ACDG5: Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?

[Mart]

Queue manipulation?
Sometimes it is difficult to draw a definitive boundary.
Like skunkworks lifts/removes (?) retool penalties...
Now, is it exploit that should be prohibited? AI does strange things to queue too. what is abuse and what is just smart engineering... we may have to consider cases separately as they appear. Depends on how players feel.

[Illuminatus]

Do you want this thread deleted or split?

[vyeh]

NOTE: The preceding post by Illuminatus was originally in the New Units thread, and moved here to clean up that thread.

Mart,

Why do the Unity Supply Droids have the Slow Special Ability? What does Slow do to infantry chassis?

Originally posted by Mart
That particular set of rules was created by many players during several years, I think. We are just reusing this rules. I don't think I can take credit for them.

I was interested in finding the thread that the quote was taken from.

Originally posted by Mart
what is abuse and what is just smart engineering... we may have to consider cases separately as they appear.

Rule (16) (forbidding bugs usually prohibited in MP games) says please ask if not sure bug is prohibited.

Could we sharpen rules (4) (no playing alternative moves in the game saves) and (5) (no playing beyond current turn in the game saves)? I'd rather see rule which says, "No using game saves to discover nature of unexplored terrain." I don't have a problem with them using the game as a simulator to see how long it would take to build a road along Route A versus how long it would take to build a road along Route B or seeing if after Tech A is discovered, Tech B is an available choice. I do understand the rules if certain events are triggered by moving onto a particular square or in a particular year.

Could we take out "other loopholes" in Rule (14) (Do not use build queue manipulation or other loopholes to hurry production at a cost that would be lower than directly hurrying the item that one intends to build)? Unless you are trying to prevent upgrading crawlers and then using the upgraded crawlers for SP, I think this rule would prohibit changing SE, taking the 40 ec change in SE hit so that the cost of completing Tree Farms at several bases is cheaper and then changing SE back the NEXT turn. I would consider that smart SE management.

Could we take out "other loopholes" in Rule (15) (Do not use build queue manipulation or other loopholes to build something you could not directly add to the build queue)? I think it is unnecessary.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Illuminatus
Do you want this thread deleted or split?

I think Tim accidentally started a thread when he wanted to make a new post in another thread.

I was planning to put out information on the crawlers, so I posted the info.

Can you relabel the thread "ACDG5: New Units" and delete Tim's two posts?

And, if you are able to relabel threads, could you put "ACDG5:" in front of the "Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?" so it reads "ACDG5: Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?"

Does "split" mean create two threads?

While we are on the subject of thread housecleaning, can you move Mead's posts in The Wardroom and the Turn Posting Thread to the ACDG5 organization thread?

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by vyeh
Can you relabel the thread "ACDG5: New Units" and delete Tim's two posts?

Yes.

And, if you are able to relabel threads, could you put "ACDG5:" in front of the "Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?" so it reads "ACDG5: Demogame, anyone (especially newbies)?"

Okay.

Does "split" mean create two threads?

Yes. (wow, am I eloquent today).

While we are on the subject of thread housecleaning, can you move Mead's posts in The Wardroom and the Turn Posting Thread to the ACDG5 organization thread?

That might be tricky as post position in thread is determined by the post number identity. In other words, you shall see how it will turn out.

[vyeh]

It looks like post number identity is determined by the time of creation; his posts ended up in their chronological position, which is what I wanted.

Can you put this post and the three posts before it into the organization thread?

Thanks!

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by vyeh
It looks like post number identity is determined by the time of creation;

Well d'oh.

Another threadsplicery/mergery.

[vyeh]

Thank you!

Updated index (including the thread organization post) and added explanatory material at the beginning of the new units thread.

[Mart]

Originally posted by vyeh
Why do the Unity Supply Droids have the Slow Special Ability? What does Slow do to infantry chassis?

Slow does nothing, since infantry after taking -1 move gets 1 move again. It is there to make this unit unique.
It was initially created for smax, and having 2 "inert" abilities was crucial in smax, as I tested. In smac it seems it is not necessarily needed, I would need to confirm it.

I was interested in finding the thread that the quote was taken from.

The original would be many years ago, before 2004 I think. There are many rule variations often people reword them and correct.
The actual sometime the end of 2007, I would need to find it.

Rule (16) (forbidding bugs usually prohibited in MP games) says please ask if not sure bug is prohibited.

I have to think about. We would not want to change the game into days of legal disputes.

Could we sharpen rules (4) (no playing alternative moves in the game saves) and (5) (no playing beyond current turn in the game saves)? I'd rather see rule which says, "No using game saves to discover nature of unexplored terrain."

Apart from unexplored terrain, the issue is with game events, imagine during such "simulation" an AI faction stumbles on one of your scouts for example in 2 turns, while in actual game you may not have a contact for another 10-15 turns. This already gives advantage of knowledge where the AI is. also before contact you get messages about Secret Projects being started, by factions you have no contact yet.
Maybe more such situations might be found. I would have a definitive rule - no "simulations" or any other playing with real game save.

I don't have a problem with them using the game as a simulator to see how long it would take to build a road along Route A versus how long it would take to build a road along Route B or seeing if after Tech A is discovered, Tech B is an available choice. I do understand the rules if certain events are triggered by moving onto a particular square or in a particular year.

Players can build their own simulator from scratch This is important.

I can make available excel spreadsheet for tech prediction. I think this tool should be used - was in ACDG3.

Could we take out "other loopholes" in Rule (14) (Do not use build queue manipulation or other loopholes to hurry production at a cost that would be lower than directly hurrying the item that one intends to build)? Unless you are trying to prevent upgrading crawlers and then using the upgraded crawlers for SP, I think this rule would prohibit changing SE, taking the 40 ec change in SE hit so that the cost of completing Tree Farms at several bases is cheaper and then changing SE back the NEXT turn. I would consider that smart SE management.

Over here, I would consider it ok, but for the price of 80 EC. Because you actually switch SE and do actions between. There is usually a rule for no "quickie" SE switchies.
By smart engineering, I thought about using skunkworks for no-penalty switching. skunkworks have resourceful engineers - that's the nature of a skunkwork, but I think you can push it a bit more than developers intended - and this I think would be smart engineering. I haven't checked that yet though

But if players want to have quickies...

Could we take out "other loopholes" in Rule (15) (Do not use build queue manipulation or other loopholes to build something you could not directly add to the build queue)? I think it is unnecessary.

Yes, I'm not sure about it too.

Some of this rules I got from Mmontgomery, I remember.

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Mart
I have to think about. We would not want to change the game into days of legal disputes.

I think it is better that they ask you if there is any doubt. You give a quick decision, which is FINAL. It is preferable to someone doing a borderline action which destroys the game for everybody.

Originally posted by Mart
Apart from unexplored terrain, the issue is with game events, imagine during such "simulation" an AI faction stumbles on one of your scouts for example in 2 turns, while in actual game you may not have a contact for another 10-15 turns. This already gives advantage of knowledge where the AI is. also before contact you get messages about Secret Projects being started, by factions you have no contact yet.
Maybe more such situations might be found. I would have a definitive rule - no "simulations" or any other playing with real game save.

I hadn't thought of that. You're right.

Originally posted by Mart
I can make available excel spreadsheet for tech prediction. I think this tool should be used - was in ACDG3.

They need to know the turn order of the Unity Command Faction, e.g. did you set it up

AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
Unity Command

or is it

Unity Command
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI

Does the fact that our faction bar appear on the right mean it was the former arrangement?

Originally posted by Mart
Over here, I would consider it ok, but for the price of 80 EC. Because you actually switch SE and do actions between. There is usually a rule for no "quickie" SE switchies.

That's right, 40 for switching one turn and 40 for switching back the next turn.

We have the rule against SE A-SE B-SE A within the same turn.

Then upgrading crawlers and then cashing in for SP is OK?

Even using crawlers normally can be a game breaker. If I remember the requirements for fresh water, it has to be enclosed (if you open it up to the sea, you lose the fresh water). Being enclosed means a fresh water body is more easily defended against attack. So it looks like conditions are right for a trawler energy park (what do you call those?).

Originally posted by Mart
By smart engineering, I thought about using skunkworks for no-penalty switching. skunkworks have resourceful engineers - that's the nature of a skunkwork, but I think you can push it a bit more than developers intended - and this I think would be smart engineering. I haven't checked that yet though

I think it has to be an undocumented feature rather than a bug. You do pay a maintenance cost of 1 ec. Since each weapon, armor, chassis has to be prototyped at most only once (if you prototype 6-1-1, 1-2-1 and 1-1-2, you don't have to prototype 6-2-2, 5-2-2, or 4-2-2), you could devote a base or a couple of bases to prototyping and skunkworks would be useless elsewhere unless there was another benefit. While no-penalty switching is nice, its not a game breaker like crawlers. If you're careful about planning ahead, the only circumstances where you would benefit from no-penalty switching against an AI is an unanticipated action by another faction or a new technology makes additional units, facilities or SP's available. Against a human player who has infiltrated you, it would allow you to disguise your intentions. The fact that you can turn the penalty off in the alphax.txt suggests that the developers had thought of having no-penalty switching. Anyway, the reduction of the 50% prototype cost and the reduction of the 50% cost (above 10 mins) for switching seems similar and comparable enough and fit the concept of skunk works that I think it was intended and the team writing the manual overlooked it.

Originally posted by Mart
Yes, I'm not sure about it too.

Then I'll drop "other loopholes" in Rules (14) and (15). Part of the reason I'm being methodical is that I hope we can re-establish the AC demogames.

I notices in the MP forum that there are several game you created that died. I've already had the experience of people expressing an interest and dropping out. This could be a nice bridge for some players to learn and then be ready to play MP with competent players. Also if someone has been diligent in the demo game, veteran players can have more confidence that person won't drop out.

If there are future demo games, I'm hoping to have a structure that can be quickly replicated.

[Mart]

Originally posted by vyeh


I think it is better that they ask you if there is any doubt. You give a quick decision, which is FINAL. It is preferable to someone doing a borderline action which destroys the game for everybody.

Sounds good.

AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
Unity Command

this way

Then upgrading crawlers and then cashing in for SP is OK?

this was allowed in ACDG2, but I may be wrong. We can allow this.

Even using crawlers normally can be a game breaker.

I know many dislike it, but for me SMAC is crawlers. without it smac is not smac. it makes single tiles left out from base cross still useful economically. adds to strategy and it's quite futuristic.

If I remember the requirements for fresh water, it has to be enclosed (if you open it up to the sea, you lose the fresh water). Being enclosed means a fresh water body is more easily defended against attack. So it looks like conditions are right for a trawler energy park (what do you call those?).

Yes, especially when fusion power is available. But on the other hand, I would do pop boom and have coastal bases. Imagine a rocky tile mine 0-4-0, ideal for crawler when you cannot have borehole there. Borehole is good for worker though 0-6-6, cause crawler wastes half the bonus, maybe only good for crawling when one restriction remains.
On fresh sea then you have 4-0-3 with tidal harness, similar situation. worker gets all!

I think it has to be an undocumented feature rather than a bug. ...

yes, that's true, missed in manual. But I may be wrong about exploiting it, there may be a safety for this. I will need to check.

...

I notices in the MP forum that there are several game you created that died. ...

It's normal. Often players feel need for a game, and later RL does not allow for months of involvement. just life.

I will be compiling rules, I started a thread for that.

[vyeh]

Mart,

I will conform the rules post to your compilation.

Could you add something like this at the beginning of your thread (feel free to revise)? (I like to have a link to the index. Hit the quote button to get code.)

This rules thread is part of the Alpha Centauri Democracy Game 5 ("ACDG5"). Anyone may post questions and comments about the rules in this thread.

[vyeh]

The Governors' Association is meeting.

There is a post on Unity Former Droids.

[vyeh]

Congratulations to Tim, Bodissey and dacole. The first turn is almost over.

Mart has established the Unity Cantina. This follows the tradition of the Rec Room Commons in ACDG3.

I PM'd Illuminatus and asked him to remove this post by Tim

Originally posted by timsup2nothin
Screenshot please.

EDIT: Thanks

It would be OK if he reassigned it to this thread.

I'd like to keep the Turn Posting Thread neat and avoid precedent of everybody asking questions about what is happening in that thread.

[vyeh]

Posted some notices in other forums.

(1) Invited veteran SMAC players to drop by and offer advice

(2) Posted new notice on Civgaming (hey, if I can get one more player ...)

(3) Updated notice at CFC