tavdy79

Members
  • Content count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About tavdy79

  • Rank
    Settler
  • Birthday 05/10/1979

Converted

  • Location
    Celini, Centauri Prime
  1. No, free markets reward the cheapest producers. But just because something is cheaper doesn't mean it's more efficient. They're closely related, but not identical. As an energy resource, oil is a lot cheaper than wind or solar (except in certain specific situations, like orbital satellites) however it is less resource-efficient because oil is a limited resource that has industrial applications other than power generation or transportation. It is used in the production of both plastics and fertilisers, for example. By contrast, wind and solar energy are only limited in terms of how much is available at any one time. The actual supply of them is virtually limitless compared to the amount we could ever hope to use: you won't ever run out of either. However they're both more expensive to use as an energy source for most purposes, so fossil fuels continue to be used. A green economy redresses that balance by placing a premium on the cost, or restriction on the use, of limited resources. A free-market economy doesn't account for ecological costs, or costs related to certain resources being limited, while a green economy does take these into account.
  2. What if we had both options - with and without the filled-in black?
  3. Another option might be an "engineer" citizen, similar to those in Civ-IV, with a special bonus under a green economy: either -1 pollution per engineer until the base isn't polluting any more, then +1 mineral per additional engineer.
  4. Having free network nodes is a fairly major bonus, and it's from very early on in the game. Impunity to the cybernetic penalty isn't all that major since it only comes into play towards the end of the game and there's a secret project which provides the same bonus. There's a similar issue with the Pirates and the Maritime Control Centre, and with the Hive and the Citizens Defence Force. The University has a better chance of building the Virtual World secret project than any faction other than the Angels. That gives the University a fairly big advantage over its rivals, since with the VW it will have a free hologram theatre with every base, in addition to the free network node, a fairly major saving. The -2 probe can be counteracted with the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm. The Cyborgs' ability to steal a tech when they enter a base is only of any use to them if they are at war and strong enough to conquer their enemy's bases. However they're a pacifist faction and (uniquely) have no major rivalry comparable to those between the University & Believers, or the Gaians & Morganites, so they're far less likely to be in a situation to benefit from that advantage than aggressive factions like the Believers, Cult or Hive. Also, their big research and efficiency bonuses mean they're likely to be way in advance of any other faction, so the likelihood of an opponent having anything of interest goes down pretty quickly as the game progresses.
  5. My old SMAX disc exploded - literally - in the disc drive while I was playing the game about four years ago. I only just got a new copy, and knew that there were issues with SMAX and Windoze versions from XP onwards; my new computer is runing Win 7. So I googled for a solution and found the mods section here to look like it had the least complex advice. I'm looking forward to hearing what people think of CIV V - I won't have a copy until at least Xmas, by which time hopefully I'll have an idea of whether or not it's worth getting. I've put some ideas for a new version of SMAC in the "dreams of a new game" thread. What I put was actually the simplified version :faint:
  6. I did think that was what caused SMAC to be created in the first place: there was a creative difference in the team at EA, and a group left to found Firaxis but couldn't release any further games under the CIV trademark, which was still owned by EA, so wrote their next game as SMAC instead. So far as I know, Firaxis owns all the rights to SMAC. Is there any reason not to have multiple planets in a single game? It was poorly done in Test Of Time admittedly (well, I think so!) but that's no reason not to try it again - and do it better. For example game length has always been dependent upon the amount of space that's available, and since it was always (with the exception of TOT) on a single planet, that meant gameplay was directly linked to width-x-height. I'd suggest that there should be a single value - total number of hexes - that's divided randomly between a random or player-settable number of planets. This could result in a large number of small planets, a small number of massive planets, or a mixture of large and small planets. The maximum number of planets a player can choose could increase in line with the number of hexes, so a short game might have only one to three worlds, while a large game might have twelve or more. There's the option of double planets, similar to the Pluto-Charon system, where the barycentre lies between the two rather than within the larger one. This doubles the number of planets in the "goldilocks zone" by putting two planets in the same orbit. It would also make for an interesting plot-line since double planets like this would probably be tidally locked (like the moon) or in some kind of orbit-day resonance (like Mercury) giving them "days" that are days or weeks long. Learning to survive in that kind of environment could be a major problem for human colonists. Gas giants would have a similar effect – multiple worlds on a single orbit. Their moons sometimes have atmospheres and may support complex life if they're in the goldilocks zone, so it's possible the starting world could be the moon of a gas giant. Mid- or Late-game techs could allow the construction of various types of starbases. The earliest would be in orbit of terrestrial planets, and would rely on ground bases for their mineral supply but in return would allow factions to build spaceships to big to be built on the ground. Others could be built on small moons, in asteroid belts or the asteroid fields usually found at a planet's L4 and L5 lagrange points, or in the upper atmospheres of gas giants, mining them for valuable gasses like deuterium and helium-3. In all cases, terrain improvements normally built outside a planetary base, like mines, farms and solar collectors, would need to become base facilities – sky farms, solar panels and mining or gas-collector drones. Starbases could be limited in the number of base facilities they can build, with the limit raised by certain techs, location and faction bonuses. The range of basic units would have to change as well. Currently it's three land, three air, two sea, and missiles. I think adding three space units would make sense, with each requiring progressively more advanced techs. The earliest and smallest would be limited to planetary orbit, although a “fuel pods” special ability could increase the range to let it visit other world sharing the same orbit – i.e. other moons (if the initial world is orbiting a gas giant) or the partner-world (if it's a double planet). The next would be mid-range in size and, if set up as a transport, would be able to transport terrestrial units to worlds in the same orbit, with fuel pods allowing it to travel to worlds on neighbouring orbits. The last would be several times bigger, with a larger carrying capacity and a range that would bring it to world on neighbouring orbits, with fuel pods allowing it to travel to any planet within the system. So the number of worlds that can be reached grows progressively through the game. Transport times between planets could vary between one or two turns for closer planets and ten or more for more distant ones, with travel times varying depending upon where planets are in their orbits, and reduced by late-game techs. The missile unit could have an additional payload option, sensors, turning it into an unmanned research craft that can be sent to other planets relatively early on in the game. All this would make the space-race far more important than it is in SMAC, since the factions that get into space first will have a massive long-term advantage over their rivals, even if their rivals are many times more powerful. A relatively small faction that manages to colonise one or both lagrangian points would, so long as they're able to hold onto the bases, be in a far stronger long-term position than a faction many times the size but with only one orbital base. Note that this is all on top of the stuff that's already present in SMAC/X, like the xenofungus, mindworms, etc., not instead of it. The xenofungus need not necessarily be the only “eighth faction” option either – you could have several in a single game, and possibly even two on a single planet, e.g. the xenofungus/mindworms vs. an alien xenoforming probe, like Darsnan's Von Neumann probe, with each operating independently from – and against – the other. Other worlds could have present different challenges: a world with giant non-sapient aliens similar (in scale at least) to dinosaurs; another with an alien culture at an early stage of development – perhaps two or more sapient races developing in symbiosis; others with sulphur, silicon or nitro-phosphorus based ecosystems; and so on.
  7.  

    <p>Welcome to the Playground, tavdy. </p>

    <p> </p>

    <p>Please, pull up an avatar and make yourself comfortable. You can ask for a custom avatar in the SMAC(X) or OTf thread, and there is a large selection available in the Edit Avatar section of your User CP.</p>

    <p> </p>

    <p>If you have questions about anything at all, you can hit View Conversation and send them- I might reply that I don't know, but I'll probably at least know who you should ask.</p>

    <p> </p>

    <p>Hope there are many good strategy gaming discussions in your future.</p>

     

  8. I just voted, and it looks like 48% of voters want a new SMAC - yay! The next most popular are Colonisation (27%) Silent Service (10%) and Railroad Tycoon (3%). The other six are all 1% or lower, and the remaining 7% want entirely new games. So roughly seven times as many voters want a new version of SMAC than an entirely new game. I think that ups the chances of a new version of SMAC quite a lot