Best way to protect against planet buster?
Dreifels
what's the best way to protect against planet buster as long as you don't
have orbital defense?
Best, Dreifels
Martin Schmidt
Dreifels <Drei...@gmx.de> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
93v2pt$bms1s$1...@ID-3025.news.dfncis.de...
Destroy your enemies by time :-)
Martin
Winston L. Sorfleet
There's Fleschette Defence - but it's damned expensive, and only has a
25% chance of stopping the attack. You could ring the important base
with small bases also with the FD, boosting the chances of intercept -
but again, that's a lot of minerals for the task.
Best thing to do is keep an eye on the enemy bases, and blast the
crap out of any PB stationed there (destroy all the units there, and
any PB being built will get switched to a garrison).
If you're way ahead, probably you should ruthlessly destroy any base in
range of your key bases. In practice, I often get PB'd; try to have
your *best* SPs out of range, but it's something you have to learn to
put up with :-(.
--
Winston L. Sorfleet romanus.ca!wls
I speak for myself and stand by what I say.
James Kuyper
Diplomacy.
Jon Nunn
> what's the best way to protect against planet buster as long as you
>don't
> have orbital defense?
>
If your in a solo game (only playing against the AI), there's a very
easy tactic to use that takes advantage of the AI's inate stupidity on
this:
In all cities you DON'T want to be nuked, simply move every unit out of
them. One square away will surfice, but DON'T stack any. In some small
remote base you wouldn't mind being nuked, keep a couple of cheap
defenders in.
This works because:
1. The AI never targets units in the open with Planet Busters.
2. The AI never targets undefended bases with Planet Buster.
Warning : This has only been tested by me on the Orignial at Thinker and
one difficulty level below this. This has NOT been tested on SMACX, even
one bit.
I have also not tested to see if placing a unit in an airbase or bunker
would cause the AI to notice it with a PB.
The reason to avoid stacks, is the AI targets with conventional missles
stacks, especally those with at least one native life form.
The following precautions need to be made when following this tactic:
1. Do not allow the AI to get any drop capiable unit within about 15
squares of any of your undefended bases.
2. Be sure to have no base with eco-damage so high that it causes native
life forms to come into existance and attack the base the same turn
without giving you a chance to attack them first.
3. Do not allow the AI to possess Space Evalator.
4. Do not lag so far behind in tech that the AI actually aquires the
tech that expands drop pod range before you build the Oribital Defenses
so you can rest your units in bases again.
--
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Perl
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Kaatunut
> In article <93v2pt$bms1s$1...@ID-3025.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Dreifels" <Drei...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > what's the best way to protect against planet buster as long as you
> >don't
> > have orbital defense?
> >
>
> If your in a solo game (only playing against the AI), there's a very
> easy tactic to use that takes advantage of the AI's inate stupidity on
> this:
Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of AI's
stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time as it is.
-Kaatunut
Jon Nunn
> Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of AI's
> stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time as it
>is.
>
In fact, on the Command Nexus SP video (I think), Sparta advises us to
that one of the keys to victory is "Knowing the enemy". IMHO, that
includes the way they think.
If Firaxis wants to improve the AI to counter this tactic, they can put
out a free patch.
One might as well say in Risk (the version in the early 90s that ran
best in plain DOS) that keeping Math.max(15, neighboring armies + 10) on
the boarder and 1 in the interior and starting in Australia with fixed
exchange sets is a cheat because the AI will never attack your boarder
and instead will always fight other AI.
Kaatunut
> > Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of AI's
> > stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time as it
> >is.
> >
> Nope, no rules are being broken, so it's not cheating.
Cheating is more than breaking the rules. What rules? You make your own
rules. What's fair in your view. And in my view, when my opponent is
crippled due to weak AI, I prefer not to take advantage. That's because the
"features" AI has (like the PB bug mentioned before) aren't exactly
features but unintentional features, which is entirely different thing. The
game wasn't planned, and balance, with "AI won't shoot PBs at unmanned
cities" in mind. It was planned thinking "AI will use PBs as well as
possible, just like everything else". That the coders failed in this is
sad, and that they won't release a patch is even sadder, but I'm going to
issue a sort of patch myself, applied manually, through not taking
advantage.
Suppose this: In MP, there was a buffer overflow bug that allowed you to
dest opponent's units. Would you use it? There is no rule book saying "thou
shalt not dest opponent's units through buffer overflow bugs". Yet you use
sense and realize that it is not planned feature but an accident.
> In fact, on the Command Nexus SP video (I think), Sparta advises us to
> that one of the keys to victory is "Knowing the enemy". IMHO, that
> includes the way they think.
Knowing the enemy refers to IC (In-Character) issues, such as Yang's
treachery, Zakharov's fascination to science, Miriam's obsessive
expansionism, not OOC (Out-Of-Character) issues like bugs.
> If Firaxis wants to improve the AI to counter this tactic, they can put
> out a free patch.
Somehow I think they won't.
> One might as well say in Risk (the version in the early 90s that ran
> best in plain DOS) that keeping Math.max(15, neighboring armies + 10) on
> the boarder and 1 in the interior and starting in Australia with fixed
> exchange sets is a cheat because the AI will never attack your boarder
> and instead will always fight other AI.
If they won't attack because it doesn't make sense, it's IC feature and I
have no problem with it. If attacking in such situation would very
obviously make sense, it's OOC bug and I do have a problem with it. It's
that simple.
Whenever you see a bug and consider whether it's ok for you to abuse it,
compare this bug to something like the imaginary bug I said above. If
there's no necessary distinction, it's not OK.
And to reiterate once more because you're not going to get what I say or
care: Using -intentional features- is cool. Using -bugs- is not. Because
bugs are accidents.
And once more: You said they can put a free patch on. Would you apply it?
If not, then we can end this. If so, then you're being unlogical;
1) Do you consider the game "me against Firaxis"? What you're saying
sounds to me like you're saying that it was Firaxis' mistake that AI
couldn't use PBs properly, and they should fix it. Thus you assume that
it's Firaxis that gets hurt if the bug isn't fixed. But it's not; it's you
who gets hurt, through decreased game balance. If you don't think
disbalancing the game hurts, then you would have nothing against hacking
save files to edit your cities either.
2) If you apply the patch, then presumably it would mean that getting the
bug fixed is a good thing. Thus it would seem that you consider the bug a
bad thing. The bug only has effect if you choose to exploit it; thus, by
exploiting it you choose the worse route. To me the "I will exploit the
bug" and "I will apply the fix" seem contradictory, because if you accept
the second then by doing the first you harm yourself.
Summary: Abusing bugs is equivalent of cheating. You're like my little
brother saying "if you don't let me play NHL 2000 on your computer now,
I'll burn my Pro Hockey magazine!".
P.S. Add something light here to signify I'm not as serious as I sound to
be. I do think everything I wrote above but I don't consider it all that
important, I just, out of principle, (never) want to give up on argument
when I think I'm right. Feel free to ignore and leave me back to my apathy.
-Kaatunut
L31king
range.
Ryan
Andrew R. Gillett
>
> > Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of AI's
> > stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time as it
> >is.
>
> Nope, no rules are being broken, so it's not cheating.
The AI will often agree to swap valuable bases (with secret projects) in
exchange for insignificant bases. I never use this knowledge to my
advantage as it would be a pretty unsatisfying win.
--
Andrew Gillett http://argnet.fatal-design.com/ ICQ: See homepage
US videogame release dates at the brand new:
http://www.release-dates.com/
Geoffrey Tobin
i sometimes get Planet-busted, but usually i can grow fast enough to
research ODPs before anyone else can build a PB. However, that didn't
help me the last time that solar flares blew out all my ODPs. The very
same turn, several of my Projects were vaporised.
The way to deal with PBs is to prevent them. Infiltrate all factions,
keep and eye on their production, and attack any base that's building
one,
either with military units (missiles are good for long distance
bombardments)
or with probe teams. Persist in attacking the offending base until the
AI
switches production.
If a PB slips your notice and actually gets built, then be swift!
If an ally builds a PB, then i hope you either: (1) don't need the
alliance,
or (2) have a very trustworthy ally who won't PB you the instant an
enemy
probe team frames you.
--
Best wishes!
Geoffrey Tobin
Email: g...@ee.latrobe.edu.au
WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
spartan...@my-deja.com
Geoffrey Tobin
...
> The game wasn't planned, and balanced, with "AI won't shoot PBs
> at unmanned cities" in mind. ...
"The game wasn't planned." I could almost agree with that. ;)
Seriously though, it is a widespread yet inexcusable error of
thinking by programmers (and mathematicians) that "zero is
not a natural number". Zero is the most natural, and most
common, of all numbers. It is the starting point for all
constructions.
An unmanned city in Civ2 or SMAC/X, an unpopulated colony in MOO2,
and a Null Set, are all common occurrences. Not being able to bomb
an undefended city in Civ2 and SMAC/X, and not being able to attack
or invade an unpopulated colony in MOO2, are the same mistake, and
<rant>
i'm frankly tired of seeing it repeated.
</rant>
> That the coders failed in this is sad,
Even sadder is their failure to implement _movement of a stack_.
Do they really think that army groups, air fleets and navies
move without coordination?
...
> 2) If you apply the patch, then presumably it would mean that getting the
> bug fixed is a good thing. Thus it would seem that you consider the bug a
> bad thing. The bug only has effect if you choose to exploit it;
...
Bugs that you have to make a special effort to use, yes, but what about
those like the money bug(s) in MOO2? These are virtually impossible to
avoid,
and the AI uses them too, meaning that the financially adept races have
little
or no financial advantage. Perhaps people can think of similar bugs in
SMAC
that permeate and distort gameplay no matter what you do.
Jon Nunn
> Use a cheap wall of defensive units surrounding importaint bases
>
Ah, a more unit-intestive varation of my tactic.
--
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Perl
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Jon Nunn
> And in my view, when my opponent is
> crippled due to weak AI, I prefer not to take advantage. That's
>because the "features" AI has (like the PB bug mentioned before) aren't
>exactly
> features but unintentional features, which is entirely different
>thing.
And how exactly do we find out which features in SMAC are intentional
and which are unintentional?
Myself, because I have no mind-reading capiablity, I assume everything
weird that's still there after 3 patches from the time first noticed to
be intentional.
>The
> game wasn't planned, and balance, with "AI won't shoot PBs at unmanned
> cities" in mind. It was planned thinking "AI will use PBs as well as
> possible, just like everything else".
The fact that the AI doesn't just PB the unit next door to the
undefended city after more than three bug patches tells us that it fact
it wasn't planned to use PBs as best as possiable.
The fact that AI seldom follow up a conventional misssle attack that
blows up all defeneders with a drop pod invasion also tells us that AI
does not use missles and drop pods as well as possible either.
> Suppose this: In MP, there was a buffer overflow bug that allowed you
>to dest opponent's units. Would you use it? There is no rule book
>saying "thou shalt not dest opponent's units through buffer overflow
>bugs". Yet you use sense and realize that it is not planned feature but
>an accident.
>
I wonder if such a bug actually exists or once existed in MP?
Anyway, I'd be unlikely to find out about overflow bugs before
experencing it. Since this is MP, we can also assume that if one human
expliots it, the other can exploit it right back.
> > In fact, on the Command Nexus SP video (I think), Sparta advises us
> >to
> > that one of the keys to victory is "Knowing the enemy". IMHO, that
> > includes the way they think.
>
> Knowing the enemy refers to IC (In-Character) issues, such as Yang's
> treachery, Zakharov's fascination to science, Miriam's obsessive
> expansionism, not OOC (Out-Of-Character) issues like bugs.
>
If in MP, I noticed that a certain human player never PBed empty bases
nor indivual units, I'd use the same tactic of abandoing the core bases
as a stopgap messure until I could take out the Planet Buster just as I
use it against AI.
> > One might as well say in Risk (the version in the early 90s that ran
> > best in plain DOS) that keeping Math.max(15, neighboring armies +
> >10) on
> > the boarder and 1 in the interior and starting in Australia with
> >fixed
> > exchange sets is a cheat because the AI will never attack your
> >boarder
> > and instead will always fight other AI.
>
> If they won't attack because it doesn't make sense, it's IC feature
>and I
> have no problem with it. If attacking in such situation would very
> obviously make sense, it's OOC bug and I do have a problem with it.
>It's that simple.
>
Basically this same tactic works against humans who are rugged
indivdualists or parodoid about all other players or else only think
about what is best for the next move or two.
At the time of placing armies, there is always an attack someone can
make that has a much better chance of success.
In the long run though, if you are next door to an unstopable wall that
yeilds the defender bonuses, you are guarrentied to lose and only have
two good choices, concentrate on breaking the wall or else relocate to
another section of the map and form a secure area there.
In the case of the defender having Australia in clasic Risk, the only
other secure areas that are far enough away are South America and North
America, with South America being much easier to hold.
(Austrilia is almost always defended from SE Asia, Europe is too
dificult to hold by itself, Africa is so close that an occasional
raiding party can be sent frequently to deny all players compelte
control.) (What usually happens is the wall defending Australia moves
away from Austrilia, first to China/India, then to Middle
East-Afganishan-China, then to Middle East-Ukraine-Ural-China, and then
to Middle East-Ukriane-Kakinstan, and very quickly thereafter game over,
the world is conquered.)
The Windows version of Risk by Hasbro in 95 or 96 appears to have either
added long range planning to the AI or else increased it's weight in
denying other players entire contientants, because the same tactic
doesn't work as well.
> And to reiterate once more because you're not going to get what I say
>or
> care: Using -intentional features- is cool. Using -bugs- is not.
>Because
> bugs are accidents.
>
And how do we know for a fact that PBs not attacking empty bases nor the
indivudal unit right next to it is in fact a bug rather than
intentional?
> And once more: You said they can put a free patch on. Would you apply
>it?
> If not, then we can end this. If so, then you're being unlogical;
>
Yup. If an AI patch were in fact released, I'd treat it just like a
human opponent I was playing who became more knowledgeable while
playing, and find out what new quirks were introduced.
Andrew R. Gillett
> and which are unintentional?
>
> Myself, because I have no mind-reading capiablity, I assume everything
> weird that's still there after 3 patches from the time first noticed to
> be intentional.
After three patches, there are still an awful lot of bugs in SMAC.
Kaatunut
> > And in my view, when my opponent is
> > crippled due to weak AI, I prefer not to take advantage. That's
> >because the "features" AI has (like the PB bug mentioned before) aren't
> >exactly
> > features but unintentional features, which is entirely different
> >thing.
>
> And how exactly do we find out which features in SMAC are intentional
> and which are unintentional?
Sorry, I did not realize we had a disagreement about this. To me it seemed
evident that AI choosing not to take advantage of PB in a way that make
sense seemed like a bug, simply because AI should always, under every
possible condition, play as well as it can. If you truly disagree with me
and think that AI should be crippled, then fine, but to me AI needs every
scrap of intelligence (which this would be) and still not have enough, as
is proven by the fact that even I can beat AI at Transcend occasionally.
But that is not the issue to debate; I won't discuss whether it was
intentional or not, if you think it's intentional then bye.
> Myself, because I have no mind-reading capiablity, I assume everything
> weird that's still there after 3 patches from the time first noticed to
> be intentional.
You overestimate commercial developers. They don't fix bugs. I wasn't here
when version 1.0 of SMAC came out, but I bet there were known bugs at SMAC
1 that are still here. There are still tons of unresolved issues in SMAC,
and I really can't see how they could not have been noticed at the first
version. But, as I said, I wasn't here so I can't say anything firsthand,
only compare to my experiences with other projects I've been observing:
-- They don't fix all bugs --
Thank you.
Also, it is possible that allowing AI to use PBs smartly would be too hard
on player. If that is true, then SMAC has very serious balance issue in the
game engine itself, and this is an *ugly* workaround. But I doubt that; are
MP games really that screwed since they can shoot PBs at unpopulated bases?
No? Then I see no reason why they would intentionally disable AI from
shooting PB to unpopulated cities etc etc.
> >The
> > game wasn't planned, and balance, with "AI won't shoot PBs at unmanned
> > cities" in mind. It was planned thinking "AI will use PBs as well as
> > possible, just like everything else".
>
> The fact that the AI doesn't just PB the unit next door to the
> undefended city after more than three bug patches tells us that it fact
> it wasn't planned to use PBs as best as possiable.
May be. Maybe. As I said above, if this is the case then we have even worse
bug here.
> The fact that AI seldom follow up a conventional misssle attack that
> blows up all defeneders with a drop pod invasion also tells us that AI
> does not use missles and drop pods as well as possible either.
Ditto.
> > Suppose this: In MP, there was a buffer overflow bug that allowed you
> >to dest opponent's units. Would you use it? There is no rule book
> >saying "thou shalt not dest opponent's units through buffer overflow
> >bugs". Yet you use sense and realize that it is not planned feature but
> >an accident.
> >
>
> I wonder if such a bug actually exists or once existed in MP?
I bet there are countless bugs like that. If, besides being an arbitrarily
old teenager with seemingly infinite amounts of time (you do realize the
reference, don't you?), I were a brilliant windows hacker instead of dimwit
slashbot, I doubt it would take long to dig up a couple of overflows that
allowed me to h4x0r everyone playing SMAC multiplayer IP.
> Anyway, I'd be unlikely to find out about overflow bugs before
> experencing it. Since this is MP, we can also assume that if one human
> expliots it, the other can exploit it right back.
It was just an example. Buffer overflow was the first plausible bug that
came into mind, such bug that I anticipated even you would consider to be
an actual bug.
> > > In fact, on the Command Nexus SP video (I think), Sparta advises us
> > >to
> > > that one of the keys to victory is "Knowing the enemy". IMHO, that
> > > includes the way they think.
> >
> > Knowing the enemy refers to IC (In-Character) issues, such as Yang's
> > treachery, Zakharov's fascination to science, Miriam's obsessive
> > expansionism, not OOC (Out-Of-Character) issues like bugs.
> >
>
> If in MP, I noticed that a certain human player never PBed empty bases
> nor indivual units, I'd use the same tactic of abandoing the core bases
> as a stopgap messure until I could take out the Planet Buster just as I
> use it against AI.
If I noticed certain player never PBd bases because of bug in his mind;
that is, because he, for some reason, thought he couldn't, I would inform
him that he can. I tell my little brother to use more probe teams in our MP
games, even though that is harmful to me. Because it's taking an advantage
that doesn't depend on your skills but opponent's stupidity. I want to play
against smart opponents rather than stupid ones, and thus making my
opponents smarter, be they humans or computers, makes sense.
On the other hand, if the player doesn't PB empty bases or individual units
intentionally, knowing that he could but refusing, I hesitate not take
advantage of it. Because it's not a bug. See?
[long rant about Risk and tactics in it]
I don't play Risk. I didn't understand that text at first read and I have
no desire to start guessing to learn, especially since I fail to see the
relevance.
> > And to reiterate once more because you're not going to get what I say
> >or
> > care: Using -intentional features- is cool. Using -bugs- is not.
> >Because
> > bugs are accidents.
> >
>
> And how do we know for a fact that PBs not attacking empty bases nor the
> indivudal unit right next to it is in fact a bug rather than
> intentional?
See first paragraph in post.
> > And once more: You said they can put a free patch on. Would you apply
> >it?
> > If not, then we can end this. If so, then you're being unlogical;
> >
>
> Yup. If an AI patch were in fact released, I'd treat it just like a
> human opponent I was playing who became more knowledgeable while
> playing, and find out what new quirks were introduced.
You could apply a manual patch. Why don't you?
I usually hate analogies, but I think this scales up pretty well as far as
this situation is concerned:
--begin strong analogy--
Stupid/ignorant human player <=> buggy AI.
Player becoming more knowledgeable <=> patch to AI.
--begin weak analogy--
Applying an official patch <=> player learns on his own.
Not taking advantage of unfixed bug (="virtual patch") <=> you tell the
player what's wrong with their game style.
--end analogy--
OK, it wasn't that good after all, but my point remains:
1. Patch fixes AI bug
2. You choose to apply the patch
=> you did not like the bug
: Not taking advantage of the AI bug has the same effect as applying the
patch- the AI bug has no effect on the game
=> since patch and not abusing are analogous, why will you accept one and
not another?
-Kaatunut
hugh_...@my-deja.com
read on this newsgroup that nerve gas can be used with impunity against
aliens if you are playing a human, I've been dominating the guardians
and usurpers in the mid to late game. I just send in a bunch of X
needlejets and choppers and destroy most of their bases. Once they are
crippled, I send in a clean up crew to take the choicest bases which I
have first nerve gassed to size 2 or 3.
I don't consider this a cheat, as it's clearly by design that nerve gas
and (later) genetic warefare probes don't count as atrocities when
targeted against aliens. Ergo, no vendettas from other humans and no
planet reaction. Plus, the aliens are so over-advantaged compared to
the humans that I don't feel too guilty. In fact, it's the only sane
way I can deal with the guardians when we are about even on the tech
tree due to their defense bonus ... let alone when they are ahead.
The effectiveness of this is heightened by the well-documented AI
stupidity of only using missiles to attack a base with needlejets and
choppers. So, I can stack a bunch of nerve choppers in a base
defended by a synthmetal garrison with relative impunity. I guess I
could even this out by not attacking the computer's airfleets while
stationed in a base, but I can't in practice resist sending in a couple
of choppers to wipe out most of their fleet in one turn.
Also, after numerous games played at transcend difficulty, I have yet
to have a nerve gas weapon used against me by any computer opponent, or
a computer probe team use genetic warfare. Perhaps it happens, but
certainly not very often. The only atrocity they ever seem to go for
are PB's, which are so expensive that I have plenty of time to react.
But a fleet of nerve gas needlejets in the hands of the usurpers is
truly a horrific thought and would probably render them unbeatable past
2250 or so, even with all the other AI stupidity left intact.
And frankly, there is no reason that they shouldn't figure this out
after I've gassed half their empire into worm food, but all they seem
to do is get REALLY pissed (for-GET trying to negotiate a truce) and
switch production to planet busters.
In article <3A6516FA...@ee.latrobe.edu.au>,
Geoffrey Tobin wrote:
> ...
>
> Bugs that you have to make a special effort to use, yes, but what
about
> those like the money bug(s) in MOO2? These are virtually impossible
to
> avoid,
> and the AI uses them too, meaning that the financially adept races
have
> little
> or no financial advantage. Perhaps people can think of similar bugs
in
> SMAC
> that permeate and distort gameplay no matter what you do.
>
> --
> Best wishes!
> Geoffrey Tobin
> Email: g...@ee.latrobe.edu.au
> WWW: http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~gt/gt.html
>
Jon Nunn
> > And how exactly do we find out which features in SMAC are
> >intentional
> > and which are unintentional?
> >
> > Myself, because I have no mind-reading capiablity, I assume
> >everything
> > weird that's still there after 3 patches from the time first noticed
> >to
> > be intentional.
>
> After three patches, there are still an awful lot of bugs in SMAC.
>
Anything still in there is the result of their management intentionally
deciding not to change, regardless of the presence or absence of
promisses to fix in the distant future.
Jon Nunn
> You overestimate commercial developers. They don't fix bugs. I wasn't
>here
> when version 1.0 of SMAC came out, but I bet there were known bugs at
>SMAC 1 that are still here. There are still tons of unresolved issues
>in SMAC,
> and I really can't see how they could not have been noticed at the
>first version.
I do expect a lot out of developers realtive to other people, mostly
because I am a developer myself. The difference is that my development
is all internal to the client I'm at instead of being released to the
general public.
When I state weird feature is intentional, I'm including all of the
following:
1. Code the programmer intended to originially that does what he
expected to. (Regradless of if/when it's found to be undesirable by
testers or users.)
2. Code placed that originaly was not in the programmers mind, but after
coming to his intention, he desires not to do anything about it either
before or after locating where in the program it is.
3. Code found that is defeniately not what the programmer wants, and
which the programmer wants to change, but which management tells him to
leave as is "for now" for any reason what so ever, regardless of any
plans to change in the distant future.
Numerous software products are guilty of releasing code to the general
public while a significant portion in is category three.
Category three also occurs a lot in internal programs, where the user
complains and the management of the programmers tell them not to fix it
and do something else.
I acutally think I'm being overly generous allowing them three patches
to get everything right. (Code with outstanding issues should not be
released.)
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> After three patches, there are still an awful lot of bugs in SMAC.
The complication of SMAC's rules exceeds the depth of Firaxis's
analysis.
That is The Problem.
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> After three patches, there are still an awful lot of bugs in SMAC.
The Problem is that the complexity of SMAC's rules exceeds the depth
of Firaxis's analysis. They failed to keep the rules simple and
uniform. In order to let the AI cheat (futilely, and discouragingly
for the customers) it had to work to modified rules, which introduced
duplication of functions, which in turn caused further inconsistencies
and errors.
Firaxis broke three cardinal rules of programming:
(1) Keep It Simple.
(2) Do It Once, Well.
(3) If you break the rules, be sure you understand them first.
Geoffrey Tobin
Such as armored probe teams?
Jon Nunn
> >
> > Use a cheap wall of defensive units surrounding importaint bases
>
> Such as armored probe teams?
>
I imagine he's calling for 1-1-1 *1 scont infantry units, with a cost of
a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
It only works to defend against PB's for the same reason my abandon the
bases does : AI does not use PB's against units in the open even if it's
nextdoor to a base.
--
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Perl
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Jon F. Zeigler
>a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
You probably want to make them Clean, though.
----------
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, amateur historian, science fiction fan,
freelance writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry
JFZe...@aol.com
"Never speak for others. You can get in enough trouble speaking for yourself."
Kevin D. Foster
>
> >I imagine he's calling for 1-1-1 *1 scont infantry units, with a cost of
> >a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
>
> You probably want to make them Clean, though.
Which is why armored probe teams are good, since they are already
clean.
--
-=[ Keeper ]=- ICQ# 8105495
kee...@lycosmail.com kdfo...@home.com
http://members.home.com/keepershaven/
Geoffrey Tobin
>
> I imagine he's calling for 1-1-1 *1 scont infantry units, with a cost of
> a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
Yes, but Maintenance Cost!
Jon Nunn
> > I imagine he's calling for 1-1-1 *1 scont infantry units, with a
> >cost of
> > a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
>
> Yes, but Maintenance Cost!
>
Which, if the base is landlocked would be 8 units, with a maintance cost
between 0 and 16 units for a size 8+ base, depending upon support
rating.
This can also have a pacifism effect of up to 16 newly angred citizens
depending upon Police rating and presence/absence of Telepahic Matrix or
Punishment Sphere.
Since both can be 0 by maxing out Support Rating and keeping Police
rating >= -2 it can be ignored under the assumption that the player
executing such a tactic would make SE choices to compensate.
Of course IMHO, if your going to relay on the AI not firing PB's units
in the open (even those nextdoor to your base with much SP) you might as
well choose the cheapest option to do so. (Abandon the base instead of
surround the base)
Patrick James
carefully monitor their bases. When you see them start building a PB, key
on that base w/ probe attacks and stop the production. Destroying all the
units in said base w/ conventional forces has the same effect, as the AI
will switch production to a defensive unit once the base is emptied.
Jon Nunn
Yet another example of "exploiting" dumb AI behavior I've done.
(Switching producion for something costing mucho minerals that's almost
built to something only costing 20 or 30 units.)
Michael Lorenz
it would be cool to have the option to put a particular job on Hold - For
example: If I was building a PB, and was 3/4ths of the way done, but I
needed to whip out a Garrison unit to help defend against a surprise
attack - I should be able to sort of pause the PB where it is, and start
something else from scratch. I can then throw enough energy at the Garrison
unit so that it gets built in the next turn - then I can switch back to
where i left off on the production of the PB.
"Jon Nunn" <jn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94a2ab$sui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
bert...@my-deja.com
stored production for every turn of waiting, but it sound like a very
good idea, and realistic idea.
For units once passed 75% production should have the option of
launching
a quarter/half strength unit, which could then fully train (using the
repair units rules) itself in the field. This may call for an extra
low value of moral to be invented to show these semi complete units.
This new level of moral could also be used on units that are rushed
built, showing that they have the full complenment of persons and
weapons, but not much in the way of training
In article <oh1a6.54$L899.5...@news.randori.com>,
"Michael Lorenz" <lor...@infosysdg.com> wrote:
> You know . . .this just occured to me -
>
> it would be cool to have the option to put a particular job on Hold -
For
> example: If I was building a PB, and was 3/4ths of the way done, but
I
> needed to whip out a Garrison unit to help defend against a surprise
> attack - I should be able to sort of pause the PB where it is, and
start
> something else from scratch. I can then throw enough energy at the
Garrison
> unit so that it gets built in the next turn - then I can switch back
to
> where i left off on the production of the PB.
>
> "Jon Nunn" <jn...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:94a2ab$sui$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
>
Arak Koba
III.
I hope to see cities being able to build multiple things at once (i.e., a
secret project, a facility, and a unit).
Michael Lorenz <lor...@infosysdg.com> wrote in message
news:oh1a6.54$L899.5...@news.randori.com...
AcK!
<arga...@fatal-design.com> wrote:
>In alt.games.firaxis.alpha-centauri, Jon Nunn wrote:
>>
>> > Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of AI's
>> > stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time as it
>> >is.
>>
>> Nope, no rules are being broken, so it's not cheating.
>
>The AI will often agree to swap valuable bases (with secret projects) in
>exchange for insignificant bases. I never use this knowledge to my
>advantage as it would be a pretty unsatisfying win.
I've only noticed that they do that when the alternative is total annihilation.
Do you mean that I don't have to beat a faction into submission before they'll
make ridiculous trades?
TTYL
... The good news is that the bad news was wrong...
krup...@yahoospa.com
remove "spa" to email
AcK!
>> >I imagine he's calling for 1-1-1 *1 scont infantry units, with a cost of
>> >a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
>>
>> You probably want to make them Clean, though.
>
> Which is why armored probe teams are good, since they are already
>clean.
Definitely. A 0-5-1*2 probe team is fairly cheap: toss in ECM or trance too!
TTYL
... I am free of prejudices. I hate everyone equally.
Kaatunut
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:31:36 -0000, Andrew R. Gillett
> <arga...@fatal-design.com> wrote:
>
> >In alt.games.firaxis.alpha-centauri, Jon Nunn wrote:
> >>
> >> > Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of AI's
> >> > stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time as it
> >> >is.
> >>
> >> Nope, no rules are being broken, so it's not cheating.
> >
> >The AI will often agree to swap valuable bases (with secret projects) in
> >exchange for insignificant bases. I never use this knowledge to my
> >advantage as it would be a pretty unsatisfying win.
>
> I've only noticed that they do that when the alternative is total annihilation.
> Do you mean that I don't have to beat a faction into submission before they'll
> make ridiculous trades?
Yes, he does. Offer them money; the sums they accept are ridiculous. Offer them
trades; even worse. And they have no sense whatsoever about the tactical value of
location. Offer them base with no defenders, about to be overrun by hostile
nation. They'll accept. Ask them for a base that would cut their transportation
lines; they'll do it. They'll deal anything for anything, almost. No submission
required. I used to ban base trade for myself completely, but now I only make
offers that I honestly would accept if I were the computer.
-Kaatunut
Jim Hoffman
I used to do PBEM games of Warlords III.
We play several games over the period of a year, and I lost every one.
I noticed that my opponent had never lost a hero, and almost never lost
a battle. Which surprised me, because from looking at the logs it
seemed like he took the same kinds of chances I did.
I said to him, 'I feel stupid even asking this, but you don't reload
your turn when it goes against you, do you?' He laughed nervously, and
with a sheepish grin he said 'Boy, this is really embarassing but, uh,
yeah, I do usually redo my turn until I'm happy with it.'
I've never played a game against him since.
Is there any way to prevent this kinda stuff?
Has it ever happened to anyone here?
In article <3A64B412...@iki.fi>,
Kaatunut <kaat...@iki.fi> wrote:
> Jon Nunn wrote:
>
> > > Isn't that sort of cheating? I always *avoid* taking advantage of
AI's
> > > stupidity, not strive for it... they're having hard enough time
as it
> > >is.
> > >
> > Nope, no rules are being broken, so it's not cheating.
>
> Cheating is more than breaking the rules. What rules? You make your
own
> rules. What's fair in your view. And in my view, when my opponent is
> crippled due to weak AI, I prefer not to take advantage. That's
because the
> "features" AI has (like the PB bug mentioned before) aren't exactly
> features but unintentional features, which is entirely different
thing. The
> game wasn't planned, and balance, with "AI won't shoot PBs at unmanned
> cities" in mind. It was planned thinking "AI will use PBs as well as
> possible, just like everything else". That the coders failed in this
is
> sad, and that they won't release a patch is even sadder, but I'm
going to
> issue a sort of patch myself, applied manually, through not taking
> advantage.
>
> Suppose this: In MP, there was a buffer overflow bug that allowed you
to
> dest opponent's units. Would you use it? There is no rule book
saying "thou
> shalt not dest opponent's units through buffer overflow bugs". Yet
you use
> sense and realize that it is not planned feature but an accident.
>
> > In fact, on the Command Nexus SP video (I think), Sparta advises us
to
> > that one of the keys to victory is "Knowing the enemy". IMHO, that
> > includes the way they think.
>
> Knowing the enemy refers to IC (In-Character) issues, such as Yang's
> treachery, Zakharov's fascination to science, Miriam's obsessive
> expansionism, not OOC (Out-Of-Character) issues like bugs.
>
> > If Firaxis wants to improve the AI to counter this tactic, they can
put
> > out a free patch.
>
> Somehow I think they won't.
>
> > One might as well say in Risk (the version in the early 90s that ran
> > best in plain DOS) that keeping Math.max(15, neighboring armies +
10) on
> > the boarder and 1 in the interior and starting in Australia with
fixed
> > exchange sets is a cheat because the AI will never attack your
boarder
> > and instead will always fight other AI.
>
> If they won't attack because it doesn't make sense, it's IC feature
and I
> have no problem with it. If attacking in such situation would very
> obviously make sense, it's OOC bug and I do have a problem with it.
It's
> that simple.
>
> Whenever you see a bug and consider whether it's ok for you to abuse
it,
> compare this bug to something like the imaginary bug I said above. If
> there's no necessary distinction, it's not OK.
>
> And to reiterate once more because you're not going to get what I say
or
> care: Using -intentional features- is cool. Using -bugs- is not.
Because
> bugs are accidents.
>
> And once more: You said they can put a free patch on. Would you apply
it?
> If not, then we can end this. If so, then you're being unlogical;
>
> 1) Do you consider the game "me against Firaxis"? What you're saying
> sounds to me like you're saying that it was Firaxis' mistake that AI
> couldn't use PBs properly, and they should fix it. Thus you assume
that
> it's Firaxis that gets hurt if the bug isn't fixed. But it's not;
it's you
> who gets hurt, through decreased game balance. If you don't think
> disbalancing the game hurts, then you would have nothing against
hacking
> save files to edit your cities either.
>
> 2) If you apply the patch, then presumably it would mean that getting
the
> bug fixed is a good thing. Thus it would seem that you consider the
bug a
> bad thing. The bug only has effect if you choose to exploit it; thus,
by
> exploiting it you choose the worse route. To me the "I will exploit
the
> bug" and "I will apply the fix" seem contradictory, because if you
accept
> the second then by doing the first you harm yourself.
>
> Summary: Abusing bugs is equivalent of cheating. You're like my little
> brother saying "if you don't let me play NHL 2000 on your computer
now,
> I'll burn my Pro Hockey magazine!".
>
> P.S. Add something light here to signify I'm not as serious as I
sound to
> be. I do think everything I wrote above but I don't consider it all
that
> important, I just, out of principle, (never) want to give up on
argument
> when I think I'm right. Feel free to ignore and leave me back to my
apathy.
>
> -Kaatunut
Paul Below
<jimhoff...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Is there any way to prevent this kinda stuff?
Not really in a PBM game. There's always some way to hack the file or
save the file and rerun it or something. You just have to trust your
opponent.
I agree with you, I wouldn't play with that guy again, either.
Paul Below
Battle Point Astronomical Association
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
http://bainbridgeisland.org/ritchieobs/
Jonathan Ellis
Paul Below wrote in message <3sbk7t4lql9ggcldd...@4ax.com>...
>On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 22:16:40 GMT, Jim Hoffman
><jimhoff...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Is there any way to prevent this kinda stuff?
>
>Not really in a PBM game. There's always some way to hack the file or
>save the file and rerun it or something. You just have to trust your
>opponent.
>
>I agree with you, I wouldn't play with that guy again, either.
playing with him.
Jonathan.
Jon Nunn
> Speaking of cheating...
> I used to do PBEM games of Warlords III.
> We play several games over the period of a year, and I lost every one.
> I noticed that my opponent had never lost a hero, and almost never
>lost
> a battle. Which surprised me, because from looking at the logs it
> seemed like he took the same kinds of chances I did.
> I said to him, 'I feel stupid even asking this, but you don't reload
> your turn when it goes against you, do you?' He laughed nervously,
>and
> with a sheepish grin he said 'Boy, this is really embarassing but, uh,
> yeah, I do usually redo my turn until I'm happy with it.'
> I've never played a game against him since.
>
> Is there any way to prevent this kinda stuff?
>
Well, SMAC in mulie player reports to the next player when it suspects
people using the save game-reload-cheat.
There is only one sure way I know of to prevent the save-reload-cheat:
Don't allow the game to be saved.
However those living in reliable power areas would hate this year round,
and in most of the Midwest, players would hate this during the Spring
when severe thunderstorms are common.
--
Friends Don't Let Friends Do Perl
Jon Nunn
Programmer Analyst
Jim Hoffman
In article <95e72q$6vv$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Jonathan Ellis" <jona...@franz-liszt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, you could also warn anyone else you know to be
> playing with him.
>
> Jonathan.
>
>
AcK!
wrote:
>with a sheepish grin he said 'Boy, this is really embarassing but, uh,
>yeah, I do usually redo my turn until I'm happy with it.'
>I've never played a game against him since.
>
>Is there any way to prevent this kinda stuff?
>
>Has it ever happened to anyone here?
I'm assuming you're not asking about SMAC PBEM, or are you?
In SMAC all other players are warned if other players saved-and-reloaded their
saved games, and using cheat mode leaves another stain on the saved game file.
As for Warlords, I'm guessing you're out of luck - so just play more SMAC. :)
TTYL
... When the snow melts, where does all the white go?
Roger Broadbent
is no way the PB can get through to the base? You can then stack away on
your base, eliminating the threat of drops?
Of course, a RL player could still kill one of your defensive wall to break
through. I've no idea if the AI could see this approach.
Is it "cheating" or "using unintended flaws in the AI"? Well in one sense
no, because the AI would hit your base if it could get there, and this
tactic has some merit against non-AI players (e.g. your opponent has one PB
and no conventional missiles, and you have a remote base you REALLY need to
protect). In another sense probably yes, because it probably wouldn't use a
conventional missile to break a hole in your shield.
As this game carries Sid Meier's name, perhaps we should apply his doctrine
of "fun" (oe whatever - I haven't checked any references here). Is it "fun"
to win while exploiting this feature? If not, perhaps we should work around
it by modifying our behaviour; if it is still "fun", go ahead and exploit.
In MP games, I would not expect people to do such things, unless something
in the game was severely broken and it could be reasonably agreed to work
around; after all, then one's main objective is to beat the human opponent,
and the AIs are reduced to the status of supporting cast.
Of course, if the AI was perfect, we would all lose, always; I'm sure no-one
on this list has played a game in which they made absolutely no mistakes at
all. I think it's just a question of "how dumb is TOO dumb?" for me.
"to err is human..." :-)
Roger
David Johnston
> > > I imagine he's calling for 1-1-1 *1 scont infantry units, with a
> > >cost of
> > > a mere 10 minerals. (Adjust for actually industry rating.)
> >
> > Yes, but Maintenance Cost!
> >
>
> Which, if the base is landlocked would be 8 units, with a maintance cost
> between 0 and 16 units for a size 8+ base, depending upon support
> rating.
>
> This can also have a pacifism effect of up to 16 newly angred citizens
> depending upon Police rating and presence/absence of Telepahic Matrix or
> Punishment Sphere.
>
> Since both can be 0 by maxing out Support Rating and keeping Police
> rating >= -2 it can be ignored under the assumption that the player
> executing such a tactic would make SE choices to compensate.
>
> Of course IMHO, if your going to relay on the AI not firing PB's units
> in the open (even those nextdoor to your base with much SP) you might as
> well choose the cheapest option to do so. (Abandon the base instead of
> surround the base)
Of course it has the virtue of not inviting drop ins.