LKendter plays SMAC again

[haphazard1]

That transport foil is "very green" -- and I thought my troops were bad! Morale penalty for Morgan? Or is this from a social engineering choice?

I am curious about the Spartan base dots on the mini-map. They seem much more spread out/widely spaced than the other factions, especially the Believers. Is there a faction reason for this? Or just random chance/lay of the land driving the results?

[T-hawk]

Lal has to be in Free Market suffering from pacifism drones, from exploring boats.  In fact I think that's the only way a size-3 AI base can riot. The AI is absolutely terrible at handling pacifism drones (in fact avoiding that trap is what makes Gaia and Hive good AIs.)

You can see what SE policies a faction is running, even without infiltration, right click in the comm menu to view the faction profile.

I bet Sparta's land is mostly arid. It's on the east side of that continent on the leeward side of some mountains. The AI builds bases farther apart in dry land (and closer in wet, particularly jungle); they want to get a certain amount of food within the base radius.

I want Industrial Automation for the supply crawlers and Wealth, not the hab complexes. Building hab complexes except for a big-science HQ is generally a mistake; it's 80 minerals that does nothing productive; if you want to spend 80 minerals towards more population, build a colony pod and two formers.

And really, Morgan is the mistake. He really is a weak faction in terms of power level. Except for the Wealth+Green trick, every other possible SE configuration results in Morgan's faction power making no more than a maximum difference of 2 energy per base. 2 energy buys 1 mineral... which is exactly what Morgan also loses with his support penalty. Despite the promises of riches, Morgan really gains nothing except his starting cash over a blank faction, and all of that is before we even get to the hab limitation. Playing Morgan is perhaps the biggest newbie trap in the game, to be honest.

[LKendter]

Would people rather see a restart with a more interesting game, or this one to the bitter end?
My gut says this one is lost because I let the Deidre expand to far, and steal that great jungle area among a ton of other mistakes. I rushed into this one to fast inspired by the other SMAC thread without playing a game to refresh my knowledge.

[LKendter]

A war with Zarharvov starts in 2250.

I continue to find more things I forgot about the game.  Amphibious mind worms via the sea worm transports.  

A war with the Hive starts in 2261.

I am to use to the Civ 4 model where buildings cost nothing.  I need to go back to the Civ 3 where every building needs to be looked at to justify the cost.  Some are easy such as recycling tanks, since they cost nothing.  A lot of the other ones only make sense later in the game when a city gets large.  

I test probe teams, and get screwed the first attempt to steal a tech from Deidre.  She declares vendetta in 2267.  This war sets me further back.  I lost multiple formers to air units that I have no defense against.  Probes teams destroyed buildings in one city.  I lost a brand new city.  The game is only temporarily saved when Deidre backs of in 2271 for a tech.  My only guess is there are so tied up with their hatred for the Hive, that I am a distraction.  The war still hurt a lot, as I am now further behind.  This game is suffering from lack of classic Civilization steamroller.  It took to many turns to recall stuff, and at the point I fell behind in expansion.  I was thinking Civ4 tall, not Civ3 wide.  With the Hive war, my attempt to go further onto more islands is dead.

   

   

   

[TheHumanHydra]

I'd say start a new one if you'd enjoy it more!

[haphazard1]

It is tricky getting back to the earlier Civ mindset with things like buildings costing maintenance rather than bases, and units costing production support. I have played with too much of a Civ 4 mindset, I think, but have not had as much trouble with an AI faction getting really strong. Mostly just luck, as I have made a lot of mistakes that I can already see now that I have played a portion of a game.

I would start a fresh game, now that you have remembered more of how SMAC works. This is supposed to be fun, after all. And maybe turn off those crazy pods.

[Mardoc]

if you'd enjoy it more!

That's my vote. Do what makes you have the most fun. That's what translates into fun reports to read, when the player is enjoying things.

[Dark Savant]

Lal has to be in Free Market suffering from pacifism drones, from exploring boats.  In fact I think that's the only way a size-3 AI base can riot.  The AI is absolutely terrible at handling pacifism drones (in fact avoiding that trap is what makes Gaia and Hive good AIs.)

I'm sure you know this, but that's also why AI Morgan is especially terrible, even on top on how subpar his faction is to begin with.  

The AI handled the closest equivalent in Civ 1, Democracy, by never ever revolting to it.  (If you think the AI does ... you probably read that bogus Reddit post about Civ 1.)

The AI does revolt to Democracy in Civ 2, and handles the unhappiness passably well; it places a very high priority on building Police Stations.

And it has no trouble handling the maintenance cost of Police Stations, because the Civ 1/2 AIs pay no building maintenance.  The SMAC AI can seem bad in comparison because it doesn't get such blatant cheats.

[Bobchillingworth]

Do whatever you'd enjoy most, but I'd be interested in seeing one of these games played out to the bitter end; there's a certain fascination in seeing how the AI actually wins one of these games.

[Fluffball]

Do whatever you'd enjoy most, but I'd be interested in seeing one of these games played out to the bitter end; there's a certain fascination in seeing how the AI actually wins one of these games.

It's almost always just being over run by hundreds of bizarrely random units. If the SMAC AI can do anything right, it's dramatically over build a crap military of 2-5-1 infantry and artillery.