ACDG6: Organization

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Nahkrinoth
So it's a completely different map but all factions and options are the same?

The highest numbered map square is (59, 59), so it is clear that it isn't a small map. In forcing the current difficulty level, the factions appeared in the same order as the last game. In addition, the pictures in the datalinks factions are correct.

I did establish a base and count the squares in each nutrient row and mineral row. In both cases, it was 10.

I just checked the custom rules with the scenario editor and the options are correct.

The short answer is yes, it is a completely different map with the following corrections from the first attempt: map size is 30 by 60 custom rather than 32 by 64 small and there are 10 nutrients and 10 minerals per row for +0 growth and +0 industry instead of 9 nutrients and 9 minerals.

Originally posted by Mart
Restart is fine with me.

I figure it would be since you wanted a training game.

Originally posted by Mart
It looks like we get easier starting location.

Only Maniac knows what he discarded in the first two tries ...

I wasn't displeased with the last starting location. Nahkrinoth wanted the AI to have a real chance and in 2105, the Cult was doing very well (in a non scenario generated game, the Cult doesn't even start until 2105).

Because of the easier starting location, there might be some argument for exowomb first, centauri ecology second, but I'll let people change their votes if they're so inclined.

[Maniac]

I think this new game can provide an even more interesting map than the old current one could ever have.

Hmm, that should probably say
I think this new map can provide an even more interesting game than the old current one could ever have.

[vyeh]

Now that we've made contact with the Shadow Ghosts, does anyone wish to be Secretary of State?

It is time to carefully consider our diplomatic moves.

[vyeh]

Hydro,

I've PM'ed Illuminatus and asked him to move your post from the turn posting thread to the discussion thread.

I like to keep the game saves separate from the discussion. I think it makes it easier for a new player to catch up if they are separated.

[vyeh]

Illuminatus moved Hydro's post.

Illuminatus has also published the news item about ACDG6 in the SMAC section. The headline "ACDG6: Genesis Project Lands on Chiron" will also appear at the top of the AC forums until there are three more news items.

I put notices in the CGN (which is pretty slow) and CFC. If anyone can think of another place to publicize this demo game, let me know.

As Mart stated when he joined this game, he is completing a project at work.

I expect other people may be busy with the holidays.

I hope that between Hydro, myself and anyone else who has a bit of time, we can decide on the next tech to research, the next items for our bases to build, and the next square for our former to plant a forest.

I'd like to keep up some momentum for the game and have the game at an interesting point at the beginning of the New Year.

We're now at MY 2105, the same year we abandoned the first game. In this game:

(1) we have 5 techs (vs. 1 tech in the old game);
(2) a bonus nutrient (vs. 1);
(3) 2 bases (vs. 1);
(4) contact with 1 faction (vs. none);
(5) a former (vs. none); and
(6) both bases on river squares (vs. one about to be established).

At this point, there is an important choice about the next tech to research (at MY 2105, we can switch tech without any penalty because we have no accumulated labs). Within the next 4 or 5 turns, there is also an opportunity to switch production at our bases without penalty.

Once we make those decisions, there may be turns in which all we do is watch labs and minerals accumulate. I propose rushing through those turns.

Some observations for Maniac:
(1) For some reason, there was no retooling penalty when we switched from recycling tanks to formers, even though there was 14 minerals accumulated.
(2) The tech requirement for solar collectors does change terraforming strategy. It makes forests more important for energy
(3) The increased time to remove fungus will make development a little slower.
(4) At this stage, the -1 support hit has more impact than the -1 economy hit (between the first game and this game, I noticed that the -1 energy penalty on the HQ base didn't take effect until the second base was established).
(5) With the discovery of the exowomb (which can be researched immediately because Genesis has biogenetics at the beginning), our growth goes to +2 and our efficiency goes to +2. In my opinion, this more than makes up for the -1 support.
(6) With exowomb, we can compare Genesis to the PK's. The difference: PK's have an extra talent for every 4 citizens, - 1 efficiency, double votes and may not use police state; Genesis has free hatchery with exowomb, - 1 economy, and -1 support. With the free hatchery, Genesis has -1 economy, -1 support, +2 efficiency, + 2 growth. While the extra talent, double votes, ability to get to +2 economy a little easier and extra support free unit are all positives, I think the efficiency and growth boni for Genesis makes it a more desirable faction.

I welcome suggestions.

[Mart]

Still, B-line to crawlers can give us faster secret project building. I would do that.

Secret projects, start building maybe after we have several bases and while some make crawlers, other would continue colony pods, formers and scouts.

[vyeh]

Take a look at this:


The Atlanteans have the lowest power bar; yet they are leading overall!

I know you shouldn't trust the power graph, but shouldn't it be consistent?

Merry Christmas!

[vyeh]

Originally posted by Mart in operations
Wow, 7 years compressed in such short real time.

I would suggest steady pace for this game. There must be time for players to discuss, it is democracy game. By playing so fast we skip a lot of issues that would make playing the game a good experience. By rushing turns some players may loose grasp of what's happening.

I would suggest max 5 turns a week, Monday-Friday, and even less during holidays, unless majority of players can be online.

Steady pace is also good, when some people cannot be around for some time, then they can know in advance what they will miss. It gives sense of of the game world to be more "real" having its own speed of time.
Even when there is not much to discuss for certain amount of turns, it is great opportunity to concentrate on long term plans or maybe revise the existing ones, talk about diplomacy to other factions etc.

I know we discuss third base for like 5 turns in advance, but there is so much more in the game.

Sorry, if I'm the only one player feeling that way.
What do you think about it?

This discussion belongs here.

Partly, I was trying to make up for the time lost in the restart. Partly, there wasn't much going on. I was trying to get the game to the point where it was interesting.

At this point, I have no problem with one turn per day, except for weekends and holidays.

Now that 14 turns have passed, is there anyone who wants to be:

(1) turnplayer;
(2) faction leader (figure out the will of the majority); or
(3) direct a subset of the game (tech, diplomacy, exploration, etc.)?

[vyeh]

If you're having problems logging on, go to main page

I had problems logging on to the upgraded forums using the login box at the top right hand corner.

In the forums upgraded thread in the Site Feedback & News forum, I read that you can login if you go to the main page.

That worked.

[vyeh]

Nahkrinoth wanted the AI to have a real shot at winning. We have a vendetta with the Templars and the Ghosts have just invaded our territory. He should be happy.

[vyeh]

This is an idle thought that is connected with Mart's thread "10 years of SMAC," but among the three of us (Hydro, Maniac and me), do you think this would be worth a short column (similar to Maniac's columns on morale, hurrying).

I'm thinking about about looking at 20 year increments of mission year and running 10 trials at each of those points.

[GooglyBoogly]

10 trials will not be enough to get within a 10% uncertainty of the odds, it would be nice to have at least 5% uncertainty. I woiuld suggest trials in 5 year increments up to 2150, then every 50 years since there is likely to be a larger discrepancy in the first few years.

I would also suggest at least 30 trials (to achieve the 5% uncertainty) , with 50 being a good number, and 80+ being ideal.

Its been awhile since I have done any statistics work, so my knowledge of the theory of statistics is a bit rusty, feel free to use the proper formuas - and we should be aiming for a 95% certainty of +/- 5% uncertainty in the results

[vyeh]

At Mart's request, I have created a new intelligence thread to discuss diplomatic and probe strategy.

[vyeh]

Hydro,

I tried to send you a PM, but your mailbox is full. I figured you might look at this thread.

This is the PM:

"I'm starting a new thread.

I was hoping you might be interested in collaborating on the words that the new faction uses (since you have an extensive AC writing background)."