Cael
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2017
- Messages
- 22,069
How about a 3-word paragraph, then:I wanted to know how and when the interceptor scrambling happens, not a six-paragraph post saying "don't build interceptors".
Don't build interceptors.
How about a 3-word paragraph, then:I wanted to know how and when the interceptor scrambling happens, not a six-paragraph post saying "don't build interceptors".
I want to know this too, as keeping with the theme is half the fun of SMAC for me. I do funny voices and all while playing. :DWhat about the issue I've read that with Thinker factions will behave "out of character", as a consequence of their acquiring a "competent" AI?
Any truth to this statement?
It depends on which changes you consider significant. For starters, they develop economically much differently than vanilla AI factions. They do have some variation in strategies they implement, so not all AIs will be identical. Note that if social_ai feature is enabled, the AI factions might sometimes pick social engineering choices that differ from their defaults but it doesn't happen that often. It had to be done because otherwise vanilla AIs will cripple themselves with huge cumulative penalties too often. It's a configurable Thinker feature however so if somebody says it's fixed and cannot be changed, that is misinformation.What about the issue I've read that with Thinker factions will behave "out of character", as a consequence of their acquiring a "competent" AI?
Any truth to this statement?
This didnt say shit to me.It depends on which changes you consider significant. For starters, they develop economically much differently than vanilla AI factions. They do have some variation in strategies they implement, so not all AIs will be identical. Note that if social_ai feature is enabled, the AI factions might sometimes pick social engineering choices that differ from their defaults but it doesn't happen that often. It had to be done because otherwise vanilla AIs will cripple themselves with huge cumulative penalties too often. It's a configurable Thinker feature however so if somebody says it's fixed and cannot be changed, that is misinformation.What about the issue I've read that with Thinker factions will behave "out of character", as a consequence of their acquiring a "competent" AI?
Any truth to this statement?
Been a long time, but can't you get them to give you a base in the Diplomacy screen as part of a deal?
I've been playing quite a bit of Thinker and enjoying it.
The only "problem" I have is that conquered &/ pacted AI is really prone to aggressively expanding into "my" territory. They find a little notch where their borders poke into mine and plop down a base there, and then keep on doing that until they cut my land in half and I have to right this with military force.
I do expect this uppity behaviour from every single on of those buggers - but it's very sad, I really like my little conquered factions and hate having to cut them down to size.
About interceptors, they can definitely cause a lot of unintended problems while positioned in bases that come under attack (as we've found out the hard way lol) but I recently came across a post by CEO Aaaron from yesteryear which alerted me to the following:
"Remember that scrambed interceptors fight a needlejet's attack value, but on your turn, they go after the defense"
Checked it and sure enough - holds up. This is pretty yuge since even a gun interceptor can take out unarmoured needlejets provided they're kept somewhere safe for defensive purposes. Might be a good idea to build a couple of airbases and keep interceptors at hand for this purpose, or in late game, to keep a bunch on carriers here and there.
That is true. Scrambled Interceptions fight gun to gun, but on normal turn, they fight weapon-to-armor. Its a bit ridiculous, actually - because armoring Needlejets is too cost prohibitive for anyone ever to do so. Interceptors always fighting attack-to-attack would make far more sense.
I would, but I'm pretty sure I got banned from Codex SMAC PBEMs for some reason - no one invited me for the last ones.
Also I'm really busy lately. Maybe in a few months
Well the largest PBEM I've been in so far has only had 7 players, I think the practical goal would be 8 players. Even if we found 12 it would take forever for turn to cycle and if someone dropped out we'd need to find yet another person to fill in.So you are still very welcome to play in one of those! Though we deffo don't have the people for that 12 man game you wanted, still less with only Codexers...
That would be neat! Been a while since I last played AOW tho, and you guys new exotic mods and whatnot, so I would need some help there in that department.
Hey, every man counts when it comes to the Great 12 man game! Perhaps it demands a thread for itself? The Age of Wonders Twelve Man Grand Game? If we could get your AOWHaven buddies and some codexers, perhaps...
There was a time when I had it installed in my pen-drive and would play a turn on University Library computers.
Well the largest PBEM I've been in so far has only had 7 players, I think the practical goal would be 8 players. Even if we found 12 it would take forever for turn to cycle and if someone dropped out we'd need to find yet another person to fill in.
I was talking about AoW in that latter part of my post. But honestly, for PBEM 7 players feels like a practical limit because every added player extends turn time.Well the largest PBEM I've been in so far has only had 7 players, I think the practical goal would be 8 players. Even if we found 12 it would take forever for turn to cycle and if someone dropped out we'd need to find yet another person to fill in.
The game only supports 7 players. No mod yet has broken that limit. We can only dream of that day.
We're always throwing out new PBEMs. I may as well ping you from time to time then!You guys planning anything? If yes, hit me up on Discord. You can see me there on the AOW 1 Discord yo