Tweet
Two Faces of Lal? (and AI diplomancy)
(Lengthy extrapolation ahead, beware)
It's seems that nearly everyone has a horror story or other regarding the two-faced Lal, either in a behind-the-back pact betrayal or otherwise just acting stubborn when asked to unite behind the player for the good of humanity. It's never happened with me though; I've actually found Lal to be the most reliable Ally I can find in a game, and the least likely to go trolling for a fight with me if I lead in power charts. Typically the first time I meet him in a game Lal tells me about some SOB on the other side of Planet I've not met yet, whom he's tried "reasoning" with and whom won't see the light, and offers a pact (it's often the Pirates for some reason, Lal just seems to have a personal beef against Sven like no other...maybe he caught him shaving with his surgeon's scalpel back on the Unity or something). My democratic leanings keep things pleasant.
Deidre: Not as cooperative as usually assumed, at least in my experience. Zak: Stingy with tech trading. Morgan is usually receptive, but he's usually so weak he's seeking to be a toady to a higher power anyway. Santago is usually in too surly a mood to consider anything less than throwing a rover or two, or ten, my way.
Actually, the thing I like the best about SMAC over Civ II is the diplomancy model and the increased integrity of agreements with the AI. In Civ II, sure, the AI will remain friendly, as long as you're ever-so-much-but-not-quite-too-much-as-to-breed-contempt weaker than they. The "playing preferences" of rational vs. aggressive, militaristic vs. civilized, and perfectionistic vs. expansionistic I found by and large meaningless. The nations registered in my mind as one big amorphous blob of multi-colored vicious little cur-barking jealously.
In Civ II the only good thing about an Alliance was being one more step away from being "sneak attacked," because rest assure the AI *will* do so, often within one turn of signing a peace treaty, and not give it a second thought. Around the Renissance and Industrial eras the AI also convienently forgets all notions of "borders" with player territory and will prance its Cavalry and Riflemen and Engineers all over the place. I despised nukes in Civ II, and more so the AI's cavalier attitude with them, as if they were just another innocuous weapon to be used and *dropped* at will, without warning. Planet Busters are atrocities are handled much better in SMAC.
In SMAC I find it loads easier to keep pactmates. As long as you treat them reasonably well, they typically stick by you until the end. That includes giving them loan payments, being open with tech trading, gifting them captured bases, transferring units to their control, etc. In my most recent game as the Cult, I started out on a medium-sized island with the Unity crashed in the middle, a bad start in other words. I pacted with Lal early on against Sven and Lal was ahead for a good part of the game. Miriam soon joined him in the power charts as she crusaded against Dee and Morgan. Zak was killed very early on by worms. By mid-game things had polarized into two power blocs of Lal and I vs. Miriam and Sven. Power was scrupulously balanced for the longest time, and Miriam even tried voting herself Supreme Leader at one point (she'd captured Dee's Empath Guild). I think Lal's double votes saved the day in nay.
Eventually my builder preperations in middle-game had me ascending the power graph, as it's wont to do, though Lal remained as faithful as ever in our vendetta against the Believer menace. When I finally got Sven, Dee, and Morgan in submissive pacts, after a bunch of changing allegiances, only Miriam remained. Then, in like the space of five turns, every faction on Chiron *pacted with each OTHER against Miriam*, with I leading the pack in our united holy fungal jihad against her. Usually nations continue to squabble regardless of allegiance to the player, but not here. It was bliss to carry out in the name of a united humanity...even if Cha Dawn's agenda couldn't be much better from an ideological standpoint.
Who has been your most trustworthy ally?
It's seems that nearly everyone has a horror story or other regarding the two-faced Lal, either in a behind-the-back pact betrayal or otherwise just acting stubborn when asked to unite behind the player for the good of humanity. It's never happened with me though; I've actually found Lal to be the most reliable Ally I can find in a game, and the least likely to go trolling for a fight with me if I lead in power charts. Typically the first time I meet him in a game Lal tells me about some SOB on the other side of Planet I've not met yet, whom he's tried "reasoning" with and whom won't see the light, and offers a pact (it's often the Pirates for some reason, Lal just seems to have a personal beef against Sven like no other...maybe he caught him shaving with his surgeon's scalpel back on the Unity or something). My democratic leanings keep things pleasant.
Deidre: Not as cooperative as usually assumed, at least in my experience. Zak: Stingy with tech trading. Morgan is usually receptive, but he's usually so weak he's seeking to be a toady to a higher power anyway. Santago is usually in too surly a mood to consider anything less than throwing a rover or two, or ten, my way.
Actually, the thing I like the best about SMAC over Civ II is the diplomancy model and the increased integrity of agreements with the AI. In Civ II, sure, the AI will remain friendly, as long as you're ever-so-much-but-not-quite-too-much-as-to-breed-contempt weaker than they. The "playing preferences" of rational vs. aggressive, militaristic vs. civilized, and perfectionistic vs. expansionistic I found by and large meaningless. The nations registered in my mind as one big amorphous blob of multi-colored vicious little cur-barking jealously.
In Civ II the only good thing about an Alliance was being one more step away from being "sneak attacked," because rest assure the AI *will* do so, often within one turn of signing a peace treaty, and not give it a second thought. Around the Renissance and Industrial eras the AI also convienently forgets all notions of "borders" with player territory and will prance its Cavalry and Riflemen and Engineers all over the place. I despised nukes in Civ II, and more so the AI's cavalier attitude with them, as if they were just another innocuous weapon to be used and *dropped* at will, without warning. Planet Busters are atrocities are handled much better in SMAC.
In SMAC I find it loads easier to keep pactmates. As long as you treat them reasonably well, they typically stick by you until the end. That includes giving them loan payments, being open with tech trading, gifting them captured bases, transferring units to their control, etc. In my most recent game as the Cult, I started out on a medium-sized island with the Unity crashed in the middle, a bad start in other words. I pacted with Lal early on against Sven and Lal was ahead for a good part of the game. Miriam soon joined him in the power charts as she crusaded against Dee and Morgan. Zak was killed very early on by worms. By mid-game things had polarized into two power blocs of Lal and I vs. Miriam and Sven. Power was scrupulously balanced for the longest time, and Miriam even tried voting herself Supreme Leader at one point (she'd captured Dee's Empath Guild). I think Lal's double votes saved the day in nay.
Eventually my builder preperations in middle-game had me ascending the power graph, as it's wont to do, though Lal remained as faithful as ever in our vendetta against the Believer menace. When I finally got Sven, Dee, and Morgan in submissive pacts, after a bunch of changing allegiances, only Miriam remained. Then, in like the space of five turns, every faction on Chiron *pacted with each OTHER against Miriam*, with I leading the pack in our united holy fungal jihad against her. Usually nations continue to squabble regardless of allegiance to the player, but not here. It was bliss to carry out in the name of a united humanity...even if Cha Dawn's agenda couldn't be much better from an ideological standpoint.
Who has been your most trustworthy ally?
THAT'S what that thing is for??? 
Comment