Aplha Centauri 2 Wishlist

[Hydro]

Endgame – yup. That’s where ‘Hydro’ comes from. It is rather linear and uncreative, but it works.

Hydro

[Commy]

Originally posted by Senethro
Didn't someone once suggest that you could need a specialist to work crawlers? Perhaps the first two crawlers are free but above 2 crawlers a base, you need one "crawler specialist" for every 4 crawlers otherwise the resource is not gathered.

I suggested this a long time ago...but I doubt I was the first...the idea of it is to stop ICSing...not necessarily because ICSing is the best strategy against humans, but because the AI can't relate to it and therefore can't even compete...

If citizens can't be productive specialists, but have to represent crawlers, I think that makes ICSing pretty much obsolete...atleast, until satellites...

[Commy]

I think that, like Civ 4, units should have "powers", not an attack and a defense...

One way to do this would be to only have technology for weapons...you get laser, and then particle impactors, then missile launchers...

The workshop would still be there, and you would add special abilities...perhaps you'd still choose which armor you wanted, but it would give combat percentages for attack and defense....

So for example, a 2-1-1 unit would have an attack and defense of 2...a 2-2-1 unit would have a combat percentage of 10% (10% for each armor point) and would have a power of 2.2....

There is probably a better way of doing this, but I definitely think that having separate attack and defense values needs to get the boot...Civ 4 will probably (hopefully) do a good job of this...

[Hydro]

Commy,

If I understand you correctly, your “powers” are simply another way of representing what we know as armor, weapons, abilities, etc. You can express the current attack and defense factors as percentages if you like – it really doesn’t matter. If this is true then Civ4-like ‘factors’ are so much window dressing. If I’m in a cynical mood I might suggest it is a way to dumb down the game.

It also may be a challenge to have linear ‘powers’ accommodate the features we’ll expect in a SMAC2 workshop. Much will depend on implementation, and this may be an example of how a retrofitted Civ4 may not work for SMAC2.

Like I’ve said before, I’m not going to hold my breath for Civ4. Games with mass-market appeal that are not twitchy and have a depth greater than a kiddy wading pool are wildly difficult to craft.

Hydro

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by Hydro
It also may be a challenge to have linear ‘powers’ accommodate the features we’ll expect in a SMAC2 workshop. Much will depend on implementation, and this may be an example of how a retrofitted Civ4 may not work for SMAC2.

From a re-programming perspective (i.e. a cIV----> SMACX Mod), why as far as the cIV subroutines that we don't need, we can simply just edit out, no problem. I have already discussed this with bT and we both agree this is not a significant stumbling block for a mod.
However, you raise a very valid concern regarding the Unit Design Workshop, and I really appreciate you bringing that to our attention. The Design Workshop almost definately won't be a part of cIV. This then presents a problem to our community in that we would then have to build the whole subroutine(s) for the Unit Workshop from scratch. I can honestly say that I don't possess the skills to do this, and I'm not sure anyone in our community possesses these skills, either (bT: any input on this?). Also, since you pointed this area out, why I am sure we will encounter several, if not many, other areas where cIV doesn't have an analogous subroutine to directly link to SMAC(X) basic functions, meaning we will probably have to build from scratch many subroutines. Thats probably going to end up being an extremely significant investment in time for those working on this area of a mod.

Originally posted by Hydro
Like I’ve said before, I’m not going to hold my breath for Civ4. Games with mass-market appeal that are not twitchy and have a depth greater than a kiddy wading pool are wildly difficult to craft.

Hydro

I agree with your statement completely, and can simply add to that by saying that this is probably the same reason we are still playing SMAC(X) 7 years on after its release - games of this level of accomplishment are very rare indeed. As far as cIV is concerned, why we can only hope.....

D

[GeoModder]

Darsnan: about this workshop, units get 'promoted' in the field after succesfull combat, and as such a 'workshop on the field' is possible. If abilities can be lined to specific units, there's still the possibility to improve units, although not instantaneous.

Btw, perhaps it is possible to mod cIV so that promotions are put upon a unit after/during production? That way a player can 'force' a certain (also modded) ability on any newly created unit?

[Hydro]

So this means you can select from, say, three 'historical' units for a city's production queue and then modify them as 'promotions'? That sounds like a Workshop Lite, at best. It also sounds a tad limited, perhaps a Workshop with 1/10th the flexibility and ability to experiment. It also sound like it may be fairly linear, which was a severe problem that sucked the wind out of the sails of early and respected Civ3 proponents (including the vaunted Vel).

Hydro

[Darsnan]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Darsnan: about this workshop, units get 'promoted' in the field after succesfull combat, and as such a 'workshop on the field' is possible. If abilities can be lined to specific units, there's still the possibility to improve units, although not instantaneous.

Heah GeoModder,

I'm writing from a perspective where I want to make a cIV mod into as close a doppleganger of SMACX as possible, but with an enhanced AI. What your saying doesn't fit in with the ideal that I've been driving towards, however your thoughts probably more closely reflect the realities (and difficulties) that will be faced when trying to mod cIV.

Originally posted by GeoModder
Btw, perhaps it is possible to mod cIV so that promotions are put upon a unit after/during production? That way a player can 'force' a certain (also modded) ability on any newly created unit?

These are good thoughts, and I've seen some other good ideas as to how to approach a SMACX mod from others as well. I think what its boiling down to is that one (or more) of us needs to actually see the cIV code, break it down as to what can and can't be done with it, and then start thinking about how is the best way to approach a mod from there. Already I'm seeing several critical areas that are going to truly shape the project:

1. The cIV and Python code and what it can and can't do in regards to a cIV--->SMACX mod.

2. Resources: Python is already an established programming language with many good websites, and The Vaults of Parnassus has a good selection of development tools. However, how many in our community are skilled enough to work with these in order to create a fully fledged mod? It could be that we have to scale the scope of our mod based upon human resources in this area.


D

[Senethro]

I too had heard about Civ4 giving victorious units special abilities. I was wondering if it would be possible to jury rig a design workshop out of that. Perhaps increase the number of special abilities a unit possess to 6 or some sufficiently high number and then the current value used for unit power becomes unit attack, special ability 1 becomes chassis, special ability 2 becomes defense and so on for reactor/Trance/X.

Of course, it all depends on the Civ4 code.

[Commy]

Originally posted by Hydro
If I understand you correctly, your “powers” are simply another way of representing what we know as armor, weapons, abilities, etc. You can express the current attack and defense factors as percentages if you like – it really doesn’t matter. If this is true then Civ4-like ‘factors’ are so much window dressing. If I’m in a cynical mood I might suggest it is a way to dumb down the game.

Hydro

Yes, powers are another way of representing armor and weapons, but not special abilities, and it would certainly not "dumb" down the game...

Let's put it this way...If I have a 6-1-1 unit, there is a 50% chance that an equally experienced scout patrol could destroy my unit...in my opinion, that's just wrong...rather, make the 6-1-1 unit a 6-1 unit, with a power of 6...its attack and its defense is 6, which makes more sense and is a lot more realistic...

There is one problem with this, how is armor implemented? Armor is, after all, a big part of combat...

The fact is, I wouldn't mind having units in SMAC be like units in civ 3...you have pre-set units, with preset values...what I don't like about civ 3 is that you can't add the special abilities on to whatever units you want...

...unfortunately, by doing so, you would effectively ruin SMAC and its combat strategy, so, while I may believe pre-set units is not a bad idea, I don't believe they should be implemented into SMAC...SMAC is supposed to be different from Civ....

But, I still think that "powers" instead of individual attack and defense should be implemented...

[Straybow]

Originally posted by girlfight_club
...Now, I've liked the Sims and SimCity, but they're nothing compared to my passion for SMAC. Turn-based god games rule. But I wonder if there couldn't be a kind of scalability brought to SMAC. Work your way up to be a base governor, or even the faction leader. More authority as you go. Less RPG than the Sims or WoW, but slightly more than SimCity-- political intrigue, but your orders to build and attack still get carried out.

At its top level (which should always be an option, at least with a cheat code) you're playing a perfected old-school SMAC with extra 2.0 jinglies: Faction leader, conquering Planet.

...SMAC deserves the vertical expansion WarCraft and SimCity have received-- because a political intrigue game is half the reason I prefer it over the rest-- and that with only a handful of original characters!

Yikes, and have to clean up the messes the AI makes as you go? Yeah, it would be great as an immersive rpg, or even a regular TBS played like the Demogames.
What about some other SimCity/CaesarII type features built into a TBS? Instead of having people wander around a map use the citizens already in the Base display.

In SMAC and all other Civ derivatives those citizens are static. Instead they could shift from image to image representing different people of that particular type. Clicking on them gives you feedback; turn the feature off during play if you don't want the distraction.

You could even have half units, so if you don't have an even Psych value for the base a citizen could be half drone, half worker or half worker, half talent. The image would interchange appropriately, and a static image divided diagonally would also be provided.

Note: This would also eliminate the odd-city-size Golden Age/Celebration problem that has existed since Civ1.

[Chaos Theory]

Originally posted by Straybow
You could even have half units, so if you don't have an even Psych value for the base a citizen could be half drone, half worker or half worker, half talent. The image would interchange appropriately, and a static image divided diagonally would also be provided.

Must... resist... urge... to demand... reals...

[Straybow]

Linear population model would take care of that even better than reals


I would want to see more land chassis types available (roughly in order of development).

• Infantry
• Wheel (cheap, off-road move cost x2)
• Speeder
• Track (tougher, move 3, road cost x2)
• GEV (move 2, off-road cost 1 except rocky, cross coastal water tiles, chance of sinking if end turn on water)
• Walker (move 2, ignore fungus) [not necessarily Lucas-style]
• Gravcraft (move 6, cross water, off-rail/maglev cost 1)

All chassis types would be interchangeable in terms of upgrades and conversions because the fundamental unit is the personnel rather than the mode of transport. Want to convert your Speeders to Tracks? Move to a base, plunk down your money. Part of that cost is retraining the crews for the new gadgetry. Note that also the chassis type determines the power and cost of the weapon used. Infantry arms are inherently limited compared to vehicle-mounted arms. Step up to ships or fixed artillery for greater power.

Obviously the ship chassis types need work, too. For ships the chassis is the unit, and the flexibility given ground units doesn't apply.

• Boat (same as SMAC/X "Foil")
• Hull (Light and Heavy versions, etc)
• Hovercraft (move 6, can move 1 non-rocky/non-fungus tile inland, chance to sink if end in non-coastal water)
• Hydrofoil (move +2, Boat or Light Hull only)
• Gravship (€xpen$ive, move +2, all Hull sizes)

The base cost for ship chassis above Boat is going to much higher than a ground unit chassis. These are large structures demanding much more resources and construction expense.

For transports start with a capacity of 10 for Boat, 20 for Lt Hull, 30 for Hv Hull, more if larger Hull sizes included. No land transport units (that's what rails and the Wheel chassis simulate). Land units have a size rating approximately 10 plus chassis, weapon, armor and other factors (std probe teams would be half the size of a Scout unit).

Why stop there? We've got airframes to correct. Implement separate frame size and propulsion types. Start with props and ducted fans, then jets and choppers as mfg precision improves, finally to Repulsors. Fix the movement/combat model, too.

... oops let that one out of the bag

[binTravkin]

(bT: any input on this?).

Skill is not a problem, time is.

And there's always a question which system is better and more realistic.

I think it's clear we won't get to completely rebuilt SMAC from the cIV code, either by resource reason or others.

I propose not go too far with assumptions we need to rewrite something before we haven't seen it.

If the special abilities given during combat are splitted in types like "offensive" - "defensive", Im sure we can make those abilities be added through Workshop (just need to call the same, but modified function on "U" keypress).

Also if they come out to be multiplier-like, e.g. SAM gives your weapon *2 when attacking air, Im sure we can make some abilities to resemble weapons / armor, which is a pretty interesting and perspectively more realistic way.

The idea is:

1.To give all units equal "power" (unless better reactor).
2.Make some special abilities look like weapons/armor graphically
3.Make those abilities mutiplay your attack/defense.

say you have a 1-1 basic unit which resembles a 1-1-1

add the "Impact weapons" ability (which gives *4 attack) and you have 1-1, impact which resembles 4-1-1.

The same goes with armor.

What's most amazing you can have such abilities have different values in different combats.

E.G. you know "Gun" weapon is not any good against hi-air due to gravity/ballistical problems.

So you give it like 0.5 against air attack.

Etc, etc.

And I must admit, I have to wrap my mind around what Straybow wrote - pain to understand.

[binTravkin]

I too had heard about Civ4 giving victorious units special abilities. I was wondering if it would be possible to jury rig a design workshop out of that. Perhaps increase the number of special abilities a unit possess to 6 or some sufficiently high number and then the current value used for unit power becomes unit attack, special ability 1 becomes chassis, special ability 2 becomes defense and so on for reactor/Trance/X.

Of course, it all depends on the Civ4 code.

Sorry, I reinvented your idea.
I just can't keep up with this thread lately.