Reverse Engineering

Googlie · February 28, 2001, 00:49

Making rover units from the probe's rover chassis before Doc Mobility is generally considered a cheat. However reverse engineering from mind controlled or gifted units is usually permitted.

See:

http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum12/HTML/000875.html?3

Useful for a pact brother who wants to give the ability without the tech (may want to build an SP, and deny other players the tech, but still give the weapon or armor benefit to a pactmate thru a gifted unit)

(And what does a smac/x addict do when there are no PBEM turns to play? - reads the old forum threads)

G.

Foosplayer · February 28, 2001, 02:37

(And what does a smac/x addict do when there are no PBEM turns to play? - reads the old forum threads)

This is so true. Is it an illness?

NorthSwordsman · February 28, 2001, 02:39

quote:

Originally posted by Foosplayer on 02-28-2001 01:37 AM
(And what does a smac/x addict do when there are no PBEM turns to play? - reads the old forum threads)

This is so true. Is it an illness?

Yes, it is an illness. Worse than that, it is an addiction!

.

NorthSwordsman

Garth Vader · February 28, 2001, 10:56

That's why I don't consider using the rover chassis from the probe to be cheating. If you stole a rover you could use the chassis.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 28, 2001, 16:43

Garth,

Thats an interesting POV on rationale for borrowing the speeder chassis from PT's. One worth considering.

If one considers the implications tho' on a faction by faction basis. I would say that CyC was fully meant to be a faction capable of early impact rover rush. They are but 2 techs from Impact speeders Mobility and Impact weapons.

This now implies that Data Angels are also in that same boat. Laser tech and Impact weapons and they can go out in their shiny impact speeders raising cain. They also are but 2 techs away and have the advantages in growth etc.

Was this meant to be?

Truth be told I have thought about doing it for the Angels as they are one of my favs, but resisted the temptation. Scratch that I did resort to it once when damn Aliens were knocking on my door.

Og

Sarxis · February 28, 2001, 17:03

If there was a concession (in a pbem) of all players to allow reverse engineering, I would say go ahead. I don't think reverse engineering of captured units is a bad thing at all. This only helps make probe actions all that more powerful. Really makes you want to protect your units from being subverted. And besides, realisticly, what nation- now or in the future- wouldn't be reverse engineering their enemy's stolen military hardware, and with great effect?

Christantine The Great · February 28, 2001, 17:15

How do you reverse engineer a caputured unit? I havn't been able to.

Ogie Oglethorpe · February 28, 2001, 17:27

A captured or gifted units should be visible in your options of unit/facility/special project builds.

Go to the gifted unit, hit help or workshop (can't remember which).

Assuming the gifted unit represents a new chassis (say a chopper), modify the weapons/armor and special abilities and presto you have a new model employing the chassis you otherwise would not have.

Same of course holds true for armor, weapons, reactor type and special abilities. Only inthose instances everything else would be changed except for armor, weapons, reactor type and special abiliteis respectively.

Og

Misotu · March 1, 2001, 02:58

I am all for reverse engineering captured units. I can see no reason why not - you paid (often handsomely) for this tech and after all, if you have the ability to capture it, and to develop advanced tech in your own right, your scientists and engineers will be all over any captured tech and will certainly be able to analyse and apply it to new units in short order!

Where I have a slight problem, though, is reverse-engineering probes. For the Data Angels, for example, who start with probes but not mobility, this seems to me to be a stretch. Not one I'd die in a ditch opposing, to be sure. But a stretch, nonetheless.

MariOne · March 1, 2001, 08:29

I agree with Misotu.
My "feeling" is that finding a design in the workshop makes you free of using its parts. This has the flavor of a feature, and it's supported by logic.

True, you also find the probe design in the DW.
Two thing can make tho its nature different:
- it's a default design
- you obtain it by discovering a tech which states what you get, and Rover chassis is NOT listed there, while exists a *different* tech which indeed lists "Rover chassis" in its benefits.

This has the flavor of a bug, one of the many where FurXs programmers forgot to put a filter to restrict the applicability of some features.
This might even descend from CIVs, where diplomats had 2 movements. Alas, to keep this feature in SMAC, with the novelty of units components, it had to be implemented with a rover chassis, where it wasn't indeed intended as collateral benefit, it just slipped them.
But that's just my impression.

Of course, you can't bribe/capture a probe to reverse engineer unless you *already* have one...

But...
What if in the early game a magnanimous (and stupid) ally "gifts" you a probe? In such case, if you allow reverse engineering of all parts even if you lack the techs thereof, the you should allow to also use its chassis...
And would you allow tho use the chassis of a gifted probe,but not of a discovered one...

It looks like my logic goes against my feelings!

Misotu · March 3, 2001, 02:52

No ... the probe is a special unit and is quite distinct from the others. I think cannibalising a probe to obtain rovers is not really acceptable, particularly since doc:mob is a level 1 tech. Just research the thing or trade for it!

Probes are on the rover chassis because it's a convenient way of giving them 2 moves, as MariOne pointed out. They aren't really rovers - they're just special units that happen to have 2 movement points.

Ordinary captured/probed units, on the other hand, should be available for cannibalisation, as should gifts from pact mates. To be honest though, if rover probes have to be eligible for cannibalising for the sake of purity and consistency, then to me this is preferable rather than banning all cannibalisation just for this one, level 1 tech, exception.