Alfa Centauri - is it worth it?

[Adalbertus]

Why does it take a year for a modern unit to move one tile the map?

Would you like to have to manage your units on a day-to-day basis for a simulated history of 300 (SMAC) or 6000 (Civ) years? Or do you think it gives a better gameplay when each unit possesses something like orbital insertion right from the beginning of the game? For me, the answer to both is "no". You can't simulate wars and history both in their natural pace in the same game.

In fact, Civ/SMAC combats take place in a single tile. What you suggest for the tactical part would probably be a combat resolution where CTP2 made the first tiny step with stacked units and a combat screen. It would give a new dimension to the game but also make it more tiring (*much* more time per turn invested).

[Mr. President]

I actually agree with you, Sikander. One of the few games of recent years that I never beat was Chessmaster. (Okay, perhaps that's not as recent as I made out.) (My father beat it once, but he's a chess legend.)

As a natural builder, I would actually rather spend time on internal politics (I used to watch Parliament Question Time) than micromanage warriors for two thousand years across a game simulation of Earth territory that I know can be crossed in a couple of months.

Have you surfed over to Stella Polaris and suggested this?

[Blake]

It makes Warcraft seem like inspired genius in comparison.

I must say Warcraft 3 is an excellent game, probably one of the best RTS games of all time. It takes good aspects from other games and adds some very innovative features (like Upkeep and creeps, neutral enemy monsters, in multiplayer), it also doesn't let reality tie it down, as well as taking place in a fantasy world, things like upkeep are there purely for gameplay and enjoyment rather than realism. And ofcourse it looks absolutely fantastic. My only gripe is rather than a "Real time Strategy" game it's more of a "real time micromanagment" game, given two strategically matched players, he who is better at micro will easily win.

Still it does give plenty of avenues for effective play, from massing units to micro'ing a couple of heros and is more addictive than crack.

I can say that RTS games are lightyears ahead of TBS games in virtually all aspects.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

Would you like to have to manage your units on a day-to-day basis for a simulated history of 300 (SMAC) or 6000 (Civ) years? Or do you think it gives a better gameplay when each unit possesses something like orbital insertion right from the beginning of the game? For me, the answer to both is "no". You can't simulate wars and history both in their natural pace in the same game.

My point exactly. Let your generals fight the wars and move the militia from left to right, you are the God-King and can't be expected to bother with such trifles.

Originally posted by Adalbertus
In fact, Civ/SMAC combats take place in a single tile. What you suggest for the tactical part would probably be a combat resolution where CTP2 made the first tiny step with stacked units and a combat screen. It would give a new dimension to the game but also make it more tiring (*much* more time per turn invested).

It all depends on how much you fight I guess. Using armies certainly cuts down on having to move each unit seperately, though it could be used in a way that might well bog the game down with interminable transfers of units from army to army. Still, I would prefer either to fight out the tactical battles (or use the auto-resolve feature), or to have the computer handle the decisions that would obviously have been made by the commander on the spot. Creating armies is an excellent way to hand over combat control to the computer. You design the force, assign the leader and decide where it will be stationed and what it's mission will be. After that it's up to the commander to deal with all the crush and clutter of minor decision making until another strategic turn is finished and you are allowed to reappraise and make adjustments.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Mr. President
I actually agree with you, Sikander. One of the few games of recent years that I never beat was Chessmaster. (Okay, perhaps that's not as recent as I made out.) (My father beat it once, but he's a chess legend.)

As a natural builder, I would actually rather spend time on internal politics (I used to watch Parliament Question Time) than micromanage warriors for two thousand years across a game simulation of Earth territory that I know can be crossed in a couple of months.

Have you surfed over to Stella Polaris and suggested this?

I tried to drop back by not too long ago, but I couldn't find it (my old link was kaput). Is there a working link here on Poly? Anyway, I have plenty of ideas about game designs, and precious little time to actually work on games. Most game projects have a surplus of people like me and a deficit of programming and artistic talent. Unfortunately the time I spend on Apolyton is largely borrowed from my employer, and I really can't get too much more involved than reading threads and posting a bit, lest my work begin to suffer.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Blake


I must say Warcraft 3 is an excellent game, probably one of the best RTS games of all time. It takes good aspects from other games and adds some very innovative features (like Upkeep and creeps, neutral enemy monsters, in multiplayer), it also doesn't let reality tie it down, as well as taking place in a fantasy world, things like upkeep are there purely for gameplay and enjoyment rather than realism. And ofcourse it looks absolutely fantastic. My only gripe is rather than a "Real time Strategy" game it's more of a "real time micromanagment" game, given two strategically matched players, he who is better at micro will easily win.

Still it does give plenty of avenues for effective play, from massing units to micro'ing a couple of heros and is more addictive than crack.

I can say that RTS games are lightyears ahead of TBS games in virtually all aspects.

Perhaps an unfair knock on a game I have only seen someone else play. I just can't take the clickfest nature of most RTS games, having burned out on video games in about 1979. I have played a few pseudo-real time games like Railroad Tycoon and Europa Universalis which allow you to pause or slow the action in order to give a moment's thought to your options, or go to the bathroom etc. I still prefer turn based games though, as I spend almost all of my time taking my turn, and none waiting for something to happen, getting bored, turning up the speed and getting a pain in my neck and shoulders from waiting with my hands ready to hit the pause button should anything happen.

[Blake]

Unfortunately to cripple unit "massing" strategies WC3 devolved into a clickfest, because micromanagment is king.

One of my gripes about most TBS games is they still involve far too much clicking, in Civ3 the vast majority of player time is spent moving units and giving orders on a very indivudal unit level. Stacking would have helped much.
All micromanagment features are catered to the absolute newbie - goveners - rather than experienced players (where stacks and a national manager would help greatly)

CTP2 requires a fair amount less clicking than Civ3 does, but isn't such a great game (until modded, but even then the limitations of the engine show through...), so CTP2 doesn't show the strengths of TBS gaming.. SMAC requires even more clicking than Civ3 but is atleast an excellent game.

Working links to stella polaris include http://freeac.org and www.stellapolaris.tk - altough I do read everything posted on poly and that posted by Sikander with particular interest.

[Straybow]

Sik, see hi, is AC really that great?

In the Civ3 List there were numerous suggestions for improving the movement models, mostly from your truly. Supply (which a computer can calculate automatically and display as shading on the map) and generalization (moving between locations without physically specifying the path) are both excellent methods of removing absurd limitations.

Did they listen to me? Nooooo. Ah, genius is so oft misunderstood by the masses.

[Proserpine]

The Poll results say it all.

Even though SMAC was released years ago, and the graphics suck (they were awful even when it was released) in gameplay terms it is light years (pun fully intended) ahead of C3.

Go buy before someone else snaps it up.

[vee4473]

Let me tell you that the units and techs in SMAC are very abstract (not very understandable), so if you are looking for real world types of units and technologies, you won't find them. However, they are very interesting and fun. Think of it this way...When you watch a Star Trek epsiode and listen to spock or data ramble about some sort of technology, but you don't really get it, but at the same time it's interesting...it's like that i think.

Also, you can, in SMAC, design your own units. So you can have choose to have a tank and put whatever weapon your current level of technology allows onto it.

This is NOT to say that SMAC is bad, you just asked about the units and techs. I happen to love SMAC, but if you aren't into science fiction, then you might have a hard time getting into it.

Also, as for the grapihics, they are different from civ3 in the sense that SMAC has 3d elevation effects. Not the type you see in civ3 where only one tile looks like a mountain, but the ground slopes either up or down over several tiles. It's cool I think.


Next, you start SMAC just like in civ, with a settler unit and some other units. You build from there.

Finally, there are mountains and hills and such in SMAC, but there are also more alien terrains like fungus and..well..you'll have to get the game...

hope i helped

[vee4473]

oh, and as a final note...if you like the sci-fi aspect at all, definitely go buy it.

SMAC is great

[vee4473]

oh, and one last thing:

There are a some minor interface differences to get used to. Such as, unhappy citizens are now called drones.

The government system is different and more configurable. It takes a little getting used to.
Also, I think the food/shield/trade system is changed to something else...i can't quite recall, but whatever they call it, it performs the same, just different names.

i haven't played SMAC in a long time, so i am saying all of this from memory.

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by vee4473
.
Also, I think the food/shield/trade system is changed to something else...i can't quite recall, but whatever they call it, it performs the same, just different names.

food/shield/trade = nutrients/minerals/energy

[Artifex]

Interesting question! It's been so long since I played this game (SMAC) I almost forgot about it!

When I got it I loved it and played alot, it was the best game I had ever played at that time.

But in retrospect I did stop playing it and haven't touched it in like 2 years. I have played Civ3 and liked it but have kinda stopped playing it as well.

I think SMAC is a "little" better but not much. (was my vote).

The reason I say so is quite frankly SMAC is too easy to beat the AI is retarded, I got so good that I whipped the AI on the hardest setting with my eyes closed and that is why I got so bored of the game and it provided no challange (maybe I played it too much LOL!!).

The strategy was always real simple get to planes/jets (whatever they called the jet like things that ignored terrain) and basically just build them and take over the world in a nutshell. Worked everytime for me and got very very boring after awhile.

I must say that the design of smac is AWESOME and all the options, I loved making satellite states like east germany and poland was made to the soviet union..mWAHAHAHAHAA!!!

I loved designing my own units ALOT!! this freaking rocks!! I really get off on that HAHA!! Kinda like the master of orion games. I LOVE THIS FEATURE!!

Overall the design of SMAC is way superior to civ 3. What killed SMAC for me is the AI is retarded and too easy to beat and the game gets unchallenging. Thats why I stopped playing.

Also all these games aren't good for multi play because they are too big and takes too long to finish sadly. SO what makes or breaks these games is the AI IMHO.

So Civ 3 has better AI, although I can still beat it 99% on emperor. But the game itself isn't as in depth, interesting and option filled as SMAC.

If SMAC had superior AI it would be the best game ever made. But AI is SOOOOOOOOOOO IMPORTANT to these types of game since multi play is really not practical IMHO.

So I would vote SMAC kicks Civ 3's ass if I didn't think that AI makes up 80% of a TBS games value. I score heavily on the AI. I just remember I got so good at SMAC that it ended up boring the hell outta me because I always knew I was gonna win, fast, and hands down.

Peace.

P.S. I OWNED Miriam (and she was a *****) MWAHAHAA!

[Artifex]

P.S. those jets like things are 10x more powerful than cavalry. Everyone in civ 3 thinks cavalry is too overpowered LOL. Once you got them it was only weapon you needed if my memory serves me (it's been 2 years lol). Just build them en masse and game is over.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Artifex
P.S. those jets like things are 10x more powerful than cavalry. Everyone in civ 3 thinks cavalry is too overpowered LOL. Once you got them it was only weapon you needed if my memory serves me (it's been 2 years lol). Just build them en masse and game is over.

It's not the jets, it's the helicopters. With their multiple attacks, they're way over-powered. Once I get to the point that I can start making them, the game starts turning in my favour, and I'm guarenteed to win the game. But at least getting to that point is a fun challenge!

[CEO Aaron]

Posted by Willem
It's not the jets, it's the helicopters. With their multiple attacks, they're way over-powered. Once I get to the point that I can start making them, the game starts turning in my favour, and I'm guarenteed to win the game. But at least getting to that point is a fun challenge!

I hate to differ with you here, but Needlejets are just as effective and useful as choppers, both of whom have their uses, I might add. Certainly choppers are exceedingly good at cutting down vast numbers of troops, especially low quality troops, but the needlejet can bomb improvements, have better range, and most importantly, block the passage of ground troops.

Both types of units are extremely effective, making interceptors or units with high armor and AAA worth the minerals you paid for them, but I wouldn't call either overpowered, at least no more overpowering than X-missile rovers are against those who don't have them.

The problem with Air power is the AI's apparently random selection of what types of units to build. I've fought a far more populous and technologically advanced Yang, simply because he would divert his considerable industrial might to all sorts of idiotic units, such as marines when all our cities are on the same landmass, or trance troops when I'm fielding no native units.

In addition, it seems like every unit the AI fields tends to have the most expensive armor and weaponry available. While this does make for a flexible army, a more balanced force of dedicated attack troops combined with garrisons to hold your winnings is, as we all know, far cheaper.

If the AI, or heavens forbid, the unit auto-designer could be rewired to make more effective troops, you might see a more challenging AI. Until then, the only challenge the AI will offer is co-opting early wonders to stunt your build climb.

[Willem]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron

I hate to differ with you here, but Needlejets are just as effective and useful as choppers, both of whom have their uses, I might add. Certainly choppers are exceedingly good at cutting down vast numbers of troops, especially low quality troops, but the needlejet can bomb improvements, have better range, and most importantly, block the passage of ground troops.

I find after awhile that Needlejets are pretty limited. The more I use them against a faction, the more AAA units I encounter. Plus they tend to get blown out of the sky by Interceptors, making a Needlejet attack very costly. Copters on the other hand can hit and run, returning to a base to heal for the next sortie.

... but I wouldn't call either overpowered, at least no more overpowering than X-missile rovers are against those who don't have them.

The main problem is the AI doesn't know how to use air power very well. I don't know how many times I'd see scads of Needlejets flying by, but they rarely attack me. And I seldom get attacked by Copters. Once I start getting a few air units in the field, especially Copters, I can always run away with the game, with little opposition. That's when it starts getting boring for me.

[Adalbertus]

I hate to differ with you here, but Needlejets are just as effective and useful as choppers, both of whom have their uses, I might add.

I disagree with the first half, and agree with the second. Overall, I see Choppers much more effective, not so much for the multiple attack but for their ability to retreat. I usually build clean s-gas choppers and clean SAM noodles. The noodles defend themselves when they are on their turn out. Depending on the tech levels, an attacker is lost or at least in a bad shape after attacking a SAM noodle (the AI likes it anyway). I use noodles for bombing and blocking, too but the main attack work - choppers. And it's easy to see which is the SAM and which the bomber.

[Blake]

I prefer elite infantry myself.... They cut through anything including bases with perimeter defense, areospace, AAA and COMM troops defending... (I tend to play challenge scenerios where the AI becomes strong enough to build these things before the player can get an overwhelming airpower advantage)

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
Overall, I see Choppers much more effective, not so much for the multiple attack but for their ability to retreat. I usually build clean s-gas choppers and clean SAM noodles. The noodles defend themselves when they are on their turn out. Depending on the tech levels, an attacker is lost or at least in a bad shape after attacking a SAM noodle (the AI likes it anyway). I use noodles for bombing and blocking, too but the main attack work - choppers. And it's easy to see which is the SAM and which the bomber.

While I totally agree that choppers are far more powerful than jets and use a similar strategy in the sense that the bulk of my jets are interceptors after a while, I cannot agree with your assessment of the defensibility of a SAM noodle.

The way to kill airpower on the counterattack is simple . . . . SAM rovers. In an attack from a ground unit against an air unit, the air unit defends with its armour. With no defensive multipliers ( you are over enemy territory) the jet is a dead duck. If you can put on armour that exceeds your enemies available weapons, you must have such a tech advantage that tactics are almost irrelevant. Note that before your enemy has SAM abilities, your planes will have the strength you indicate. After, a laser rover takes down any regular plane and armouring te planes is almost never worthwhile.

I find that trying to build units with survivability ( in enemy territory) is a losing proposition with an enemy thats even close to you in tech although you will have a window if you are the first to fusion power. Otherwise, the discrepancy between available weapons and available armour just means that attackers generally win ( here I am talking about troops and planes outside their territory and therefore granted no defensive multipliers). Name the unit and there is always one (or some combination) that can pretty easily snuff it out.

While defense is feasible in your own bases, I have always thought that the best way to ensure the surviavability of an attack force is to attack hard and in numbers to kill that counterattack before they get a shot off

[Blake]

A good example is getting enough formers and rover formers to connect a magtube from your bases to the enemy bases and attack with elite infantry in the same turn. Your infantry can be best-1-1 (uber cheap) and the enemy never gets to fire a shot in retaliation. It is quite possible to conquer half of an empire in the first strike, or even all of a smaller empire. Each elite infantry destroys 1-2 defenders and it usually takes 2 super formers to lay 1 section of tube. If you have 30 formers you'll be able to lay a tube 15 segments long which is pretty far when you think about it (territory borders are around 6 tiles or somesuch), and consider that bases act as free tube making this especially effective against infantry spaced bases (like AI in jungle). Elite infantry on magtubes is the only thing more exploitive than choppers - because choppers have finite movement!

To illustrate, if you have 40 formers and around 40 elite infantry then the front will be moving forward 15-25 tiles per turn and choppers only move 10-15 tiles per turn, so clearly they'll be left far behind .

I also have to mention self destructing missiles and other units, if this tatic is abused ANY units left out in the cold (not in a base) can be quickly and cheaply eliminated. A 10-1-12*2 chopper costs 3 rows and when self destructed destroys all fission units in the adjacant tiles.

I have no idea what this has to do with the original topic, other than how exploitive some strategies are in SMAC!