Max 89 Techs.
3 ways to slow down research:
Tech Stagnation ON [in game setup]
RESEARCH, -5, [in faction specs: Labs research slowed by 50%. Can be -10 to -50]
Under #RULES in alphax.tech change 100 to any number:
50, ; Technology discovery rate as a percentage of standard [I don't know the limits]
Planetary Energy Theory seems to be an obvious place to put Economic Victory, and perhaps some other perks...but what the heck would Inertial Damping have been used for? Where would you guys put these in the existing tech tree if you were to reenable them?
Based on the quote, Inertial Damping probably would have given the tachyon field (it's the same quote.) I would probably put Planetary Energy Theory as having Planetary Economics and Pre-Sentient Algorithms as a prerequisite, and replacing Planetary Economics in one if not both of the techs that have it as a prerequisite. (Planetary Energy Theory and Planetary Economics are really essentially the same idea.)Those make sense, again based on the quotes and the current tech tree. That said, since Planetary Economics and Global Energy Theory are so similar, it may make more sense to replace Global Energy Theory with a technology that would enable Heavy Transport (the only unit option, besides Slow Unit, currently unavailable in the game). The quote wouldn't match but it would work otherwise.
Inertial Damping would require Photon/Wave Mechanics and Unified Field Theory, and replace UFT as a prerequisite for Frictionless Surfaces.
...would enable Heavy Transport (the only unit option, besides Slow Unit, currently unavailable in the game).Unity Foils come with the ability Slow Unit
Unity Foils come with the ability Slow UnitYou're right; I should have phrased that better. I meant that Heavy Transport and Slow Unit are the only known programmed-in technologies that are not selectable by the player. (Not that I could imagine anyone WANTING Slow Unit...unless it reduced production cost, I suppose.)
I wonder if it's possible to have negative ability costs without major changes to the code, if so that would be something to explore.. especially if Slow Unit could make infantry unable to move. Fun for scenarios.Agreed. In fact, it could even lead (potentially) to a whole new unit type: fixed emplacements. I could see adding stationary artillery or AAA units throughout one's territory, stationary police or defensive Probe Teams at a base, etc.
I wonder if it's possible to have negative ability costs without major changes to the code, if so that would be something to explore.. especially if Slow Unit could make infantry unable to move. Fun for scenarios.Agreed. In fact, it could even lead (potentially) to a whole new unit type: fixed emplacements. I could see adding stationary artillery or AAA units throughout one's territory, stationary police or defensive Probe Teams at a base, etc.
I wonder if it's possible to have negative ability costs without major changes to the code
It might be possible to do it with minor changes, but it would definitely need changes to the code.Would it be as simple as adding a new Special Ability Cost Code? Current defined codes are -7 ... +1; perhaps a +2 could be added that is defined as "reduce cost by 25%" and then assigned to Slow Unit.
This (http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2490.0) might be educational - Darsnan knows what he's doing. Zero movement unit seem to be impossible, sans some code tweaking.
Well... there is one thing in SMAX that WOULD be pretty cool that is a zero movement "unit" - fungal towers just like BFG mentioned.
Imagine being able to "place" these for extreme green factions like Planet Cult, or my new favorite monster the Antimind. Imagine the AI being able to use this.
Something tells me our resident friendly Cult of Assembly Code high priests Yitzi and Kyrub would probably rule that out, though.
Sweet Jesus mindworm that would be awesome.
If slow units are cheaper, that could open the door for upgrade abuse.
As far as base defense units, would zero movement mean they can't attack?
From memory, Fungal Towers revert to native ownership after 1 turn. Can still be used to defend a base I suppose.
An immobile base defender could still be ordered to hold in a base square.
Heavy Transport, 1, Disable, Heavy, 000100100111, +50% transport capacityUnity Foils come with the ability Slow UnitYou're right; I should have phrased that better. I meant that Heavy Transport and Slow Unit are the only known programmed-in technologies that are not selectable by the player. (Not that I could imagine anyone WANTING Slow Unit...unless it reduced production cost, I suppose.)
Tech stagnation and other things that slow down research have the effect in most multiplayer games of the game being over before much more than 1/3 of the tech tree has been discovered.
SMAC was designed as a game promoting offensive play, I remember reading something about it. Maybe even in Vel's strategy guide.
This depends upon map size. I played two tech stagnation games on the Vets map, which is a fairly large map. At the end of the game, MMI had just been discovered, and had no effect on the endgame, just to give you an idea of the tech level a the end.Tech stagnation and other things that slow down research have the effect in most multiplayer games of the game being over before much more than 1/3 of the tech tree has been discovered.
How does it usually end in that case? I presume by conquest, but with what units, and against what defense?
Most of the game was fought with attack 4 or 6 attackers against defense 2 or 3 defenders.
I also played a tech stagnation game on a medium map. The majority of the game was attack 2 and 4 against defense 2. On the medium map, Sythetic Fossil Fuels was the last major tech discovery, and it speeded the mop up quite a bit (although I felt the game had already been decided before the discovery).
Attack techs give larger % bonuses to combat ability, especially early. 2->4, 4->6 against 2->3, 3->4.
Even for defending, you really want good level weapons to counterattack.
The combat system is designed to give the attacker an advantage generally (though there are plenty of defensive bonuses which counteract it partially), and that's no bad thing in my opinion.
Plus I think many attack techs lie on better beelines, while defense ones don't immediately lead to much of importance?
1. The beeline to synthetic fossil fuels is attractive because of raising the food limit.
2. If a city is well defended (like silksteel D4 defenders and perimeter defense), then you go around it.
Eventually, I can bring artillery to weaken heavily defended cities.
3. Attackers have more flexiblility. I could just take the lightly defended cities, destroy all terraformers and supply crawlers, and then continue to build. The attacker's production ability is slightly increased, while the defender is ruined by loss of these terraformers, supply crawlers, and the less defended cities.
If bases are in all-out defense mode, the attacker can just sit around and blow up terraforming, or focus everything on one base and kill it for a place to recharge.I've found that increasing Base Defense and Defense due to Sensors by 25% apiece helps to balance that a bit better. And of course, once you have aerial units, setting them to auto defense can help shore up bases suffering from a pinpoint attack.
If bases are in all-out defense mode, the attacker can just sit around and blow up terraforming, or focus everything on one base and kill it for a place to recharge. Defenders have no power to force engagements, and the supply mechanics mean that covering each base with enough all out defenders to hold off a focused army is going to cost more than the army will cost the other player by a long way.
As I said before, I think this is a good thing. Making attacks effective and the best defense a strong counter-attack makes for an interesting dynamic game, and reduces the sometimes very long "I have won but have to actually kill them" stage. I LIKE there being very strong offensive lategame units, and believe this was entirely intentional, my objection to 'copters is simply that they're much too cheap for their power.
I've found that increasing Base Defense and Defense due to Sensors by 25% apiece helps to balance that a bit better. And of course, once you have aerial units, setting them to auto defense can help shore up bases suffering from a pinpoint attack.
Sensors can be a HUGE help, IF you can defend the sensors. Sensors and monoliths are the only reason I am still hanging in there on WFOS verses Usurpers. If you have your formers organized well enough to build sensors under your peripheral bases that are most likely to come under attack first, this is ideal.
Most people do not, so the sensors only last until a unit gets there to destroy them.
Normally, if you want to get past the early midgame techs before serious combat, then you need to do two things:
As for the sensor under the base, I do not think this is a cheap tactic all all. It is very difficult and requires a lot of planning to achieve without greatly slowing down expansion. So if some does pay the price in terms of rapid expansion to get a sensor under their base, they deserve the benefit.
I wonder that anyone would bother with forcing combat, if they did not expect to gain an advantage. As I said earlier, someone could indeed survive early combat with heavily fortified cities, but if the defender were using just a passive defense, the attacker could significantly weaker the other player by destroying formers, supply crawlers, and terrain enhancements.Normally, if you want to get past the early midgame techs before serious combat, then you need to do two things:
You misunderstand. I have nothing against early combat. I just want that, if the early midgame is reached without the game ending or being decided (i.e. a builder's game rather than a momentum-based quick game), it shouldn't end until people have gotten well up the tech tree.
This is for people who want lower-tech combat to be possible, without it being decisive.
It seems to me that since cities benefit from other terrain enhancements such as rivers and jungle and terrain elevation, it is not unreasonable to benefit from sensors as well. I believe some of the original supplied scenarios had some cities that started with sensors underneath, so I believe the designers did indeed account for this possibility.QuoteAs for the sensor under the base, I do not think this is a cheap tactic all all. It is very difficult and requires a lot of planning to achieve without greatly slowing down expansion. So if some does pay the price in terms of rapid expansion to get a sensor under their base, they deserve the benefit.
It just seems like something that was not intended to happen when the game was designed.
I wonder that anyone would bother with forcing combat, if they did not expect to gain an advantage.
A player should not expect to be able to play a turtle and come out without damage. A defender must counterattack when opportunity arises to weaken the attackers. Most attackers have little to no defense; indeed it is quite expensive to make an infantry unit with both good attack and good defense, and it is prohibitly expensive for a speeder.
This is part of the richness of the strategy of SMAC, that even on defense, the best strategy involves watching for opportunities for counterstrikes.
It seems to me that since cities benefit from other terrain enhancements such as rivers and jungle and terrain elevation, it is not unreasonable to benefit from sensors as well.
I believe some of the original supplied scenarios had some cities that started with sensors underneath, so I believe the designers did indeed account for this possibility.
The geosynchronous sat acts as a sensor, and cannot be destroyed by ordinary enhancement destruction.
The elevation advantage for artillery in an elevated city is considerable, at +25% per level.
I think you missed my other point. I don't care how much you raise defenses; provide an early defensive unit with strength 6, and all you will do in general is preserve whatever cities/squares that have this unit. Meanwhile, if you have no offense, I will destroy every undefended former, crawler, and terrain enhancement, and you will lose. In fact, the availability of the strength 6 defender makes this much easier for me, since I just have to bring some of these along to ensure that it is extremely costly to attempt a counterattack.
There is nothing wrong with the attack/defense balance as it is.
This puts the defense on an equal or better footing than the attacker.
If the attacker has more resources at his disposal, then the defense can eventually be overwhelmed, but that is how it is supposed to be. Once an engagement occurs, if the attacker's industry can resupply units 25% faster than defender, then the defender ultimately will be destroyed. And the reverse is true. If the defender can resupply 25% faster, the original attacker will be pushed back, and the defender becomes the attacker, pushing back and destroying the original attacker. As it should happen.
This industrial factor applies whether one is attacking or not. If I have developed a 25% economic/industrial advantage over the other factions, I don't really need to rush an attack. As long as I am careful, this advantage will compound over time to a 50% advantage, then a 100% advantage, etc.
But making a high defensive value unit available early on will not trigger a stalemate; it may instead embolden an attacker who would otherwise be worried about active defense.
In multiplayer, diplomacy is king. You do not want to attack another player unless you can finish them and take their resources, giving you a leg up on pure builders. It would be far better to leave your closest neightbor as a nominal ally, than to create a thorn in your side the rest of the game that you can't quite kill.
If you do something that prevents this possibility, then you might as well remove momentum factions like Believers and Spartans from the game. They are SUPPOSED to be able to win early tech fights handily. That does not mean the entire game ends this early, but just than one faction is eliminated.
Has anyone seen unique icons for these two techs? The two included with SMAC are duplicates. If not, I'll try designing my own SMAC-friendly icons; that and the Datalinks are the only thing left to do to fully incorporate these into the game.
I'm lost... which 2 techs? I have distinct icons for all 89 (90?) techs.The icons for Inertial Damping and Global Energy Theory (#24 and #70) are identical to those for Singularity Mechanics and Sentient Econometrics respectively.
Does anyone have access to beta versions of SMAC/SMAX? I'd like to check if icons ever existed for Inertial Damping or Global Energy Theory before creating my own.
I'd also be curious if anyone knows how to create new links in the Datalinks text files. Upon a first glance, I'm lost.
I'd also be curious if anyone knows how to create new links in the Datalinks text files. Upon a first glance, I'm lost.