Do you consider ICS to be a problem?

[Senethro]

Though I've been quite happy to abuse insta-build pods when I've got an uber-crawler construction sitting in the closest city, I hadn't previously realised the importance some people assigned to them. While I'm going to modify and experiment with my own playstyle accordingly, could you tell me more about it?

Do Sparta and other momentum factions find it a reliable method of drawing equal or surpassing builders? As I said earlier the ACDG3 does not feature a human Hive/Drones/Uni and some people dispute the reasons for Sparta's position. While, in other games than SMAC, I'm used to picking factions that have wildly variable results because you have to take risks with them and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, I'm not sure this relying on pods is a good thing. Especially when they can be turned off.


PS: I've just reviewed my worldbuilder and I think it might be favouring ICS :/

A lot of people have spoken about disliking the ICS micromanagement. How could this be decreased? And does noone have opinions on whether it is right that ICS can ignore efficiency? All thoughts on any aspect of ICS relevant here.

[PJayTycy]

I've never used ICS. I usually just look at the special resources available to position my bases (because there ar no restrictions on them).

[livid imp]

Originally posted by binTravkin
2.Drones
One less drone helps with b-drones and +3 INDUSTRY is just sweet.

Well, while the Drones aren't bad at ICS, I find they are much more efficient between a 2x2 and a 4x4 grid.

When I ICS(1x1), I build fewer facilities per city. I don't build Hab Complexes or Research Labs. I am reluctant to build tree farms except for Eco damage negation.

Compare that to a looser grid and pop booming and building all the facilities that make use of the extra tiles. The more tiles are worked by a single facility, the more cost effective that facility is. And the Drones are the guys to get it built fast.

Morgan, Uni, Hive are ICS gods

[Commy]

Originally posted by Senethro



People, please, seriously now, VALID examples only. WHile a lot of stuff here is going to be anecdotal, your first time ICSing is NOT a good example of anything to do with ICS.

And what is your definition of a builder? Are you meaning someone who stays small and expands vertically? I would define an ICS builder as someone who just borgs across the entire map if you'll let them.

I think the fact that I had completed the cloning vats before 2200 demonstrates that my ICSing worked...otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned it...

And I define a builder as someone who concentrates more on building than anything else...hence the name...

Covering the whole planet doesn't make you a builder, sorry...however, builders can cover the whole planet...big difference in choice of words...

Builders will be those people that have 4 formers per base, research hospitals before boats, and boreholes before having ecological engineering...

[Ka Plewy]

[...]boreholes before having ecological engineering...

Wait, you're not a builder if you don't have the WP?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ka Plewy

Wait, you're not a builder if you don't have the WP?

Hadn't you heard?? Only one builder permitted per game !!

[Commy]

I wouldn't define myself as a pure builder, more of a hybrid...I play University, and expand pretty well, but I don't go around pop-booming and just conquering everyone...I set many limits...

That's the nice thing about civ 3, you don't have to set limits...if only they could add better SE and idealogies into civ...but I guess we'll have to wait...

[binTravkin]

Though I've been quite happy to abuse insta-build pods when I've got an uber-crawler construction sitting in the closest city, I hadn't previously realised the importance some people assigned to them. While I'm going to modify and experiment with my own playstyle accordingly, could you tell me more about it?

Well, Im not the best in but things I've learned are:
1.to build a couple rovers early.
2.to go for D:F first (or after CE) and build a couple of those cheap 20 min foils ASAP
3.to go for D:I and MCC after IA

Do Sparta and other momentum factions find it a reliable method of drawing equal or surpassing builders? As I said earlier the ACDG3 does not feature a human Hive/Drones/Uni and some people dispute the reasons for Sparta's position. While, in other games than SMAC, I'm used to picking factions that have wildly variable results because you have to take risks with them and sometimes they work, sometimes they don't, I'm not sure this relying on pods is a good thing. Especially when they can be turned off.

Firstly - ANY faction can do that with various success.
In the Girls Night In game I've built MCC, switched to Green and Im going out capturing IoDs at will with my 20mineral 2-1-8 cruisers.
Neural Amplifier helps to defend against enemies at sea as you get a 2(attacker):3(defender) at least.

Secondly:
Yes it's reliable.
Barring that you have high morale and/or Planet bonus, even a MW-filled pod can be a success.
You don't even don't need to kill them - they will go attack your enemy on the continent you popped them.

PS: I've just reviewed my worldbuilder and I think it might be favouring ICS :/

Try SmackSims WorldBuilder Mod

Best mod I've ever seen!

A lot of people have spoken about disliking the ICS micromanagement. How could this be decreased? And does noone have opinions on whether it is right that ICS can ignore efficiency? All thoughts on any aspect of ICS relevant here.

Yes. Micromanagement is a killer. If you have around 400 units to issue orders to (a real-life situation with my Hive at CGN 21 @ 2190) you get pretty tired of it.

To improve the fun in micromanagement following things should be done:
1.Improved governor. Someone who you could tell to ONLY build a list of things and someone who'd understand that if the base is about to grow to size 2 it should build a CP and if it will grow in 10 turns but CP will be ready in 6 turns it should build something else (preferably things that increase output like crawler/former or a police scout).
Also it'd be very nice of a governor was able to understand that riots MUST be quelled BEFORE they appear not AFTER.

2.improved complicated unit orders, especially ability to define your own orders like - forest + road.
or hole + road.

3.a possibility to define GRID of terraforming.
You input like:

ch
cB

where "h" is hole, "c" is condenser, before that forest (there should be ability to define a logical statement if(condensers allowed)->condenser else->forest.)
and "B" is base.

The same ability to make a grid or make "objective" for Colony Pods.
Grid would be like mentioned above, objective would be like - "found CP on bonus" | "found CP on river".

..and many many more which I and other people can think up if only Firaxis listened to us.
I could even code that actually.

That's the nice thing about civ 3, you don't have to set limits...if only they could add better SE and idealogies into civ...but I guess we'll have to wait...

How wrong you are.
Civ 3 is a limitation itself. That's why AIs can do so well in it.
Also have you ever tried to save your file with name "multi.sav" and then load it.
You'd see that your friends AIs have half the mineral costs at deity level.

Just give a SMACX AI +5 industy and I bet you won't have to "set limits" to yourself!

[Commy]

Civ 3 is a limitation in itself, I agree, and that's why I like it...and about the AI getting +5 industry...don't they get that anyway on Transcend? Since I play transcend, I think I'd be used to it by now...

The fact is, I can easily beat Transcend, even when I don't use crawlers, probe teams, PBs, missiles, bombers, and force myself to have -5 police...and yet I struggle to survive on emperor level on civ 3...

[Ka Plewy]

The point is that CIV3 is limited, for the AI to be able to cope, where as SMAC is so much more complex that the AI isn't able to make good decisions.
In the previous three incarnations of civ style games (civ to civ2 to SMAC we were given increasing levels of complexity for the player to enjoy). We did enjoy it, while all the time we lamented at the inability of the AI to cope. Unfortunately took that too heart, and in an effort to make the AI cope, they limited the player.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Maniac, you review which map is better for which makes me smile.

People have been discussing over this thing years ago.
Just go to CGN and see the initial threads where they discussed which map would be the best for 4 player tournament.

Could you please point me to these threads if you still remember them? I did a search on CGN, but couldn't seem to find any.


Regarding your claims that ACDG3 Sparta proves that large maps are not in favour of builders...

I could give a long and detailed analysis of the Spartan economy, but of course I'm NOT going to give you that information.

Just replying a couple things.

You see the general point that many players are missing is that bigger maps benefit momentum/hybrid factions in one particular way.
PODS.
In the ACDG Spartans have popped so many pods that they themselves have made Sparta powerful.
They can than MCC a lot for that, but even without MCC it's a brilliant execution of a strategy most builder players are almost unable to execute at that efficency because of FM.

I partially agree with your point. While pods are a nice source of additional income and indeed our main source of secret projects (and a couple other neat toys, such as the one floating near your coastal base (Did Net Warrior post our message?)), they can't make up in regular income the builder disadvantages the Spartans have.

The main boost to our regular economy came not from popping pods, but from conquering the University, doubling our production. And of course we also got all the techs we ever needed from the Zak-Lal alliance. So the ACDG3 Sparta case actually would prove my point: Sparta needs an easy target nearby to be succesful. The larger the map, the further away potential targets are...

But anyway, even supposing that being able to pop extra pods completely makes up for the lack of nearby targets for conquest or partners for cooperation, what are you going to do about the warmonger faction that unlike the Spartans and Cult is not more than average (or even underaverage) skilled for podpopping: the Believers!

Also the much earlier contact of all factions is a very big benefit if you know what 'diplomacy' means.

Again proving my argument that great maps are unbalancing. The larger the map, the later contact will be made, and the later the advantages of early contact will kick in, resulting in a loss of comparative turn advantage.

Morgan had PTS, PEG and HGP.
Sparta had CN and MCC.

Guess who won?

Sparta!

And Sparta is winning badly!

Not just some occasional luck or a sligh difference between turnplayer skills.

It is a good example ICS can be beaten and also a good example big maps are not in favour of builders.

If the Corporation had one more unit in Morgan Industries, our PTS raid would have failed, and they would be ICSing us all off the powerchart. So a large element of luck here, as Mead points out.


But anyway, this discussion about ACDG3 is actually insignificant. If you want to falsify my point, you have to give examples of many games, show a regular pattern, where momentum factions triumph over the classical builders.

I'd say to call a game setup balanced,
1) all factions should be considered equally attractive a playing option (within reasonable limits of course - I guess Zak will always be chosen more than Miriam ).
But more importantly:
2) all factions should have approximately an equal percentage of victorious games.

You've obviously played and CMNed more multiplayer games than I have, so you're much better qualified to answer this question:

Do the Spartans/Cult/Believers/Pirates win as many games as the University/Morganites/Peacekeepers/Drones??

Expert SMACers and CMNs may have been discussing the issue of the best game setup years ago, but ultimately I think the only good measuring staff is the question I asked hereabove, and not some lengthy theorizing like we're doing here.

I don't claim to know what's the perfect setup, but I at least don't deny there could be a problem!

[binTravkin]

Do the Spartans/Cult/Believers/Pirates win as many games as the University/Morganites/Peacekeepers/Drones??

Yes, Uni/Morgan/Hive and other more popular factions are winning more games.
But the main reason is not their advatages, the main reason is that the percentage of players wanting to take up any of the momentum factions is much lower than the percentage of those who "like uni".

Actually I think you should not try to compare factions like Uni or Drones to anyone else. I think and I suppose most people think they're overpowered.

I can't give you endless examples of Sparta against anyone. Im not playing/CMN so much games to be able to. And many of the games Im CMNing os not a veteran style games where you can see every last strategy used just for the sake of victory.

While pods are a nice source of additional income and indeed our main source of secret projects

And I dare to claim that this "additional income" makes up for the Spartan disadvantages.
And these secret projects you have (CN, MCC and CDF IIRC) is what make you what you are now.

Again proving my argument that great maps are unbalancing. The larger the map, the later contact will be made, and the later the advantages of early contact will kick in, resulting in a loss of comparative turn advantage.

Actually no.
On a big map a very mobile faction can quickly earn commlinks while a builder who never goes out of his borders will have to wait for council/EG to acquire all of them.

what are you going to do about the warmonger faction that unlike the Spartans and Cult is not more than average (or even underaverage) skilled for podpopping: the Believers!

Yes, the Believers are really disadvantaged.
Actually popping pods might even ruin their research speed before they've researched anything.

I'd advise a Believer player to go more for building than momentum due to his high support.


And I never said that large maps are not in favour of builders.
I said that large maps can favour momentum factions as well if they know what to aim for (namely pods).

...and about the AI getting +5 industry...don't they get that anyway on Transcend?

IIRC they get +3 and that's quite a difference.


I've been testing +5IND AIs lately. They're faring pretty well, especially if you give UNI +5IND and set explore to the only goal.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Yes, Uni/Morgan/Hive and other more popular factions are winning more games.
But the main reason is not their advatages, the main reason is that the percentage of players wanting to take up any of the momentum factions is much lower than the percentage of those who "like uni".

I meant "Do the Spartans/Cult/Believers/Pirates have the same percent of victories in the games they participate in as the University/Morganites/Peacekeepers/Drones??"

In other words, if the Peacekeepers win four out of twenty games, does the Cult, who is chosen less often, also win the same ratio of 20%, eg one out of five games?

And for the record, personally I'd like to play momentum factions, but due to the CMNs and many players insisting on builder-friendly setups, I have no other choice but to play builder factions...

Actually I think you should not try to compare factions like Uni or Drones to anyone else. I think and I suppose most people think they're overpowered.

If you know that, then why not do something about it in the game setup? Place a momentum faction close to them, or something?

And these secret projects you have (CN, MCC and CDF IIRC) is what make you what you are now.

Those are combat-improving SPs, so do you mean we are a conqueror? Fortunately then we aren't playing on a great map. j/k

I'd advise a Believer player to go more for building than momentum due to his high support.

Or if you were the CMN setting up the game, you could advise the players that a standard map would be preferable to enable the Believers to fully use their factional advantages: the fanatic bonus and the stronger probe teams!

[Urban Ranger]

Pardon my ignorance, but what's ICS1x1 (for example)? Does it mean you build bases right next to each other?

[#endgame]

You can't do that in SMAC, but you can pack them in as close as possible and you get 1x1 ICS:
Base - Space - Base.