Questions on reputation & diplomacy

[Aabraxan]

And that may be true for many players better than I. It's a good backstory. For that matter, it may become true for me if I get to the point that I can consistently beat the AI on transcend with a variety of factions. For now, though, I just focus on winning.

[CEO Aaron]

Originally posted by Hydro
Frankly, SMAC is rather boring for me without role playing. It would have become shelf-ware around 2000 or so without the back story, which is irrelevant if there isn't some element of role playing.

What is sad is that the penalties for atrocities are so minor and the advantages extreme. For instance, I'd like to see nerve gas have no offense bonus - only the civilian deaths. That would take out much of its utility and make taking the basted city less worthwhile. Or have it later in the tech tree, or part of the tech tree that the blood-makes-grass-grow crowd doesn't like. As it stands you are meat if don’t get on the atrocities bandwagon in MP.

Hydro

I definitely agree that the effect of nerve gas is far too powerful than real life evidence shows. World War I saw extensive use of chemical and nerve agents, none of which had a decisive effect on any battles. While it could be argued that these early agents were prototypical and advanced agents are much more potent, so too is the technology that is recruited in fighting them, so when facing an opponent with anything approaching technological parity, the only effect of improving your chemical weapons is that more innocent bystanders will be slain.

There's other reasons these weapons aren't more effective on the actual battlefield. First of all, once they're deployed, they're neutral, killing enemy troops and your own with equal abandon. While that's all well and good in a static shooting match, any enemy that isn't pinned down will merely vacate the area, and you've just rendered that territory too dangerous to occupy. So even when it does create a decisive battlefield advantage, it's difficult to capitalize on it. And let's not forget the capricious effects of weather on many of these weapons. An unfortunate turn of wind and you'll be hoist in your own petard.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Hydro


. As it stands you are meat if don’t get on the atrocities bandwagon in MP.

Hydro

I don't agree. I have won MP games without frequent use of atrocities.

In fact I have only used a PB TWICE in MP and in each game the other parties surrendered on the ensuing turn. I have never used nerve gas except in a couple of case or against aliens or if the charter was lifted.

In my last game I was a replacement and actually absorbed a PB hit on the way to a win. I did build a PB in return but eventually disbanded it for its minerals

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Hydro
....As it stands you are meat if don’t get on the atrocities bandwagon in MP.

So why not run a house rule stating no nerve gas? I never use it in SP games (except on aliens....cause it just cracks me up that nobody cares if you gas an alien....lol).

I like more defensive games. It enforces a more strategic, rather than tactical thought process. High offense games just boil down to who stikes first. Boring. I guess this is why I have never had any desire to play MP.

[Flubber]

sorry dp

[Flubber]

Originally posted by livid imp




I like more defensive games. It enforces a more strategic, rather than tactical thought process. High offense games just boil down to who stikes first. Boring. I guess this is why I have never had any desire to play MP.

hmmmIf I have tech parity and someone tries to high offense me, they are going to lose a LOT of minerals in dead rovers. Why? Offensive defense. What is that? Its the idea that anyone coming for you has to bring their units into the open first so it is the vigilent defender NOT the offensive player that gets a first strike.

The defender has all the advantages really in that they are on familiar terrain wiith better repair and resupply and with the sensor bonus and a road network. Oh the offensive player has higher attack value weapons than available armour, you say . . . so what?!! So does the defender.

Ever try to rover rush a guy that has impact rovers??-- Not fun since the attacker gets shot at first ( this would happen anyway unless one side has elites but a short road ensures it even in the face of elites). Airpower era-- You lost when you allow the large buildup close to your core -- Make sure your core bases are encircled by others or approaches are guarded etc etc. PLus once you get AA and aerocomplexes, available airpower LOSES in a straight one on one against available armours

Attackers win in smax when attackers have an industrial or technological superiority or when they achieve surprise. I reject the premise that he who strikes first wins. I often strike second

[livid imp]

Originally posted by Flubber


hmmmIf I have tech parity and someone tries to high offense me, they are going to lose a LOT of minerals in dead rovers. Why? Offensive defense. What is that? Its the idea that anyone coming for you has to bring their units into the open first so it is the vigilent defender NOT the offensive player that gets a first strike....

Sorry, I was probably not being clear. Though I referred to "strategic, rather than tactical thought process", when I was speaking of offense, I meant just the opposite oddly enough. Not striking first in the strategic sense, but in the tactical sense.

Your example is precisely what I was getting at. The best defense is your offense. Picking off attackers as they come in means you are strategically on the defense, but still tactically on the offense. But I like the idea of the city siege. Razing the land around it to weaken its defense. I like the idea of having to commit a large varied force to break down a determined defense. Instead the most efficient SMAC tactic is simply to throw hordes of cheap nerve gas choppers then drop in infantry to capture the city.

I understand high defense might not be viable in MP since this would cause games to drag on longer than they already do.

[CEO Aaron]

There are two unfortunate side effects of playing exclusively defense:

1) Attrition plays into the hands of your enemy.

Simply put, you're fighting on your home turf, and even if you win every battle, you're still losing resources by having workers displaced off occupied tiles, to say nothing of minerals spent on the upkeep of your defending forces.

2) The loss of an attacking unit is a temporary setback. The loss of a single base is a body blow to your faction's productive capacity.

3) While you can prevent defeat by means of an effective defense, you can't attain victory that way. Unlike real life, where your combat casualties must be balanced against the growth of your population, the loss of a front-line combat unit, if anything, increases your capacity to produce more, by freeing up support. In real war, the cost of front-line military hardware is expensive enough, but even more expensive is the recruitment and training of the personnel who operate it, so say nothing of the costs of treatment of combat casualties.

But I digress. The bottom line is that the game mechanics behind SMAX combat encourage attack far over defense, at least before taking Society Effects into account.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
There are two unfortunate side effects of playing exclusively defense:

I never advocate exclusively defence. I do advocate that defense be very active and kill stuff on its way in.

Originally posted by CEO Aaron


1) Attrition plays into the hands of your enemy.

Simply put, you're fighting on your home turf, and even if you win every battle, you're still losing resources by having workers displaced off occupied tiles, to say nothing of minerals spent on the upkeep of your defending forces.

Yes and no-- If an enemy can ping your cralwers at will, you are very likely lost. BUT if you can manage to have the bulk of your crawlers within a ring of bases with defenses out 8-10 tiles beyond that, most of your crawers are very tough to get at.

Infrastructure is important and if it can be hit hard you are likely lost. But if wee are talking unit attrition and support-- Defenders have the advantage of shorter supply lines and quicker easier repair. The defender with tech parity should be able to easily manhandle equal type forces coming at him.

Although winning every battle is unrealistic.... I do find a prepared defender can win a heck of a lot of them such that attackers are losing minerals at a rate of about 3 to every one the defender loses in units.

Originally posted by CEO Aaron

2) The loss of an attacking unit is a temporary setback.

I disagree. As an attacker you should EXPECT to lose units when attacking anyone with tech parity. Attackers have to be expendable. If you are not willing to accept the loss of ANY unit you leave in the open at the front at the end of a turn, you are bound for disappointment

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
The loss of a single base is a body blow to your faction's productive capacity.

Perhaps-- It depends on the base. I generally hate for an opponent to capture a frontier base, not because of its production, but instead because it provides a jumping off point and safe haven for the opponent's forces. If any base in your top 50% of productive bases is capable of capture without first working through patrols and/or capturing at least one frontier base, you don't meet what I consider a prepared defender to be

Originally posted by CEO Aaron


3) While you can prevent defeat by means of an effective defense, you can't attain victory that way.

I disagree and have a number of MP victories where I won with effective defense ( although you do win more often by getting tech superiority and going on the offense)

Basically in games where I won with defense I had a strong empire on a larger sized map such that my core bases were 12-16 tiles deep within my empire and even then I had frontier bases that were were well defended . .. and outward of them was a few radar trawlers and ships. Starts at a pole are particularly good for this approach

Bottom line was that any attack had to get through about two rings of fairly strong bases to get at my core.

This may sound different but then again I am one of the few people on here that have ever talked about situations where I build productive bases versus "military outposts".

Obviously there are many situations where this cannot work well but I have played many many maps where by limiting how close an opponent can get to the bases that matter, you limit or eliminate the profit they could forsee from a potential attack

[livid imp]

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
....Unlike real life, where your combat casualties must be balanced against the growth of your population....

This is a big complaint of mine with 4X games. Your population should have more to do with the amount of ground troops you can muster, and less to do with your economy. Saudi Arabia has a massive economy as compared to their population levels. Verses China's comparively small economy in relation to their population.

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
But I digress. The bottom line is that the game mechanics behind SMAX combat encourage attack far over defense, at least before taking Society Effects into account.

Yes, my point was that I prefer defensive games, but I agree that in SMAC being on the defense is not a wise place to put yourself. Though in a game like Age of Kings, an excellent defense is often worth your while. Unfortunately I really don't like RTS's anywhere near as much as I like TBS's.