Cyborgs for flavor) and Thinker goes to 0/1/2.  The latter two then switch tech requirements of Fusion and MindMac again for flavor and consistency with the Cyborg change.

My nerf to all forest related strategies is to take forest down to 1/1/1, after that I don't need to do nearly anything to delay the Tree facilities themselves.

Recycle Tanks and high Base productivity can indeed encourage ICS, but I've significantly increased facility maintenance costs and this has the effect of making small bases unable to achieve net positive credits from anything but the earliest facilities.  Without significant yield of credits (or a negative credit yield) the ICS strategy runs into EFFIC limits of drones and wasted energy and becomes self-limiting to a degree.

I'd also made MilAlg a prerequisite for Doc:Air, I recall this has been a common modification for ages as it's so obvious that having a tier 2 tech as the prerequisite for the strongest tech in the game is absurd.

I've modified SE significantly as well but I place a -1 Growth on Survival value and the None-Future choice which prevents Pop Booming for most of the game.
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Yitzi on November 16, 2012, 01:35:52 AM
I was incorporating the satellite changes and decided to go with this sequence, Space Flight gives Pods which cost 12 (rows), Advanced Space Flight gives Power Transmitters which cost 24.  AdvSpace and NanoMininturization are the prerequisites of Orbital Construction my new tech (which itself leads to Super Tensile Solids), it gives both Nesus and Sky Hydroponics which both cost 36.  I think having minerals and nutrients higher then energy is wise because they are much more snow-ball inclined then a few raw energy.

It seems to me that with early and relatively cheap pods and more expensive mineral/nutrient satellites, increasing satellite cost by that much might be unnecessary (since you'll need a large production advantage to keep your satellites up in the face of an enemy just building pods to shoot them down), but that's really more a matter of taste.  (I also tend to prefer the minimal change that will do the job, both aesthetically and to increase the number of people that will be willing to play it, and I consider 1 moderate (2:3 ratio) decrease and 2 moderate increases to be less of a change than 1 moderate increase and 2 large (1:2 ratio) increases.)

Quote
More good stuff, I've also put Empathi 1/2/0  (Credits/Psych/Research), but nerfed the Engineer down to 2/0/1 (I also renamed them Cyborgs for flavor) and Thinker goes to 0/1/2.  The latter two then switch tech requirements of Fusion and MindMac again for flavor and consistency with the Cyborg change.

That might work if you don't move hybrid forest (crawled rainy spaces still produce 1.5 more min+energy (2.5 more energy, 1 less minerals) than forests, but that may be justified by needing a lot more terraforming and the crawlers themselves.)  You do end up, though, that working a non-forest flat space is almost never worth it, and even if it's rolling you need to value minerals more than energy (more than twice as much if the square is less than 1000 ft, though mirrors do change these calculations somewhat.)

Although I feel that moving hybrid forest up makes sense anyway to match the others with similar energy-related purposes, so I need to move specialists up as well to keep forests competitive with crawled spaces.

Quote
My nerf to all forest related strategies is to take forest down to 1/1/1, after that I don't need to do nearly anything to delay the Tree facilities themselves.

Maybe it's just my previous experience with Civ, but I feel that minerals should be more of a strong point for forests; with your change, they're a weak point after hybrid forests.

Quote
Recycle Tanks and high Base productivity can indeed encourage ICS, but I've significantly increased facility maintenance costs and this has the effect of making small bases unable to achieve net positive credits from anything but the earliest facilities.

That can work too.  I'm aiming for a somewhat lighter mod, though, and cutting recycling tanks seems lighter than increasing maintenance.  It's really a matter of taste, though.

Quote
I've modified SE significantly as well but I place a -1 Growth on Survival value and the None-Future choice which prevents Pop Booming for most of the game.

I really don't like putting modifiers on the starting options, as to me those options are supposed to be "neutral", no effect.  I'd only use that if I want an across-the-board modifier (and then I'd put it on everything in the row.)
Title: Re: Discussion Re: Disabling crawlers
Post by: Pickly on November 19, 2012, 04:31:48 AM
Going the "any possibility I could imagine" route, I'd probably limit crawlers per city by support in some way, possibly support + industrial production

I considered a limit per city, but that'd encourage lots of small bases, which is already an ugly but effective strategy.  Limiting it in a way that depends on industrial production might work, though...I do think that INDUSTRY is a better one to use than SUPPORT, though...

How does "{base's free mineral production}/(10-INDUSTRY), rounded down" sound?  (As a bonus, this has an in-game meaning already; it's the maximum number of rows for a unit or facility in order to be able to produce it in 1 turn).  At 0 industry rating, a decent-sized city can support 2 or maybe even 3 crawlers, but widespread use will not be supportable until you get late-game mineral boosters/Nessus mining stations.  Throw in the project/prototype limits I mentioned earlier, and that should work.

That is true about the ICS, didn't think of that when writing the idea.  I like your industry suggestion, although to me support does "feel like the better option.  (Although it's not like either messes up gameplay that much.)
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 31 - 840KB. (show)
Queries used: 14.

[Show Queries]