Do you consider ICS to be a problem?

[GeoModder]

I think the "randomness" of the raininess after a borehole is built is quite accurate. How could anyone predict how a land (severtal tiles) hundreds of square kms large will change after terraformation?

[Kataphraktoi]

the same way the weather station predicts howm uch rain will fall tomorrow

[Ka Plewy]

So, they do so poorly, then!

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
the same way the weather station predicts howm uch rain will fall tomorrow

The raininess in SMAC represents a climate change Cataphract, not tomorrows' forecast.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Commy
On the contrary, if you can't or aren't pop booming, those nutrients can go to waste because your base won't grow fast enough, in which case having more energy per turn from tiles worked can be better than hoping to grow enough to use satellites...

ICS without booming is an abomination.

[Kataphraktoi]

The raininess in SMAC represents a climate change Cataphract, not tomorrows' forecast.

i guess if you can see what tomorrows rain will be,you can see what the year by year rainfall is too based roughly on that,if you record it

[GeoModder]

Climate and weather are two different things.

[Kataphraktoi]

yet climate and weather are not seperate. the climate simply says what the weather is supposed to be- the weather is what is is

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
ICS without booming is an abomination.

I consider an ICS setup like that an abomination, Skanky.
Which should be eradicated as soon as possible.

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
ICS without booming is an abomination.

Yang's style is no more an abomination than ICS in general.

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by Cataphract887
yet climate and weather are not seperate. the climate simply says what the weather is supposed to be- the weather is what is is

Your understanding of the climate/weather relationship is incorrect.
Sure, climate and weather are linked, but climate doesn't dictate what weather is supposed to be like on a day to day basis. Climate is the entire set of weather phenomena that PREVAIL in a given region. Climate is simply the measure of weather over a long period of time.

[Kataphraktoi]

ure, climate and weather are linked, but climate doesn't dictate what weather is supposed to be like on a day to day basis. Climate is the entire set of weather phenomena that PREVAIL in a given region. Climate is simply the measure of weather over a long period of time.

perhaps i didnt say it well enough,but your statement and the one i made both agree in my mind.

this>Climate is simply the measure of weather over a long period of time

is what i thought i was partially saying
my grip on english seems weak sometimes

[Ka Plewy]

Since I don't see your country of origin anywhere, I had no way of knowing that english wasn't your native tongue. You stated, "the climate simply says what the weather is supposed to be." That statement indicates a causal relationship; climate causes the weather to be a certain way, which is why I responded. Climate causes nothing, weather causes climate, or changes in climate when taken in aggregate over time.

[smacksim1]

A few things:

Topic: Yes, ICS is a problem. Its too powerful in SP, too ugly (after all, Smac is a lot about charm too), too unable-to-be-done by most AI in most situations (including highly modded factions or maps), and way unbalanced in just about every department. Still, its tempting to play for the sheer ferocity and speed.

Other ICS stuff: The Believers are uniquely suited to ICSing. I figure binT isn't really mentioning them b/c a lack of experience with them. 1 Garrison + 3 Formers + Planned + the WP and/or HGP makes ICS a real temptation with Miriam for: Specialist Labs, 4-units per base, the usual reasons of speed and more speed.

The Believers with 18 bases (2 b-drone limit on huge map) can field 72 units free of support! By running Planned those units can be made PDQ too. If any faction would consider forgoing early-game research, its the Believers, and so Planned is really nice. Consider the turn leverage for later research. Miriam can have 18 bases up nearly as fast as Yang. In fact, they are quite comparable as factions go. Yang with Police is something like Miriam with Planned: All Go and little research for the early game.

ICS, Builders, map size, and Podpopping:
Pod-Popping is not a true strategy for any factions other than Cult and Gaians, at least until Green Economics. Its a huge gamble. Calling Podpopping reliable is horsechite binT! The whole point is that it is not at all reliable. Have you never experienced the game where you found your second base, pop a worm, watch the base go poof? Or tried to cross some sea fungus with your eager-beaver early Unity Foil only to see it eaten? Those things cripple a game far more than a single free-rush or 100EC pod will make a game.

If you get lucky, you get lucky, but there is simply no sense in calling it a strategy that balances the more warmongering factions with the builders for buildings sake (IE finishing SPs or whatnot). That said, the Gaians and Cult are the exception. Only a native explorer far from home is pretty much impervious to bad pops (though you could be teleported inside an enemies range of attack, pop an AA with nowhere to go and be attacked, or pop a free unit and 5 worms and be wiped out, native and all. But this too is balanced by the fact that your native explorer is almost certainly a free unit in the early game: Nothing spent, nothing lost).

I will agree with you that exploration and contact with other factions early is a benefit of certain factions. Those factions are: Cult, Gaians, Pirates, Angels (if you don't pop pods with your probe!), Believers, Hive, Spartans, Aliens, Drones, PKs, University, Consciousness, Morgans, in that order.

Note that Cult start later than Gaians, so really those positions could be reversed. However, lets assume an equal start (as might be done in MP, and happens to happen if you play the Cult in SP with everyone starting in 'your' year).

Look at the list. The order in terms of traditional play style is M, H, H, H, M, M, M, H, H, B, B, B. There are 3 Hybrid types with good early exploration compared with only 2 Momentum types in the top 5.

Here is my line of reasoning for placing Hive and Believers above Sparta for exploration: Units. Hive and Believers can field whopping amounts of units, whereas Sparta is nearly as crippled as Morgan in this regard because of build times and priorities. If you want your first 2 Spartan bases to make Rovers for exploring, you've invested a huge amount of production in a risky proposition after 2115 (when MW grow up). On the other hand, your lone free rover is alone. After 2115 there is an increasing chance they'll pop a pod with multiple worms, and even b-lining towards a supposed neighbor without popping pods on the way is somewhat risky as you may run into wild worms unexpectedly.

(edit: I want to make a small exception here: Spartan units with a monlith and river-fungus can become Commando/Elites fairly quickly and a pair of such rovers is a pretty good exploration team <2150. This is also true of naval units that survive early fights to a lesser degree (no monolith for heal/repeat)

You may counter that Spartans may easily research doc:flex, but consider how many game situations are really better played with doc:flex vs. an early SP tech, how likely you are to field a 'safe' combination of probe-foil or transport/gunship. And compare this to the Pirates or Angels, both of whom may explore relatively mineral-free straight away.

This is one of the things that make the Spartans such a tough faction in SP or MP. Its very tempting to explore, but you are nowhere near as good at it as a green faction, and if you invest in exploration, the more you spend building explorers, the futher behind in building you become. I'd go so far as to say that a Spartan pop/explore strategy is about as risky as taking half of your life savings to Las Vegas. On the other hand, without some luck, Spartans will fall dreadfully behind the true Builders. Of all the SMAX factions, they are perhaps the second most luck-bound after the Cult. Explore or Perish vs. Explore and Perish.

On a small map however, its a different story .

Spartans are at best lucky with exploration. It is no reliable magic cookie though, as it most certainly is with green or naval factions. This does change when/if one makes the switch to green economics. At that point Sparta is on level footing with most other factions for such though.

I have not checked with the ACDG in a long time, but if the Spartans got lucky with exploration moreso than the Gaians, then it was luck. Kudos to Sparta though for conquering Zak! Its just such happy accidents (Zak nearby) that make Sparta fun to play. Calling such a 'strategy' is a misnomer though. That's my point.

--------

ICS/turn-momentum game with Miriam is what I'm working on now. But I ICS with what I call 3x3 spacing. Speaking of which, thats been bugging me in this ICS discussion. Why do you people insist on calling base-space-base 1x1 ICS? That is a 2x2 grid! Mayhaps it comes from earlier ICS discussions wherein people referred to 1-space or 2-space building. 1-space == 2x2! Otherwise, were it possible, ,would you refer to bases placed right next to each other as 0x0? I should think not.

I do think 2x2 has advantages, but 3x3 is a classic and much more appealing in an aesthetic/flexible sense. Defenders can move base to base, and with the Believers you actually can pre-form fungus-rock squares if need be. With 27 formers from your first 9 bases (9 scouts for drone control), you can really pre-terraform with abandon.

After reading the Cult Strategy thread I got onto the idea of revisiting early condensor strategies with the WP. It works beautifully with the Believers.

[binTravkin]

Other ICS stuff: The Believers are uniquely suited to ICSing. I figure binT isn't really mentioning them b/c a lack of experience with them. 1 Garrison + 3 Formers + Planned + the WP and/or HGP makes ICS a real temptation with Miriam for: Specialist Labs, 4-units per base, the usual reasons of speed and more speed.

I didnt mentioned Believers because I think they can pull of non-ICSing better for these reasons:
1.They're good attackers
2.They're excellent popboomers because they can run demo 100% of the time without having any real problems.
3.They're usually too late to the main ICS SPs like PTS, PEG and some other ones which can significantly hamper a Believer ICSer versus almost any other (except Drones, Cult)
4.A very adapt strategy for Believers is to go Demo-Green-Wealth which makes you in situation where you can go 100% econ and not bother about research (by just probing for anything you need). It also comes out to be the most powerful mind contolling setup (good money+good probes) on same level DA one (a bit less money - not so profitable going 100% econ but a bit less probecost) and head above almost anyone else (except Morgan, who can raise very good money)
4.1. This strategy also adds to profitability of wider base spacement, because it's easier to build infra and because the effic is very high (not so important in ICS as your bases are close and use specialists anyway).

I could be missing some points but not that I ignored Believers.
This

After reading the Cult Strategy thread I got onto the idea of revisiting early condensor strategies with the WP. It works beautifully with the Believers.

Further reinforces the profitability of going more for infrastructure-based popboom for Believers - you need only a few techs to pull it off (CE, PlaNets, Eth Calc, D:Flex) and some luck with AAs, instabuilds and min bonuses (for early WP).