Next ACDG - faction start positions (moved from "Darsnan as Game Creator" thread)

[Chaunk]

Originally posted by Darsnan
I would vote against answering that question. Let the CMN's keep their secrets, that way in order to surprise us even moreso in the future. This especially since SMAC2 is obviously not coming out in the near future - gotta keep the juice flowing in this version a while longer......



D

Sorry yes I agree with you in many ways... I think I'm just sad that Googlie might leave the Morganites, but then it may make a better game

For some reason I did get the distict impression that it might invovle some mid game editing, but I'm not quite sure why I thought that. Certainly if it does not, then please keep your secrets Googlie!

C

[Maniac]

I'm wondering what kind of starting position will be given to the factions. In the previous ACDG and in many PBEMs all factions get a boosted starting position. But I'm worried, just like the map size which has been discussed before in this thread, isn't boosting starting positions a modification that benefits some factions and game strategies more than other?

Due to a better starting position (extra bonus squares, rivers etcetera...) "standard" economical progress will be easier and faster. However as a consequence other sources of income will become a relatively smaller part of a faction's income.

For example unity pod popping. The benefits derived from pod popping will decrease in importance. This is especially bad for the Spartans with their faster exploration units: rovers and perhaps foils sooner than others. To a lesser degree it is also somewhat bad for the Angels and Gaians who could explore with fast probe teams and mind worms. The faction that would benefit most from reduced importance of pod popping would be the Morganites.

With a faster standard economical progress the Spartan industry penalty also becomes a bigger liability than it already is.

A third effect is on worm farming. Planet pearls and worm capturing will become less useful compared to other strategies. Bad for the Gaians.

So I think especially the Gaians and Spartans would suffer a relative disadvantage if all factions got an equally boosted starting position, while the Morganites would benefit most from it.

Any suggestions how to prevent this unbalance?

[jtsisyoda]

With a faster standard economical progress the Spartan industry penalty also becomes a bigger liability than it already is.

Please explain. I don't see why.

On your other points I generally agree, though.

[Maniac]

Due to a better starting position it becomes easier to obtain a higher mineral production faster. And the bigger your mineral production, the bigger a relative difference of +1 or +2 Industry becomes. For example just like +2 Research is double as useful when you're producing 20 labs instead of 10 labs, likewise +2 Industry is double as useful when you're producing 20 minerals instead of 10 minerals.

[Chaunk]

Morgan benefits from pod popping just as much as other factions due to the independent units it can provide. Giving better territory doesn't mean that pod popping is less important for any faction. It may delay the desire to pop pods for some factions, but if by the time you come to pop a pod, someone else has, then you've lost out entirely!

Better territory will also aid any momentum drive, as the territory captured would be of better quality, and therefore more easily developed.

Please do explain why fungus trawling becomes less relevent though. I'd see a large worm army is just as effective in good territory as in bad territory no?

Also the comparrision between research and industry isn't a good one. +2 research will indeed be doubly useful when producing 20 labs, but +2 industry doesn't become more useful. Instead you get diminishing returns as the amount of mins produced increases.

For example compare morgan and sparta. Morgan probably running +1 industry from wealth, sparta probably +0 from planned. Morgan therefore needs 18 mins for a 2 row unit. Sparta needs 20. Thats 2 extra mins, but the better terrain will help to produce more nuts. 1 extra worker (Say, 5 instead of 4) could work a forest and make up those 2 mins. Morgan would then have to build a hab complex, or more crawlers, to get more mins, or compensate in other ways.

I don't see how improved terrain is anything but a help for all factions.

C

[jtsisyoda]

I don't agree with Maniac on the industry thing, unless I'm still not getting it. His argument would seem to imply -1 industry becomes more crippling as buildings and units become more expensive. It's just a proportional disadvantage no matter how you look at it, which means the relative disadvantage is the same.

I mostly agree that good home territory makes it easier to "turtle", and relatively less advantageous to explore. However, good territory also means you don't have to spend as many resources with formers, etc. to improve your land, and instead you can make military units or whatever. Consider the extreme of jungle forest on every square. Due to resource restrictions, planting bases, popping pods, and pumping out units becomes much, much better compared to improving your territory.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Chaunk
Morgan benefits from pod popping just as much as other factions due to the independent units it can provide.

1> Due to their economy bonus which other factions don't have, pod popping income would most likely be a smaller part of the Morgan total income than that of other factions. Reduced importance of pod popping compared to other strategies is less bad for them.

2> Morgan doesn't have easy access to rovers, foils, probe teams or mind worms, so they're less likely to pop many pods.

Better territory will also aid any momentum drive, as the territory captured would be of better quality, and therefore more easily developed.

But your opponents will also be harder to beat in the first place...

Please do explain why fungus trawling becomes less relevent though. I'd see a large worm army is just as effective in good territory as in bad territory no?

Worm farming becomes a smaller part of the total faction income. This is bad for factions who are good in worm farming.
The ability to capture your units (mind worms) instead of building them becomes relatively less useful if due to a better starting position and thus a higher mineral production it becomes easier to build more units.

Edit: Here's a simple fictional example about worm farming.

Morgan is producing 25 credits per year. 20 from "standard" economy (they're better in that due to +1 Economy), on average 5 per year from planet pearls.
Gaia is also producing 25 credits per year. Their income division is different though: 15 from standard economy and 10 from planet pearls (they're better in that due to +1 Planet).

Now give both factions a boosted starting position, making standard economic progress better, in this example doubling it.

Now Morgan is producing 45 credits per year. 40 from standard econ, 5 from pearls.
Gaia is only producing 40 credits. 30 from standard econ, but still only 10 from pearls.

So you see, Morgan benefits more from a boosted starting position in this example.

Also the comparrision between research and industry isn't a good one. +2 research will indeed be doubly useful when producing 20 labs, but +2 industry doesn't become more useful. Instead you get diminishing returns as the amount of mins produced increases.

Could you please explain a bit more? (I don't see how your next paragraph is relevant to this. )

For example compare morgan and sparta. Morgan probably running +1 industry from wealth, sparta probably +0 from planned. Morgan therefore needs 18 mins for a 2 row unit. Sparta needs 20. Thats 2 extra mins, but the better terrain will help to produce more nuts. 1 extra worker (Say, 5 instead of 4) could work a forest and make up those 2 mins. Morgan would then have to build a hab complex, or more crawlers, to get more mins, or compensate in other ways.

How many size 5 bases do you see in the early game? The advantage of higher base sizes before having to build hab complexes only kicks in later in the game, while a better starting position counts from day one.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by jtsisyoda
I don't agree with Maniac on the industry thing, unless I'm still not getting it. His argument would seem to imply -1 industry becomes more crippling as buildings and units become more expensive. It's just a proportional disadvantage no matter how you look at it, which means the relative disadvantage is the same.

I'm not sure how to explain it... I'll try it like this:

Situation A: Normal starting position.
By MY 2110 you're producing 10 minerals in a base (fictional example).
Faction A has 0 Industry SE. It can produce one former in two turns. 0 minerals left.
Faction B has +1 Industry SE. It can produce one former in two turns. But with 2 mins carry-over to the next project.

Situation B: Boosted starting position.
Due to the boosted starting position you're already producing 20 mins in a base by MY 2110.
Faction A - 0 Industry SE. It can produce two formers in two turns. 0 minerals left.
Faction B - +1 Industry SE. It can produce two formers in two turns. But this time 4 minerals are carried over to the next project. In situation B Faction B gets an advantage of 2 minerals more over Faction A than in situation A.

The better the starting position, the higher mineral production, the more important an Industry advantage becomes. Also those formers in the +1 Industry advantage will be produced faster and be able to start terraforming earlier etcetera, creating comparative turn advantage and further increasing the gap with faction A. My point is that gap will grow faster and earlier in a boosted starting position and mineral rich environment than in a mineral poor environment.

[Snowflake]

I think I agree with Maniac too. Suppose two factions with different industry settings, if they start with avg terrains, say one would get a unit down one turn faster than the other every 5 turns. Now with good terrains it can probably get a one turn turn advantage than the other every 3 turns. It does amplify the advantages and disadvantages.

[Illuminatus]

I agree with Maniac`s initial claim, about effects of better starting positions on some factions.

[Chaunk]

The problem is that mostly when terrain is imporved, it's with nutrients not minerals. That means that growth impared factions are actually more hit than factions with an industry penalty.

The spartans poor industry is the reason that they aren't played in MP much - it's a big disadvantage. But they have advantages that counter than disadvantage - more police meaning more workers on the terrain, increased morale, meaning their units are more effective than others. This means that, sure, they'll take longer to produce units when size 1, but they'll be able to have more pop without riots, meaning more production (This is amplified far more than a mineral deficiency. When a map is improved, it's extremely rare for it to include boreholes min specials a plenty etc. It mostly has more nuts. This leads to a faster population increase for all factions, an increase that sparta is very well set up to deal with) The units they'll produce will also be better quality than other factions.

Shall I complain about an improved terrain because of more nuts as morgan? I can't pop boom, am likely to get no growth benefit for a long time, and am limited to four pop before a hab complex! No surely not, those negetives are balanced by positives. More nuts leads to faster CP production which leads to more bases (Which would be true for all factions). These bases produce more energy, and so I may not need to pop boom, as I can ICS instead. Disadvantage, worked arround, advantage.

I do not see how sparta is overly disadvantaged compared to any faction if there is an increase in terrain. To be honest Maniac, I feel as if I'm being trolled. You're asking for worse terrain! Maybe we should go for an all flat arid map, and see who wins then eh?

C

[Googlie]

As a CMN I must respectfully disagree with Maniac's thesis

The start position

The tweaked start positions (usually a nut special, a river, maybe a monolith in the HQ base radius) only affect that first base and it's what a faction does with that first base that becomes crucial

Gaians, Angels and Spartans can all run Dem, Planned, and build creches, and can maintain that HQ base at size 3 by churning out colony pods from it (using the nut special for growth and the monolith for minerals)

Morgan is pretty much committed to growth the old fashioned way, surplus nut by surplus nut to fill the box, and in any event prolly wants to make the HQ the site of the merchant exchange (to minimize loss through inefficiency

So in calculating the value to the faction of the "better start position" you have to factor in the contributions made by the "daughter bases" of the other 3 in comparison to Morgan

****************************************

Pod-popping

In some old OWO posts, scenario runs by, I believe, CEO Bernard and Bingman showed that after a faction changed to FM, and then wealth, the incidence of popping worms dramatically increased (I recall that it was over 50% when running both) Gaians can't run FM, and Sparta can't run Wealth, so they are more likely to pop techs, credits or units than Morgan

And it's not a given that Morgan can convert those MW's into pearls either. Gaia can capture them with their +1 Planet rating, and Sparta can kill them easier with their +2 Morale. The Angels are closest to Morgan in that they can run FM and Wealth, and start with the same morale for their troops as Morgan

So I do think that reducing either the number of pods - or restricting them to landing sites only - is a definite advantage to both Morgan and the Angels

******************************************

"Equal" start positions

A competent CMN will ensure that each faction has some features that enable their faction charicteristics to flourish

For example, to start the Spartans or the Angels on an island would be to negate the rover chassis feature that both possess (for the Spartan rover and the Angels probeteam). Likewise, not to give the Gaians some juicy fungus clumps around their start position would be to negate their early mindworm capturing capability. So Morgan needs a nearby river tumbling from heights so that it can plonk down a solar panel or two - and a rocky tile with maybe a mineral special so that it can get a mine up and going (start 10 games, using quickstart, as Morgan, with "look first" de-activated and see how often you start with a river, mineral tile, couple of pods etc)

To give every faction an "equal start position" (such as a river, nut and mineral special) is detrimental to Morgan moreso than the others

G.

[Maniac]

Chaunk:

The problem is that mostly when terrain is imporved, it's with nutrients not minerals. That means that growth impared factions are actually more hit than factions with an industry penalty.

What makes you think that terrain is mostly improved with nuts? In eg the current ACDG all factions (except the Consciousness ) started with some rocky minerals in their HQ neighbourhood.

The spartans poor industry is the reason that they aren't played in MP much - it's a big disadvantage... ...The units they'll produce will also be better quality than other factions.

For the reasons you mention the Spartans would be pretty balanced on a standard map with normal starting positions. However on a map with boosted starting positions the Industry penalty is amplified while the Spartan's advantages remain more or less the same. Except for the +1 Police. Due to that you may indeed have a point increased nuts is more beneficial for the Spartans than for eg Morgan. Though other factions just need to ICS a bit more and the Spartan advantage already disappears - for the Spartans' Industry penalty there doesn't seem to be such a quick workaround. So I consider the downsides bigger than the advantages of increased nuts and mins.

I can't pop boom

Democracy / Free Market / Golden Age / Children's Creche

and am limited to four pop before a hab complex

Again: how often do you see size 5 bases in the early game?

I do not see how sparta is overly disadvantaged compared to any faction if there is an increase in terrain.

Even if the Industry penalty wouldn't be amplified (which I dispute), there would still be the issue of decreased importance of pod popping and worm farming.

To be honest Maniac, I feel as if I'm being trolled.

...

You're asking for worse terrain!

Where did I ask that? I would ask for either:
a) normal starting positions
b) if you per se want a terrain boost, IMHO the Gaians, Spartans and to a lesser degree the Angels should get a bigger terrain boost, or get other extra advantages that amplify their bonuses like more fungus and worms for Gaia, and more rovers and pods for Sparta.

Googlie:

As a relatively experienced civplayer I must respectfully disagree with some things you say.

Are you saying that a boosted starting position doesn't decrease the importance of pod popping and worm farming, and doesn't amplify an Industry penalty?

Gaians, Angels and Spartans can all run Dem, Planned, and build creches, and can maintain that HQ base at size 3 by churning out colony pods from it (using the nut special for growth and the monolith for minerals)

Then the Spartans still suffer more from their Industry penalty compared to the Angels and Spartans than they would with a normal starting position.

Morgan is pretty much committed to growth the old fashioned way, surplus nut by surplus nut to fill the box

Demo/FM/GA/CC. They can popboom too. This means Morgan can do the same trick as the other 3 factions you describe above (with some psych boosting facility I guess).

So I do think that reducing either the number of pods - or restricting them to landing sites only - is a definite advantage to both Morgan and the Angels

So here you support my thesis, if I understand you correctly?

For example, to start the Spartans or the Angels on an island would be to negate the rover chassis feature that both possess (for the Spartan rover and the Angels probeteam).

AFAIK a faction not starting on an island seems to be a normal starting position though on medium water maps. Boosted starting positions aren't.

So Morgan needs a nearby river tumbling from heights so that it can plonk down a solar panel or two - and a rocky tile with maybe a mineral special so that it can get a mine up and going (start 10 games, using quickstart, as Morgan, with "look first" de-activated and see how often you start with a river, mineral tile, couple of pods etc)

To give every faction an "equal start position" (such as a river, nut and mineral special) is detrimental to Morgan moreso than the others

Are you suggesting that Morgan should get a better boosted starting position than everyone else??
Anyway, why exactly do you consider an equal starting position detrimental to Morgan. Because you say they can't pop boom (which they can)?

***

Btw Chaunk and Googlie, if you claim that there isn't any difference in faction advantages between a boosted starting position or a normal one, or that a boosted one is even detrimental to Morgan, then it shouldn't matter to you if we all started normal and unboosted. Right guys?

[Googlie]

I have no problem with starting on whatever the map gives - but remember that the game engine searches for likely start positions with a good mix of features - a CMN might want to place factions in particular areas so that interaction is fostered. A good CMN will ensure that there is no disadvantage to that faction by his doing so

If your premise is that boosted starts are unfair, then I agree with you. But I disagree that they only penalize the Gaians and sparta, which is what I inferred from the posts. I maintain that even Morgan is comparatively disadvantaged by the giving to other factions of equal goodies.

(If you freshstart a game, with "look first" disabled, then activate the Scenario editor after the first turn is complete, you'll see how the game engine allocates start positions)

The usual reason, though, that a CMN boosts the start position is usually to give PBEMers something to do for those first ten to fifteen awfully boring turns

Thus extra colony pods, extra scouts, maybe 2 or 3 formers - then give the formers something to do by supplying terrain squares that can be worked such as mineral, nuts and rivers

Does that imbalance some factions?

Yes, as you maintain. But I suggest that all factions are in some way disadvantaged, and that it usually affects only the HQ base it's really no biggie.

I've no problem in vanilla start positions - in fact a couple of my most enjoyable games have been on arid and rocky terrain games (Chiron Winter being one of the best that went, alas, unfinished)

So, to summarize, I agree that it is imbalancing, but I disagree that it affects only the Gaians and Sparta

G.

[Kody]

In my opinion boosted starting positions mainly make their impact on play style rather than specific factions.

Faster development in the early game means that the mid and late game comes around faster. Hence the window for an early mometumn rush is reduced. There are other things that effect the playstyle too depending on what the boost is. However, that particular one is the one that is more difficult to adjust to, as you can't count on doing as many things in the early game.

So I guess it depends on whether you're convinced that your faction needs to be played as mometum.