Pirates obsessed with transports

[RobN]

I have noticed in two games now that the Pirates (when controlled by the AI) seem obsessed with transport units. They keep on building them. They just can`t get enough of them. Not my problem? Well it is because it`s slowing the game down considerably. Can anyone tell me what is going on?

[Earwicker]

quote: Originally posted by RobN on 05-03-2001 01:26 PM I have noticed in two games now that the Pirates (when controlled by the AI) seem obsessed with transport units. They keep on building them. They just can`t get enough of them. Not my problem? Well it is because it`s slowing the game down considerably. Can anyone tell me what is going on?

Cha Dawn does the same thing. Idiot. He gets to the point of having 0 or 1 mineral each in several bases because of the transport overload, with nothing left to build or support anything else. Not much fun.

[Fitz]

You could always scramble faction agendas, but not the personalities. That would have a lot of other affects though.

The way the AI plays depends on a lot of things. I do know they play a lot more intelligently if you are weak compared to them, especially if you are the weakest.

[Ned]

Fitz, I agree with your statement. The AI seems to play well from the lead. The best AI factions tend to stay out of war an concentrate on building and researching. AKI and Rose, in my observation, tend to play this way and for that reason are formidable competitors.

In a recent game, though, scrambled the personalites. Santiago came out pacifist. Instead of girding for war, she built for science. For most of the game, she was the most developed and leading technology faction in the game.

So, it might be possible to improve the game by simply making the AI be "less" aggressive. Any thoughts?

Ned

[Clear Skies]

I get that too - in sea bases, my Governors will often start building transports for no good reason! And they don't stop when the base has one - they keep building! Once I got seventeen transports in one base! Insanity!
I've never seen the AI do that, though. Just my $&^*^%$!$& governors!

[Chowlett]

quote: Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic on 05-06-2001 07:08 AM I get that too - in sea bases, my Governors will often start building transports for no good reason! And they don't stop when the base has one - they keep building! Once I got seventeen transports in one base! Insanity! I've never seen the AI do that, though. Just my $&^*^%$!$& governors!

Most SMAC players realise, as you have, after a while that the governers ae actually pants. Unmitigated and unadulterated pants. Most players don't let them near anything, and I'm only willing to give them control over my sea-formers, and then only occassionally.

[Clear Skies]

I know they're 'complete, unadulterated pants'! Do you think I'd let them near my bases if I was playing on anything other than the UBM? I have so many bases I simply don't know what to do with them all! I can't micromanage every single one, it'd take waaaay too long! I have to hand at least SOMETHING over to governors.
I just hate the way they always build IoDs too.
And IMHO I think it's pointless replying with a quote if you just quote the entire post. It amounts to a double post, I think.

[Misotu]

quote: Originally posted by Ned on 05-06-2001 02:49 AM So, it might be possible to improve the game by simply making the AI be "less" aggressive. Any thoughts?

It certainly is possible to do this, and it works too, up to a point. I'm sure loads of people have experimented with this, but to my knowledge, Googlie certainly has.

I have no clue when it comes to the alpha.txt files, but you can create scenarios and set AI priorities in quite a detailed way. I created one (which I must go and finish up) where the AI was incredibly strong, expanded, built, out-researched me and was a *serious* headache throughout. It has taken me a long time to get this together, because I want a scenario that is *almost* - but not quite - impossible. Very difficult - I was surprised to find the difference that quite small tweaks in the AI starting position can make over a game.

[mark13]

quote: I created one (which I must go and finish up) where the AI was incredibly strong, expanded, built, out-researched me and was a *serious* headache throughout. It has taken me a long time to get this together, because I want a scenario that is *almost* - but not quite - impossible.

Well, go on then! Off with you - and I want to see the finished product

[Chowlett]

quote: Do you think I'd let them near my bases if I was playing on anything other than the UBM? ... And IMHO I think it's pointless replying with a quote if you just quote the entire post. It amounts to a double post, I think.

What's the UBM?

Did you notice that I didn't quote your entire post? Seriously though, I like people to be able to see exactly what I'm responding to, and while in this case it was admittedly fairly obvious, there are cases when someone will unexpectedly post just before I do, and then my answer is seperated from the post it applies to, which can get confusing. I guess it's a habit - with longer posts particularly I'll quote the whole thing and then chop it up to reply to each bit in turn, so I just naturally hit the "Reply with Quote" button perhaps more often than I should. :shrug:

[Closey]

quote: I just hate the way they always build IoDs too.

What if you tell them not to build any military units then? Couldn't that work? To have them just working on facilities?

[xeno7667]

@Misotu "I was surprised to find the difference that quite small tweaks in the AI starting position can make over a game."

That's very interesting (science of the chaos)... but I think a big parameter how the AI plays is simply chance. To test this, we have to play and simulate the same game with the same starting position 100times. Hard work...

[gwillybj]

quote: Originally posted by Closey on 05-07-2001 10:05 AM What if you tell them not to build any military units then? Couldn't that work? To have them just working on facilities?

From the SMAC manual, regarding the Governor's priority settings:

"Build. The base disregards most external concerns, concentrating on its own growth, terraforming, and the creation of new facilities."

While this will not prevent building military units, the Governor will not choose to do so unless there is no other option. In that case, it will most probably build the strongest defensive unit possible, or an offensive unit if it is a base near a faction with whom you have a Vendetta or Truce. For whatever reason, Worms and Isles (and Locusts), being Psi units, appear to be considered stronger than any other weapon or armor. It seems so to me from what I've seen in my games.
I must admit, though, to having fun watching an enemy's heavily-armed and/or -armored Cruiser sent to Davy Jones' Locker because of its low Psi rating (better yet, a fully-loaded Transport ), or a nasty Shard Artillery regiment go "poof" for the same reason.

------------------
ti oun

[Googlie]

quote: Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic on 05-06-2001 07:08 AM Once I got seventeen transports in one base! Insanity! I've never seen the AI do that, though. Just my $&^*^%$!$& governors!

On another topic (IA building choppers) I opened up an old gamefile of a pre-transcendent save, and saw that Deirdre had built 137 transports (and had lost 49). She was in a seemingly neverending vendetta with me (Yang) and my slave, Lal, and constantly was sending over loaded invasion transports, but 137, sheesh.

She also built 18 Planetbusters, but threw most against my ODP shield (although she did nuke a Lal base and a Morgan one, Morgan also one of my slaves)

The nexus numbers were interesting:

Yang (me): 218 land and 242 sea crawlers, 3 transports, 64 Penetrators and 4 Interceptors, 6 empath SAM choppers,
Lal: 1 crawler, 6 transports, 47 empath SAM choppers, (and no, the choppers weren't gifts from me), 17 Interceptors
Dee: 137 transports (lost 49), 50 needlejets, 17 interceptors, 18 Planetbusters (lost 17)
Sparta: 36 transports (lost 12), 2 crawlers, no choppers, 34 conventional missiles, 11 interceptors

(The other factions weren't significant)

The IA could be so much more challenging if only they would produce crawlers. In fact, the only game I've seen where they produced them in numbers was in a playtest of the Roze scenario I designed for CGN, where I seeded each IA faction with 2 bases each with three forest tiles and a crawler working each. After 90 or so turns, four of the IA still had their original six, one had used them for prototypes, Sp's or whatever, and the final one had built another 34, to have 40 when I checked. That was neat to see (and not unexpectedly, was ahead in the power graph)

Ah well, we can dream

G.

[Closey]

quote: Originally posted by gwillybj on 05-07-2001 11:50 PM From the SMAC manual, regarding the Governor's priority settings: "Build. The base disregards most external concerns, concentrating on its own growth, terraforming, and the creation of new facilities." While this will not prevent building military units, the Governor will not choose to do so unless there is no other option.

Ah, true. But you do know that you can specify what you want them to build too, right? Just click that little arrow next to the base name (I think that's where it is) And then un-select all the military units. I'm at work now so I probably won't be checking the details until I get home, but I know that it's possible though. I used to do it all the time when I used them. It's nice to have them building facilities without you having to worry about getting tons of troups and such.

Edt: Maybe the arrow's next to the Governor button, can't seem to recall right now. But it is there though.

[This message has been edited by Closey (edited May 08, 2001).]