A Question of Balance II

[Master Marcus]

This was discussed recently ( and surely last year ), but I think it's a good thing to expose from time to time the unbalancing elements - just to remind the Firaxis team some ideas they can implement within future plans for the SMAC engine ( Well, maybe they won't. Is SMAC a dead engine not worth upgrading ??? ).

Of course everybody knows the effects brought by the CV or a strong pop boom, and also the choppers, all after mid-game. Many experts prefer talking about the overall AI programming as the main guilty element, but it was proven that the AI can adjust and is within the good standards for a '99 release.

More precisely, the vendettas can be worked to be more severe. Then the exponential power surge occuring in an advanced game should be negated at least partially. Since pop boom & choppers are there to stay, I think the vendetta/truce/integrity engine is a key to upgrade a promising challenge leading to boredom at the end.

Vendettas in my recent games were more abundant than before ( smacx v2 upgraded this or not? ), especially playing the Caretakers and Pirates. Playing as an alien is fun and entertaining, still on the easy side. However Svensgaard is the hardest choice next to Miriam in my mind ( among the 14 proposed factions ): you must be careful, you'll be attacked pretty soon if you're a pacifist builder ( unless playing on a huge map ). Yhe weakier you are, the more eager the AI will be to launch a surprise attack. That always existed with conflicting SE choices; meanwhile we can expect surprise vendettas upon military strenghts also, and the Artificial Idiot WAS TWEAKED THAT WAY along the patches released after the original SMAC.

My point is: if they've done that, they can upgrade the vendetta/truce mechanics much more. I'm thinking of 3 steps:


1-JUST BEFORE MID-GAME. Vendettas are too swift; therefore it should be more difficult to make a truce. A war is a war, you should not be able to declare one and then making truce within the same turn just when conquering an enemy base or two. Vendettas should last longer ( at least 10 turns, maybe more upon atrocities ). However not permanently at this stage of the game - I agree that truces shall remain.

2-AFTER MID-GAME. When becoming twice as powerful as the next AI in the dominance chart, the remaining opponents should combine forces against you ( unless Pacts ) for several years.

3-THE END IS NEAR... When you begin the final steps unto your victory goal ( other than conquest ), the remaining factions should combine forces against you ( unless Pacts ) PERMANENTLY until the end. That means lots of missile attacks = now the FDS and GSP should be more useful than esoteric.


Again, if only Firaxis has some serious plans to upgrade the game ( maybe after the Civ III release ? )...

------------------
The art of mastering:"la Maîtrise des caprices du subconscient avant tout".

[RedFred]

I agree that SMACX is both more difficult and has more aggressive AI than SMAC. My suggestion if they do a SMAC2 is not for more of the same. The game is already more than enough warlike for me. If anything I would like to see it go more in the opposite direction; that is, less focus on fighting and more on building.

I have had CivNet games go the distance with zero fighting between me and the other AI civs. Only a few brief dustups with the barbarians. I have never experienced this in SMAC or CivII. I think it would be a more interesting game if the AI responded in kind. More peace if you are peaceful; more war if you are warlike. I'd like to see more challenges in the game that appeal to the builder.

[Scott Johnson]

Maybe they should take a page or two out of the SimCity book. Back on the ol' SuperNintendo machine I found SimCity to be very rewarding even w/out invading barbarians. Go figure. Me, I'm a true hybrid in that I do enjoy the wargame parts but I can go on quite happily for turn after turn, just 'forming, building new facilities, etc. One thing that would make that more interesting would be some more and flashier visuals after making certain changes in terraformation or infrastructure. Another would be a bit more fine tuning in things like raising land. For instance, I wish it were possible to just raise up a single square for a land bridge, instead of a massive block of territory.

[Ned]

Master Markus, I think the AI ought to be programmed to use the same tricks we humans do. If we can POP BOOM, so should the computer. What I find amazing is that the average AI faction underinvests in infrastructure. The AI, during times of peace, should build formers, not troups. Then, if it can, it should POP BOOM and build the necessary facilities to keep growing. This would make any victory against the computer problematical at best.

I remember (a long remembered bad dream) from Civ I that the first time I encountered Aztecs they normally would normally several +20 cities. Beating the Aztecs was a real challenge. Why can't any AI in AC build like the AI did in Civ I?

For what its worth - I had a real hard time winning Civ I. It all had to do with the computer taking advantage of all the tricks in the book and the fact that combat was a simple win-loss outcome. Since Civ I, units could engage in combat and only be damaged. Undoubtedly, this adds to the realism of the game, but it makes it much easier to win. I remember in Civ I that I may have lost 70-80 tanks in achieving victory. If I lose more than 20 combat units in SMAC I am amazed!

(To be honest, the AI in Civ I never used Aircraft Carriers. In the end, this was a fatal defect.)

Ned