The Deleted Technologies?

[Earthmichael]

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.

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.

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. 

I was recently subject to an invasion in one of my games.  My defense was able to slow down the attackers.  But ultimately, it was my counterattacks that were decisive in weakening the invading troups, particularly due to collateral damage, and the fact that unless the invaders can establish a stronghold at a city or monolith, they have no way to fully repair.  If I had turtled-up to only protect my cities, the speeders could have rampaged through my crawlers and formers, rendering the invasion a success even if I untimately destroyed the forces without losing a city.  So I needed to take an active defense, capitalizing on opportunities for counterattack on relatively weak defensive units.  This is part of the richness of the strategy of SMAC, that even on defense, the best strategy involves watching for opportunities for counterstrikes.

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.

It just seems like something that was not intended to happen when the game was designed.

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.

[Yitzi]

I wonder that anyone would bother with forcing combat, if they did not expect to gain an advantage.

Expecting to gain an advantage is not the same as it being decisive (i.e. effectively knocks a player out of the game.)

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. 

I agree.  However, it should still be a substantial effort (until the late game and Blink) to actually take a base (as opposed to counterattacking the enemies in your territory, which should be easier), meaning that defenses should be around 2/3 the weapons available (1/2 once tachyon fields come online).  Because of the need for the ability to counterattack and the greater presence on other beelines, attack will tend to be somewhat ahead of similar-tier defense, so early midgame defense (defined here from everything after HEC until Probability Mechanics) does need a bit of a boost.

This is part of the richness of the strategy of SMAC, that even on defense, the best strategy involves watching for opportunities for counterstrikes.

The problem, though, is that unless that also comes with a strong ability to defend your bases, it makes it very hard to have a stalemate of the sort that lets games go long.

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.

Cities actually do not benefit from terrain elevation other than in terms of artillery bonuses.  As for landmarks and rivers, they differ from what you mentioned in two very important ways: They are not built by the player (well, you can drill to aquifer, but that's not the usual way to get rivers, and it doesn't have to be in that square anyway), and they cannot be easily destroyed anyway.  The problem with sensors in bases is that it's a +25% bonus which can't be removed except by destroying the base.

Perhaps a better approach would be to instead have a sensor-like facility (sensor net), probably requiring Advanced Military Algorithms to build.  That way, it can't be destroyed by military units, but can be destroyed by probe teams.  What would be a good cost and maintenance for such a facility?

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.

I've looked through them, and believe you are mistaken there.

[Earthmichael]

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.

Things are not just one sided.  As an attacker, I bring along my best defensive units as well to help mitigate counterattack.  If my entire attack force is nothing but 6/1, even some 2/1 defenders engaging in active defense can decimate my army.  Both attackers and defenders are best served by a mix of attacking and defending units.  Attackers cannot total ignore any defensive technologies; they need a decent level of defense against counterattacks.  Defenders cannot ignore attacking technologies; they need a decent level of attack to take advantage of opportunities to counterattack.

There is nothing wrong with the attack/defense balance as it is.  Part of the balance is how costly it is to have both attack and defense on infantry, and how prohibitive it is on speeders.  The other part of this balance is the role of terrain.  A defender must position his defense to make the best use of terrain.  Cities can provide the most defense, with +25% defense against non-infantry, and perimeter fence, tachyon fields, and aerospace complex multiplying the defense.  But even rocky/forest/fungus provide +50% defense, which can help even the odds, or in conjuction with a sensor (which the defenders can be sitting on to defend), provide +75% defense.  A bunker adds another 25%, raising this to 100%, plus no collateral damage.  This puts the defense on an equal or better footing than the attacker.  Other enhancements like comm jammer add an additional +50%D against fast units,  and AAA tracking adds +100%D against air units, making attacks against such positions by these units suicidal.

But one cannot forget the value of active defense.  A single high attack value unit that can take out one attacker also does collateral damage to the rest of the stack, making it far more costly for the attacker to succeed.  And it keeps the attacker from just avoiding your defenses and wiping out your terrain, since you can snipe at him from your defense, eroding his attack force.

But in short, there is simply nothing wrong with things the way they are now.  A determined and smart defender can repel an attack force using a combination of passive and active defense.  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.  You cannot expect for the conflict to be a statemate long enough for endgame technologies to be developed.  Typically, once a conflict is engaged, at most 2 or 3 breakthroughs will occur that can affect the combats before one faction overruns the other.

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.  It is often the economically weaker faction that must force an attack to try to reduce this economic advantage.

So if one wants to use late game technology, you have to defer contact until research has progressed, by the starting positions on the map, and by refraining from anything such as tech stagnation that will slow down research.  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.

[gwillybj]

There are two items set at zero in alpax.txt:
"Combat % -> for attacking from higher elevation."
"Combat penalty % -> attacking from lower elevation."

alphaxguide_v1_3 suggests setting both of these to 12. I have confirmed for myself that both work as stated. I prefer to set them to 10, and I've tested it at 15.

Note this caution: "The AI does NOT seem to be particularly aware of this, so changing this value actually hurts the AI." It doesn't take the time to look for a downhill attack route. It's not a bug, it's a programming thing: Can you imagine an AI unit stuck circling a base on the top of a hill because no downhill attack route exists? I wouldn't want to be tasked with rewriting that part of the pathfinder routine.
So, the MP'ers would have to agree on whether to use both, either, or neither, of those two items.

Also note the item before these: "Combat % -> attacking along road." It is broken just as the document says. Leave it at zero.

[Yitzi]

The geosynchronous sat acts as a sensor, and cannot be destroyed by ordinary enhancement destruction.

I know; that was my idea, to lower the tech, cost, and maintenance of the geosynchronous satellite in order to replace "sensors under bases" without having an indestructible improvement.

The elevation advantage for artillery in an elevated city is considerable, at +25% per level.

True, but artillery is usually only used for support to the main attack/defense force.

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.

I understand that, which is why people do need to get offense as well.  However, if there isn't even a moderately easy defense-4 unit available (say, before Missile offense), then I have to use counterattacks even to defend bases, and that means that fighting to take your bases isn't that different from fighting to defend my own, so the game ends a lot sooner.
With defense-4 available at Subatomic, I can still counterattack your units (defense 4 isn't going to make a counterattack that costly), but will make it difficult for you to attack my bases (in which I have offensive troops stationed), so fighting in my territory gives me a substantial advantage (in that I have squares where I have the defensive advantage, and you do not).

There is nothing wrong with the attack/defense balance as it is.

So then why is it so easy to take bases in the early midgame that the game actually ends there if it stays in that stage for 50% longer?

This puts the defense on an equal or better footing than the attacker.

With +6 attack against +3 defense, not by very much, since a lot of the stuff you mentioned doesn't stack.

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.

No, what should happen is that if they're fairly close, then neither can destroy each other until the endgame techs break the stalemate one way or another.

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.

Not unless you've got a greater percentage growth of your economic advantage; if you have a 25% economic advantage but the same percentage growth rate, the advantage will stay at 25% unless you can destroy his economic stuff.

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.

Depends how high.  4 defense against 6 attack is not going to stop active defense that much.

[Yitzi]

Earthmichael, it occurred to me: Are you talking about 1v1, or many-player?  Because in many-player, destroying improvements and units without any chance of taking bases (or territory) usually isn't worth the cost unless you're more powerful than everyone else put together.

However, in either case, it seems to me that the following concepts hold:
-The goal is to make the game last a substantial period of time after to contact, as that makes for a more interesting game.  This means increasing the necessary advantage over the other guy in order to be able to win.
-If you have a production-plus-morale advantage over the other guy more than the attacker-over-defender advantage ratio in the open, then you can win in 1v1, by simply moving your forces into the enemy's territory and doing damage, since your existing advantage means that even if he counterattacks you'll come out ahead.
-If you have a production-plus-morale advantage over the other guy more than the defender-over-attacker advantage ratio when attacking bases, then you can win by just overrunning his bases.
-Thus, the best approach for a long game is to balance the two advantage ratios, so that the defender in a base has an advantage roughly comparable to the attacker in the open.
-In a base, the defender has an extra +100% advantage with a Perimeter Defense, and +200% with a tachyon field, so that would suggest that to maximize game length after contact, attack values should be roughly 1.5X corresponding defense values before tachyon fields, and roughly 2X corresponding defense values after tachyon fields.  For many-player games (the normal way of playing), going too far toward defense is better than going too far toward offense, since the natural tendency against non-base-conquering wars in many-player (remember, if in a Spartan/Peacekeeper/Hive/Morgan game, the Spartans kill 10 Peacekeeper crawlers and lose 4 impact rovers in the process, the real winners from the encounter are the Hive and Morgan.)
-Techs which are on major beelines (e.g. Superconductor, Synthetic Fossil Fuels, Organic Superlubricant, Advanced Spaceflight) will generally be achieved sooner than same-tier techs of the same level, so they should be expected to be available at the same time as non-beeline techs (such as pretty much all defensive techs) one level lower.  In 1v1, there's also a bias toward offense for the reasons you mentioned. 
-Thus, Nonlinear Mathematics (A4) and Superconductor (A5) correspond roughly to High-Energy Chemistry (D3) (except for momentum factions, who try to get Nonlinear Mathematics early enough to overrun enemies who do not yet have their defenses; this is a different playstyle but one that doesn't feel unnaturally shortened like a midgame builder victory does), Synthetic Fossil Fuels (A6) corresponds roughly to Advanced Subatomic Theory (no defense modules), Superstring Theory (A8) to Silksteel (D4), Organic Superlubricant (A10) to Photon/Wave Mechanics (D5), Theory of Everything (A12) and Advanced Spaceflight (A13) to Probability Mechanics (D6, also gives tachyon fields), Quantum Machinery (A16) very roughly corresponds to Matter Compression (D10), Advanced Gravitonics (A20) roughly corresponds to Matter Editation (D10), and Controlled Singularity (A24) to Temporal Mechanics (D12).  Thus, it works pretty well, except for from Advanced Subatomic Theory until (not including) Probability Mechanics, so I think giving +1 to defense (just +1) in that particular segment would work well to extend the game.

[Earthmichael]

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.

[Yitzi]

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.

Not quite.  It can also be worth attacking another player, even if you can't finish them, if you can take and hold enough of their territory and infrastructure that even after discounting the existence of a (now fairly weak) enemy, you can get a leg up on pure builders that way.

Two more potential uses of attacking another player, specifically for the more militant factions, are to steal projects, and as a threat.  For instance, Miriam has difficulty grabbing techs to get projects, and unlike Domai and Yang doesn't have a production advantage to compensate, so her usual method of getting projects is something along the following lines:
Someone starts building the Planetary Datalinks (or CBA for that matter in a game where satellites and air units have been depowered enough to not make it the most powerful project out there), and whoever's playing Miriam decides they want it.  So they send whoever built it a message:
"You have starting building the Planetary Datalinks, and I want that one.  So there are a few ways we can do this:
1. You stop building the Planetary Datalinks, and let me build it.
2. You build it in a base, and then sell the base to me.
3. You build it in a base, refuse to sell the base, and I conquer that base and then we leave it at that.
4. You build it in a base, refuse to sell that base, and obliterate the base when I'm about to take it to prevent me from getting it, and I get mad and destroy your whole empire.  I've got a good chance of being able to do that, you know."
And the Planetary Datalinks isn't worth going to war with the Believers, so they let her grab it.
Of course, that only works well for someone who actually can at least reliably threaten to conquer bases; lesser attacks are a lot less likely to get concessions.

Remember, threats are also part of diplomacy, so there is a point in attacking, it's just weaker to the point where "force a few formers and crawlers into bases and destroy some terrain improvements" isn't that strong.

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.

I think you misunderstand; early-tech fights would be unchanged.  It's only the particular window where people have access to ECM but not tachyon fields that would be substantially changed; momentum factions usually try to get their biggest bonuses earlier than that.

[BFG]

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.

[gwillybj]

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.

[BFG]

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.

[BFG]

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.

[Yitzi]

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 believe you put it as "$LINK<Name=#>" (without the quotes), where Name is whatever the link text should be, and # is the number of the thing you want to link to (easiest to find if you have something else that links there; otherwise you'd have to guess (though I think it's simply a number that depends on which file it's found in (helpx or conceptsx or whatever), plus which number entry it is in that file.)

Although tech tree info is put in automatically and doesn't have to be linked; just use alphax.txt to structure the tech tree how you want it, and it should work automatically.

[ete]

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.

http://alphacentauri2.info/mediawiki/index.php?title=Datalinks_syntax