"Slow" Civ4 vs "Fast" Alpha Centauri

[Starfarer]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I'd say that the majority - if not far majority - of SP players are not significant warmongers

Some of us prefer the term "As Yet Unrecognized Benevolent Bringers Of Truth And Safety", or Ayubbotas.

[Starfarer]

blah double post by accident and the bloody forum won't let me delete it.

[Makahlua]

Re: "Slow" Civ4 vs "Fast" Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by egavactip
However, this past autumn, I had to buy a new computer, and they call come with Windows Vista now. And I soon discovered that "ancient" Alpha Centauri would not run with Windows Vista.

Actually, it does run under Vista! All I had to do was change the compatibility mode to Windows XP (and of course install the XP Compatibility Patch) and it worked quite easily. Then in AlphaCentauri.ini add 'ForceOldVoxelAlgorithm=1' under the Preferences section (might have to create that section). I'm also playing from the Administrator account, so might have to also set it to 'Run as Administrator' as well.

One caveat for widescreen monitors, though: with vanilla SMAC, due to the way it positions the main menu on screen, it's difficult to see where you're clicking (or the menu at all!) SMAX's menu is just fine, however - also note that you get black blocks on either side of the 'console' in game, but do get increased viewing area in the map portion of the screen.

[Modo44]

Re: "Slow" Civ4 vs "Fast" Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by egavactip
This really slows down the game. One has to build up a huge military force to even think of launching a war (can't do it on a shoestring), and wars tend to last long times. You can't quickly conquer an opponent. This makes games last longer too. I have yet to play a "one evening" game of Civ4 using the second highest map size and the second slowest "speed."

Actually, you can conquer quickly, you just need to plan and prepare before, not while attacking. What you ask for is a no-losses, no-hassle whipping, which doesn't happen in real life unless one has a significant technical and/or numbers advantage. One city per turn can be quite easily achieved with the proper use of ships and/or a multi-group army.


As to your specific ideas:

Originally posted by egavactip
-increasing the drop range for paratrooopers

I don't agree on a normal map. 5 squares is the average city-to-city distance, and that's how far paratroopers operate, when in large numbers. However, adjusting the range of flight-related units based on map size would be nice. The range of bombers is ridiculously small on huge maps, and enormous on tiny ones.

Originally posted by egavactip
-disallowing siege units from collateral damage unless attacking cities or forts

It's artillery. It's how you use it.

Originally posted by egavactip
-providing all melee and infantry units with a natural +25% advantage for attacking cities

There's a promotion for that. It's called city raider. Not available to mounted units, only tanks (flamethrowers + mobile howitzers, if you really need to ask).

Originally posted by egavactip
-providing all units with a -20% defensive penalty

So that when two units of the same kind fight, the attacker wins? I'd rather introduce a bonus for cavalry on open terrain, because only a charge can achieve that. But hey, most such bonuses are already in the unit strenghts and capabilities. For example, cavalry doesn't get defensive bonuses, but usually has more HP than an equal-tech defensive unit, which translates into an offensive bonus in the open field. The same is true for tanks vs infantry.

Originally posted by egavactip
-allowing units to use the road networks of enemy territories (this is REALLY needed)

As others have said, this is really too easy for the attacker without ZOC implemented. By the way, elite units (and some Celts) can do that - there's a special promotion, you know...

Originally posted by egavactip
-allowing great generals to increase the movement rate of units they are stacked with

Agreed, I really miss that from Civ3.

Originally posted by egavactip
-providing more attack bonuses for cavalry and armor type units against certain types of military units outside of cities

They have those already. Not fortified units outside of cities are at the mercy of mounted units, plus cavalry usually ignores first strike, plus (as mentioned above) a cavalry unit has more base HP than an equal-tech defender.

Originally posted by egavactip
-giving siege units a 25% attack bonus when attacking units on lower ground (i.e. attackers on hill, defenders not)

A bonus for attacking from high ground for all units is in order, I think.

Originally posted by egavactip
-create an "Assault Engineer" unit that would be more effective in attacking cities

Again, you ask for the city raider promotion. It's there already.

Originally posted by egavactip
-allow a small change for a unit to get an additional and completely random promotion after success in battle

Nice. (Not that it has anything to do with the slowness of conquests, but still, nice. )

Originally posted by egavactip
-allow rail movement between two friendly owned cities even if enemy territory intervenes, as long as there are no enemy units blocking the path

Nah. There's no guarantee the rails are of the same system.

[egavactip]

Re: Re: "Slow" Civ4 vs "Fast" Alpha Centauri

Originally posted by Makahlua


Actually, it does run under Vista! All I had to do was change the compatibility mode to Windows XP (and of course install the XP Compatibility Patch) and it worked quite easily. Then in AlphaCentauri.ini add 'ForceOldVoxelAlgorithm=1' under the Preferences section (might have to create that section). I'm also playing from the Administrator account, so might have to also set it to 'Run as Administrator' as well.

I tried that but it still didn't work. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[Kuciwalker]

It needs to be patched to the latest version, too.

[Willem]

Originally posted by egavactip
This is because the combat system in Alpha Centauri, though there are exceptions, mostly favors the attacker.

No, it's because the AI in that game was quite stupid. There were many games where I should have had my butt-kicked but the AI wasn't able to use any of it's military superiority against me. If the AI in AC was as smart as it is now, you'd be making a completely different statement here. AC was a good game but the AI sucked.

[MegaTurtleRex]

I've had the same experience with Civ IV, though I like it and mark it down as me being new to the game. On Prince the Ai seems to out tech me severely and stomp me all over, if I try attack early the towns are too strong.

Also you can get Alpha Centauri to work on Vista, I play it right now. If you can't figure it out though gog.com sell both Alpha Centauri and it's expansion together for about 5 bucks, it comes pre-packaged to work on Vista\Win 7.

[Dinner]

I like it slow. I usually play Civ4 on either epic or marathon.