Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => Modding => Bug/Patch Discussion => Topic started by: Buster's Uncle on April 19, 2013, 07:45:43 pm

Title: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 19, 2013, 07:45:43 pm

The square you found a base on gives the same nutrient yield regardless of moisture level, the same mineral yield whether flat or rolling, and the same energy yield regardless of altitude - and terrain enhancements done in advance make no difference either, or I'd be founding all my bases past a certain point on condensers w/soil enrichers.  Putting a base on a square with some bonus, whether a random terrain one or an area bonus like Monsoon Jungle or Uranium Flats does, and a river square gives the base itself an extra EC per turn.

It doesn't really make sense that a in the middle of a desert produces the same food as does one in a fertile wet area, does it?  I'm not necessarily advocating changing it as a bug, but it hurts the internal logic of the game, doesn't it?

Thoughts?

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Geo on April 19, 2013, 09:10:18 pm

Quote from: BUncle on April 19, 2013, 07:45:43 pm

The square you found a base on gives the same nutrient yield regardless of moisture level, the same mineral yield whether flat or rolling, and the same energy yield regardless of altitude - and terrain enhancements done in advance make no difference either, or I'd be founding all my bases past a certain point on condensers w/soil enrichers.  Putting a base on a square with some bonus, whether a random terrain one or an area bonus like Monsoon Jungle or Uranium Flats does, and a river square gives the base itself an extra EC per turn.

It doesn't really make sense that a in the middle of a desert produces the same food as does one in a fertile wet area, does it?  I'm not necessarily advocating changing it as a bug, but it hurts the internal logic of the game, doesn't it?

Thoughts?

I always thought of the base yield as the basic infrastructure that comes with the colony pod. Small-scale greenhouses, some workshops, stuff like that.
To me it makes sense that the intrusion of humans changes the 'natural' output of the location they choose to settle on.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Nexii on April 19, 2013, 09:12:09 pm

Well, if you could former the city tile that would make more sense.  But they made it so you can't.  It has always bugged me that graphically, you can't improve under your city.

Also you could bring up the sensor array debate on this.  Logically, why would a sensor array outside your base help you more than one in it?  But you can't build one in it (legit, you can pre-build).

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Nexii on April 19, 2013, 09:26:58 pm

To add: a city would be starving immediately however if it did not produce at least 2 nutrients.  This is the obvious reason they made it this way (so a city can't starve below 1).  Likewise for 1 mineral.  And making the city tile itself improvable would be a very pro-ICS mechanic

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Geo on April 19, 2013, 11:36:36 pm

Hang on. I seem to recall a MP game where a player settled on a nutrient, and didn't lose the nutrient extra food.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 19, 2013, 11:52:49 pm

I mentioned that in the OP.  Square bonuses do affect base production, as do landmark bonuses.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Lord Avalon on April 20, 2013, 12:23:25 am

Because of Planet's atmosphere, bases are self-contained units that provide a certain amount of basic resources.  They are under domes, so outside moisture isn't really a factor for nutrient production.  Though realistically, being able to pull in additional water from the outside would be a benefit, maybe it's not enough to gain a full nut.  Similarly, while higher elevation would give more solar energy, without a whole field of solar collectors, maybe it's not enough to be a full energy.  Minerals might be the most problematic, and it might just be a gameplay thing where a settlement provides this (in Civ a city gave you a shield even when the grasslands tile didn't have one).  I can see a base being able to take advantage of resource boni, or being on a river. 

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: gwillybj on April 20, 2013, 12:29:28 am

Considering how many square miles each space represents, it makes sense that measurable resources would be collected at a base.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 20, 2013, 12:40:58 am

I would think that the thing to do, were this to be modded, would be to give moist (or rolling or higher elevation) squares +1 and rainy (or whatever) +2 and make the game go that much faster - the AI would get the same advantage after all, little as it would be practical to get it to alter settlement plans accordingly.

-Maybe this is a bad idea - unless the AI only gets the boost...

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Lord Avalon on April 20, 2013, 12:51:10 am

Quote from: gwillybj on April 20, 2013, 12:29:28 am

Considering how many square miles each space represents, it makes sense that measurable resources would be collected at a base.

I disagree with the first part.  A beginning base is probably rather small compared to its tile, and the largest base doesn't have any more resources in its tile than the smallest.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Nexii on April 20, 2013, 01:17:31 am

Quote from: BUncle on April 20, 2013, 12:40:58 am

I would think that the thing to do, were this to be modded, would be to give moist (or rolling or higher elevation) squares +1 and rainy (or whatever) +2 and make the game go that much faster - the AI would get the same advantage after all, little as it would be practical to get it to alter settlement plans accordingly.

-Maybe this is a bad idea - unless the AI only gets the boost...

Ideally you'd have to consider the tile you're on, and it could be improved as well.  To balance this though you'd have to make the first worker work the city tile.  I could see ICS being really strong if you make cities produce a base of 4N.  That means you'd be able to work 2 boreholes without even making a recycling tanks.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 20, 2013, 01:21:41 am

But it could be a magnificent AI-boosting trick.  The crowd looking for a challenge would love that.  Earthmichael?  Back me up.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Geo on April 20, 2013, 12:18:42 pm

Quote from: Lord Avalon on April 20, 2013, 12:51:10 am

Quote from: gwillybj on April 20, 2013, 12:29:28 am

Considering how many square miles each space represents, it makes sense that measurable resources would be collected at a base.

I disagree with the first part.  A beginning base is probably rather small compared to its tile, and the largest base doesn't have any more resources in its tile than the smallest.

No, but the amount of people it needs to sustain from its tile is quite a bit larger. Just think of the base tile output as the meagre surplus a base can produce on its own. All the rest was already needed.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Lord Avalon on April 20, 2013, 11:10:23 pm

I wonder if we're talking about different things.  What I meant was, since base output never changes, it has nothing to do with base area, i.e., "considering how many square miles" is not a factor.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Geo on April 21, 2013, 12:25:19 am

Quote from: Lord Avalon on April 20, 2013, 11:10:23 pm

I wonder if we're talking about different things.  What I meant was, since base output never changes, it has nothing to do with base area, i.e., "considering how many square miles" is not a factor.

As far as I can see, we still are. More citizens in a larger base only means more of the small-scale greenhouses, workshops, and small generators I mentioned two of my posts before.
To finish with a famous quote: "Gentlemen. Forget what your courtesans have told you. Size does matter..."  :D

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Lord Avalon on April 21, 2013, 05:07:49 am

Realistically yes, but gamewise the additional amount produced never amounts to anything.  Otherwise you should get some small increase, +1 for every 5 (or whatever) pop.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Geo on April 21, 2013, 08:03:40 am

Perhaps something to mention to Kyrub or Yitzi then? :)

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Lord Avalon on April 21, 2013, 03:38:36 pm

Well, I have no idea of what would be "fair," and I was just discussing BU's premise.  Sometimes gameplay trumps realism.  If you didn't get a standard amount of resources with your base, and your starting base were on a flat, arid, low square (no look first), so you were penalized on everything, you'd be screwed.

Title: Re: Base square yield makes no sense
Post by: Yitzi on April 22, 2013, 10:07:23 pm

I've thought about base square yield...and anything other than what it is would be seriously worse for gameplay.