Aplha Centauri 2 Wishlist

[Marchantbard]

Another couple thoughts:

9. Probe Teams can 'steal' Secret Projects out of the bases they infiltrate, doing so by expenditure of Energy Credits (some calculation equivalent to Mind Control), and have a reduced chance of success/evacuation (on the order of 70%/50%).

10. The loss of a base to Mind Control conquest, rather than military, reduces the chances of an attached Secret Project from being 'lost':
40% chance the Secret Project remains intact
30% chance the Project has to be partially rebuilt by the conquering faction
30% chance the Project is permanently lost

[dgh64]

I don't know about the secret project thing. Certain projects could have cumulative effects if you built more than one, but the way I'd do it is have diminishing returns: 1st one gives you 100% effect, 2nd one gives 50%, 3rd gives 25%, and so on. Not sure about capturing them, though. If I was the governor of a base, with something that important, I'd set it to self-destruct if anyone captured the base. If I can't have it, nobody will.

Maybe that could be an option -- with each S.P. have a check-box so it'll self-destruct if the base is captured (then any faction with the right tech has the option of rebuilding it) or you can choose to have it remain intact so you can recapture the base and get your project back.

I have a few ideas for tweaking combat...

Bring back the energy/ballistic/missile weapon types, with different armor to match. The current system of "each weapon is progressively better than the last" is a little too simple, IMHO. Here's how I'd make it work:

Have about 6 or 8 levels of each of the 3 weapon types (energy/ballistic/missile), and 4 or 5 levels of the 2 defense types (shield/armor). Energy weapons do 50% damage against shields, ballistic weapons do 50% damage against armor. Missile weapons cost more for the same power, but they do 100% damage all the time. For example, if I have a power 6 energy weapon and the defending unit has shields (of any power), it would be treated as a power 3 weapon, while a power 6 ballistic or missile weapon would have its full strength. Against armor, ballistic weapons would lose half their power but energy and missiles are full strength.

This would keep combat more interesting IMHO, because you'd have to change your equipment to counter whatever your opponent is using instead of simply putting your strongest weapon and strongest armor on. Certain weapon types could be made more/less effective against chassis types, too:

energy: +20% vs ships
ballistic: +20% vs infantry
missile: +20% vs aircraft

Or something similar.

Then there's the PSI attack/defense, which I think should be entirely separate as far as equipment goes -- no resonance or pulse armor giving both regular and PSI defense, instead have 2 or 3 power levels of PSI attack and a level or two of PSI defense, but if you get attacked with a regular weapon it's just like having no armor. Again, makes you pay attention to what your opponent is using and change your tactics.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but just one more idea for a "special" missile payload: EMP. All technological units (i.e. not worms, spore launchers, or other "natives", but any unit that has a reactor) in the radius (something like 6 or 8 squares) cannot move, attack, or see for 3 turns. This affects units whether they're friendly, enemy, or neutral. Bases in the radius still function and have sight, and units inside the base are protected (I figure the base would have enough shielding to protect them) but sensor arrays are blind and don't give combat bonus. This only affects the units in the radius at the time of EMP detonation -- units outside the radius when the EMP is used that then move inside aren't affected, and units built by a base after an EMP are also not affected.

[Marchantbard]

I likewise agree the weapon systems seem a tad erratic in development: we go from ballistics to focused energy projection, then basically zig-zag through iterations of those two systems up to Plasma Shards, which combines them. From there its just bigger and nastier versions of lasers.

However, rather than modify their effects (which realistically can be countered by system-specific countermeasures built into the units), how about requiring factions to choose not just a direction in their scientific research, but on their weapons as well?

Not sure how the mechanics would work, but its a thought.

[dgh64]

I've done a little (but not much) experimenting, and I haven't really noticed any difference between ballistics and energy weapons, so I think the developers might have taken that feature out of the game or something.

In Galactic Civilizations 2, the 3 weapon types have separate branches on the tech tree, so if you research beam weapons until the end, and then want to start using missiles, you have to start from the most basic, lvl 1 missiles.

I play a lot of strategy games, both turn-based and real-time. There are a few things my favorite games all have in common, and that is a "rock-paper-scissors" type thing, with no "this one is always better than that one". But that's how AC's weapons and armor are set up -- a Particle Impactor is always better than a Laser, with its only disadvantage being cost. But once it's built, the P.I. will always do better in every situation, no matter how you're using it or what unit you're using it against.

EDIT: just had another idea:

when randomly generating a map, have options for sharing starting continents:

1. We're all in this together (all factions start on the same continent. Might be a little island, and it's pretty crowded so some are forced to move off)
2. Us and Them (3 factions start on one continent, while 4 start on another)
3. No man is an island (each faction has one or two neighbors sharing their continent)
4. Some men are islands (basically random, like it is now)
5. Every man is an island (all factions are separated by water, so no contact until ships are developed)

[CEO Aaron]

I play a lot of strategy games, both turn-based and real-time. There are a few things my favorite games all have in common, and that is a "rock-paper-scissors" type thing, with no "this one is always better than that one".

How about Warcraft III? Paladins are better than Footmen, Abominations are better than Ghouls, Taurens are better than Grunts. Also, every RTS game has the notion of 'general upgrades', like the blacksmith upgrades in WCIII, or the Armory Upgrades in AOEIII. Bottom line, every strategy game has the idea of 'make my troops better', in addition to 'paper beats rock'.

In any case, Civ-type games are about research and economy, predominantly. They're strategic in scope, not tactical. There's a certain amount of 'Rock-Paper-Scissors' in them, or at least situational bonuses that make some troops better in certain circumstances, but the bottom line is that there's no tactical element to Civ. It's pure logistics.

[dgh64]

I'm not familiar with any of the Warcraft games (I prefer Scifi to Fantasy genre) but let me give you an example from Starcraft: Goliaths are better than Marines. But a Ghost can cast Lockdown on 2 Goliaths, effectively "killing" them by allowing any other unit you have to take them out without worrying about return fire. A Ghost, however, would be pretty easy to kill with just a couple Marines. So, Goliath < Ghost < Marine < Goliath.

This is just one example, but for every Starcraft unit, regardless of "general upgrades" there's some other unit that beats it. There's nothing you can build that, all by itself, will win every situation.

[CEO Aaron]

Okay, going with the Starcraft Metaphor, there are direct upgrades there as well. The upgrades available from the Forge, Engineering Bay, are direct improvements to the units they upgrade.

However, again, I must emphasize that this is a very bad analogy. Civ-type games are not tactical games. There's no way to exploit unit matchups in a way that's going to be meaningful or satisfying. If that's the sort of game you want to play, a traditional RTS is going to serve you better.

[dgh64]

I understand that, but what I'm saying is that I'd like to see a little more tactics involved. (this is a wishlist, remember) Right now, you pretty much need just 3 kinds of units: land combat, naval combat, and naval transport. All you need to do then is build as many as you can, and keep them upgraded with your best available weapon and armor, and then a trained monkey could take over the world. And there are ways this could be implemented in a turn-based environment:

1. Different attack ranges
2. Different reload times
3. A unit that can only attack one class (air/naval/land), or is better at attacking a certain class
4. A unit that can only attack one type (biological/mechanical), or better at attacking certain type
5. Special effects (borrowing from Starcraft, we have things like Lockdown, Restore, Irradiate, and Cloak, and that's just from the Terrans) Alpha Centauri's special unit abilities do grant some variety, but most of them are "passive" (i.e. they just give a bonus in a certain situation) and there's a lot of room for improvement.

[Wobbo]

I don't know if these have been suggested, but here's a couple thoughts:

1. an expanded time-frame, with the game still starting on MY 2100 and a mandatory retirement point of MY 2500, but with each turn being a four-month period (say the traditional seasons). Hence rather than having only 400 turns, you have 1600. This allows a tad more realism in terms of terraforming, as well as advances and reversals of fortune.

I was thinking this EXACT same idea! It also would coincide with financial "quarters."

[apocalyptech]

Er, posted this in its own thread accidentally first, without noticing this one. Sorry about that...

So I swung into my usual yearly battle with my long-running SMAC addiction over the past week, and while out-producing the hell out of everyone else (on an admittedly low difficulty level, at the time), I was struck with the desire for an extra (alternate) weapon I could give my units: a "Bully" weapon.

Specifically, a Bully unit would be somewhat along the lines of a probe team, in that it's a nonmilitary unit which can invade enemy territory without necessarily causing a Vendetta, but it would be able to give noogies to opposing units, thereby decreasing their morale. (Or perhaps it should just be a special ability which you can only give TO probe teams? I'd think that'd make them too expensive, though...)

Regardless, think of the possibilities! I figure a Bully unit would maybe get a default +2 morale boost itself, and maybe only be able to give noogies to units equal to or less than its own morale (or just less than?) - perhaps enemy Elite units would be un-noogieable. Perhaps the effect would be non-permanent (at first) but after a certain number of consecutive noogies, the morale drop becomes irreversible - perhaps a Swirlie special ability could be even more devastating.

Maybe three consecutive noogies could yield five energy credits of lunch money! That may require an Extortion special ability, though...

I also suppose that they'd probably have to be ineffective against mind worms; I'm not quite sure how you'd give a mind worm a noogie.

Anyway, somebody needs to go procure the SMAC sourcecode now so that we can make this happen. Chop chop, people!

[rothe]

let me just say that a faction with 1 set religion is retarded.