Amphibious Pod Combat

[MercantileInterest]

Do Amphibious Pods suffer a negative when attacking? Do naval yards or perimeter defenses grant bonuses against them?

[bvanevery]

Do Amphibious Pods suffer a negative when attacking?

News to me if they do.  Gaining Doctrine: Initiative, building a pile of 4-1-1 or 6-1-1 marines, and executing enemy AI port cities, is pretty much standard drill early conquest stuff for me.  They are very effective.  On smaller maps you can all but win the game this way.

On very large maps, like the 256x256 I've been playing lately, you may be too bored to push the marines around everywhere.  Might end up waiting for The Space Elevator.  I'm not a master of orbital drop combat yet, I haven't played that many games where it came up.  I do kinda like the "drop transport" unit I cooked up, which allows me to put down a conventional unit as cargo.  The cargo doesn't get damaged by the drop, only the drop transport.  Also need "drop formers" to build an airbase so I can get back up into orbit again.  The main problem with drop combat is it's drop combat, a one way trip.  You need to actually capture a city or build an airbase to get back into space.

Do naval yards or perimeter defenses grant bonuses against them?

AFAIK all an amphibious pod does, is give you the ability to attack straight off a ship.  This is in every other Civ game too.  The unit is otherwise, say, an infantry unit with the usual bonus for attacking a city, or a speeder unit that doesn't get such a bonus.  Nothing to do with the amphibious pod.  It's an "orthogonal" concern.  Perimeter defenses give penalties to units that are attacking cities.  Unless they've got special buffs for ignoring perimeter defenses.  Those do exist at the highest tech levels.  Just as Civ games have howitzers that ignore city walls.

Naval yards should just be about training and healing ships.  Not giving defensive bonuses.  Think Pearl Harbor.  Whadda they gonna do?

Even if I turn out to be wrong, things seem to work like I say.  I don't have my hand in the manual, just lots of experience playing.  Bottom line is you can execute most of your enemies with Marines.  Works in other Civs too.

Actually SMAC/X is weird compared to other Civs, in that you're allowed to roll a rover straight off the shore, move immediately and attack / probe with your 1 move remaining.  Other Civs stop your movement when you land on shore.  This makes Marines not as important in SMAC/X as other Civs.  In principle if you have Missile or Chaos Rovers, especially when combined with Fusion Power, but no Doctrine:Initiative yet, you could just roll off your transports and execute all the enemy coastal cities.  They're pretty helpless against that sort of thing.

Exception: Roze handed me my ass over and over again last night.  I'd invade with a small contingent of cheap 4-1-1 Marines.  She only had 4 cities so I thought it was going to be a total cakewalk and didn't bring all that much force.  I was playing as the Hive.  She'd mind control the city I conquered, which was to be expected.  She'd mind control any units I had in the field.  I adopted hit-and-run tactics for awhile, never leaving my units in the field to be bribed.  I'd scoot my ship in and out of port, picking up the marines I'd just used to assault the city.  Well the wee hours of the morning came, and I got sloppy about leaving myself enough movement to do the scooting with my ship.  'Cuz I was getting bored.  I left my ship in the territorial waters of the newly conquered city at the end of the turn.  When Roze bought the city, she got my ship too.

I quit that game.  I hate overpowered probe teams.  I have rage quit a fair number of games like that, that had ridiculous probe team shenanigans.  What I hate most about it, is until / unless you get Hunter-Seeker, you will have to build a bunch more units to do an invasion.  Having to build "yet more stuff" is boring.  Real wall clock hours tick by, waiting for that stuff to get built.  It just makes the unit pushing burden of the game larger than it needs to be.

[Yitzi]

Exception: Roze handed me my ass over and over again last night.  I'd invade with a small contingent of cheap 4-1-1 Marines.  She only had 4 cities so I thought it was going to be a total cakewalk and didn't bring all that much force.  I was playing as the Hive.  She'd mind control the city I conquered, which was to be expected.  She'd mind control any units I had in the field.  I adopted hit-and-run tactics for awhile, never leaving my units in the field to be bribed.  I'd scoot my ship in and out of port, picking up the marines I'd just used to assault the city.  Well the wee hours of the morning came, and I got sloppy about leaving myself enough movement to do the scooting with my ship.  'Cuz I was getting bored.  I left my ship in the territorial waters of the newly conquered city at the end of the turn.  When Roze bought the city, she got my ship too.

I quit that game.  I hate overpowered probe teams.  I have rage quit a fair number of games like that, that had ridiculous probe team shenanigans.  What I hate most about it, is until / unless you get Hunter-Seeker, you will have to build a bunch more units to do an invasion.  Having to build "yet more stuff" is boring.  Real wall clock hours tick by, waiting for that stuff to get built.  It just makes the unit pushing burden of the game larger than it needs to be.

Later in the game, having more cash than the opponent can also make MC/subvert harder to pull off, though of course  isn't the best for that plan.  So can the Polymorphic Encryption ability (same tech as Hunter-Seeker, but fairly reasonably priced), or even running Fundamentalist for the duration of the war.

[bvanevery]

or even running Fundamentalist for the duration of the war.

I'm not sure I've ever played Yang as Fundamentalist, and I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where I would.  The whole point of his faction is he doesn't suffer negative efficiency penalties for Police State and Planned economies.  Nor, I've noticed, does he get any efficiency bonus for going Green.  I think I have played endgames with him where I went Free Market.

[Yitzi]

or even running Fundamentalist for the duration of the war.

I'm not sure I've ever played Yang as Fundamentalist, and I'm hard pressed to imagine a scenario where I would.

Oh, it's not a good SE setting for him long-term.  But when assaulting  early in the game, it seems like the way to go for the duration of the war no matter whom you're playing as* (assuming they are able to run Fundamentalist, of course).

*Exceptions are if you already have +2 PROBE or -4 or less (maybe -3), but that can't happen with standard factions (and no duplicates, so you're not playing  against  ) until late in the game.

The whole point of his faction is he doesn't suffer negative efficiency penalties for Police State and Planned economies.  Nor, I've noticed, does he get any efficiency bonus for going Green.

He actually does, when not running Police State as well.  But the negative EFFIC of Police State and/or Planned still cancel out any bonuses he gets.

I think I have played endgames with him where I went Free Market.

And Eudaimonic, I presume?  Without it, I can't see the extra +1 energy/base (and another +1/HQ if running wealth) being worth the penalty to POLICE and PLANET, and the loss of ability to run Planned for GROWTH and INDUSTRY.

[bvanevery]

Oh, it's not a good SE setting for him long-term.  But when assaulting  early in the game, it seems like the way to go for the duration of the war no matter whom you're playing as* (assuming they are able to run Fundamentalist, of course).

Roze could be a terror.  But is she really going to hold up to Yang's production, played straight?  Yang starts the game with the ability to build The Command Nexus.  No other faction does.  Doctrine is to find the nearest pile of minerals and GET THAT THING BUILT.  Now you've got trained troops coming from all your cities.  With Police State you can support 4 units per city and you take no penalties to efficiency for doing so.

Nor, I've noticed, does he get any efficiency bonus for going Green.

He actually does, when not running Police State as well.  But the negative EFFIC of Police State and/or Planned still cancel out any bonuses he gets.

!@#@! is that documented?  Screwing up a Green bonus, is definitely "suffering a negative effect from a Police State" in my mind.  Why isn't it a bug?

I think I have played endgames with him where I went Free Market.

And Eudaimonic, I presume?

No idea.  He was powerful beyond belief, it didn't matter what I did.

Without it, I can't see the extra +1 energy/base (and another +1/HQ if running wealth) being worth the penalty to POLICE and PLANET,

Police State + Ascetic Virtues is +3 Police.  In a Free Market your net is -2 Police.   Gotta go look up exactly what that does, but it can't be more than 1 unhappy citizen per military unit away from your territory.  That's like playing a Republic in Civ II.  You can most certainly trash enemies running a Republic.  You just have to have a fair amount of excess happiness, and you may have to distribute your support burdens across all your cities, rather than cranking them out from just 1 city.  Whether you actually need to conquer anyone in the later game, is circumstantial.  You might just be building infinite numbers of Orbital Power Transmitters, or nukeing people, or racing to Ascendance, or....

Planet... frankly who cares?  Nothing essential about being friendly with the native mindworms.

and the loss of ability to run Planned for GROWTH and INDUSTRY.

Cloning Vats provide population.  So do Sky Hydroponics Labs.  Industry, if you're winning the game, you don't need craploads of industry.  Basically the time to go Free Market is when you just don't feel like pushing military units around anymore, when it's gotten to be a useless chore.  What if nobody's got anything that you want?

[Yitzi]

Nor, I've noticed, does he get any efficiency bonus for going Green.

He actually does, when not running Police State as well.  But the negative EFFIC of Police State and/or Planned still cancel out any bonuses he gets.

!@#@! is that documented?  Screwing up a Green bonus, is definitely "suffering a negative effect from a Police State" in my mind.  Why isn't it a bug?[/quote]

Because AFAIK it never says that  gets no negative effect from Police State; it says that he gets no negative effect from negative EFFIC.  That is, he gets no negative effect from negative total EFFIC, but individual settings can still decrease his EFFIC (losing him the bonuses of positive EFFIC).

That said, if you'd like how he works to be changed, it can be done.

Without it, I can't see the extra +1 energy/base (and another +1/HQ if running wealth) being worth the penalty to POLICE and PLANET,

Police State + Ascetic Virtues is +3 Police.  In a Free Market your net is -2 Police.   Gotta go look up exactly what that does, but it can't be more than 1 unhappy citizen per military unit away from your territory.  That's like playing a Republic in Civ II.  You can most certainly trash enemies running a Republic.  You just have to have a fair amount of excess happiness, and you may have to distribute your support burdens across all your cities, rather than cranking them out from just 1 city.  Whether you actually need to conquer anyone in the later game, is circumstantial.  You might just be building infinite numbers of Orbital Power Transmitters, or nukeing people, or racing to Ascendance, or....

Planet... frankly who cares?  Nothing essential about being friendly with the native mindworms.[/quote]

Oh, it's definitely not essential, or even particularly important, for him to avoid those penalties late game if he's already pretty much won.  But because of his SE stats, he gets next to no benefit from Free Market unless he's running Eudaimonic as well, so even those manageable penalties, and the loss of a small not-really-needed INDUSTRY bonus, would be enough to make it not worth it.

I have a hard time imagining the situation and goals for which  would benefit more from Police State/FM than from Frontier/Green, unless he's running Eudaimonic or lacks the Cloning Vats (in which case he probably wants Police State/Planned).

[bvanevery]

 

Because AFAIK it never says that  gets no negative effect from Police State; it says that he gets no negative effect from negative EFFIC.  That is, he gets no negative effect from negative total EFFIC, but individual settings can still decrease his EFFIC (losing him the bonuses of positive EFFIC).

You know what?  I can't find any reference for this rule at all, in the PDF documentation, nor in the Help within the game.  I've know the rule forever; does it appear only in the printed manual?  I'm guessing the PDFs are substantially different / much shorter than the printed manual.  Has anyone scanned it somewhere?  I probably still have it, but it would be in a box in storage and I'm traveling right now.

Will look at hive.txt next.  But that would not count, IMO, as documenting a rule for mere mortals playing a game.  That said, the PDF does explicitly mention the existence of hive.txt and other faction .txt files.  Got lazy when making shorter electronic documentation, I bet.

[Yitzi]

Because AFAIK it never says that  gets no negative effect from Police State; it says that he gets no negative effect from negative EFFIC.  That is, he gets no negative effect from negative total EFFIC, but individual settings can still decrease his EFFIC (losing him the bonuses of positive EFFIC).

You know what?  I can't find any reference for this rule at all, in the PDF documentation, nor in the Help within the game.  I've know the rule forever; does it appear only in the printed manual?  I'm guessing the PDFs are substantially different / much shorter than the printed manual.  Has anyone scanned it somewhere?  I probably still have it, but it would be in a box in storage and I'm traveling right now.

Will look at hive.txt next.  But that would not count, IMO, as documenting a rule for mere mortals playing a game.  That said, the PDF does explicitly mention the existence of hive.txt and other faction .txt files.  Got lazy when making shorter electronic documentation, I bet.

It was a late addition, hence the poor documentation (it isn't even in hive.txt explicitly, though of course the "IMMUNITY, EFFIC" is).