Review-in-Progress (Open Thread)

[bonscott]

Originally posted by Solver

So I assume the Good vs. Evil thing in GalCiv2 can work sort of like religious blocs in Civ4?

Yes, it does for the most part. Leaning good or evil does have other issues tied to it other then getting cool techs. In general you'll have worse relations with the opposite civs. One thing you might find is if you are Evil that the Altarans or Torians might just declare war on you to "cleanse" the galaxy of your evil and for not other reason. If you are good the Drengin or Yor will constantly pick on you in the same way.

So yes, civ relations have a lot to do with your alignment. So for example if I have a lot of good civs around me then it makes me think twice about taking the evil choice with random events, assuming I don't want to war with them early on.

[bonscott]

Originally posted by Solver
With the combat system, though... I think I get it. For example, you have beams, which the AI counters with shields. That's fine. But what if I have a tech lead and my beams are a couple of levels above the AI's armor. Does that mean I'm going to run him over?

Perhaps, but what if at the same time the AI weapons is very high in missles to which you have no or little defense? Now the AI can cut through your ships. Who can do the most damage first then is what it would come down to.

So far in my games on Tough+ the AI seems to do very well in countering my weapons/defense combo. In my current game I was going up the mass drivers tree. During my first war I was doing well and then the AI started adding in Armor defense (which negates Mass Drivers). I notice the AI's at my border start to do the same. Now my ships are still winning but at great losses.
I declare peace.
I beeline up the beam weapon tree up to Plasmas. Now in my followup war I cut through the AI like butter.
Next on my list are the Drath and my beams cut through him too BUT he is also high in beam weapons so I take losses as I develop some shields.
Once I get some of those I do much better. I wipe out much of his fleets.
Then what do I see come out of his home systems?
18 *missle* attack, 12 beam defense ships, all in fleets.
Holy cr@p! Sure I have 16 beam attack but I can't counter that. He rips me a new one with the missles.
So I need to beeline up the missle defense tree to try to counter. I also work up the missle tree to get harpoons but will continue up the beam tree as well? Why? I find that combined arms works very well. So if I can get a mix of ships, some beam specialists and some missle specialists and perhaps a nearly pure defender then that's a fleet that can do some all around damage.

I haven't gotten high enough in the weapon tree to see if it's best to keep going up one tree to the end. Probably. But it's a strat I haven't needed to try yet.

[Solver]

I'm not a good Civ4 player by any means! I'm not a ladder-style player, either, and do not attack early. I will generally only attack if I feel I'm about to be invaded anyway or if I have nothing left to do. Besides, winning doesn't matter, it would be an honor to play a game with you .


So I assume the Good vs. Evil thing in GalCiv2 can work sort of like religious blocs in Civ4?

[yin26]

For you, then, I'd set the civs' alignments so that you get Good blocs going against Evil blocs. This could be a fun approach for you! As for a Civ4 MP game, you'd kill me. You'd be bored. You'd have more fun, let's saying, becoming an Evil SOB trying to kill all the Goodness out of the galaxy...

[Solver]

Ahh... I guess I would indeed end up making the Evil choices in GalCiv2. My roleplaying in Civ games is limited to (usually) not backstabbing those who have been good friends for a long time.

Also, for me, any names are just labels on sets of numbers/bonuses. So I don't care if communism giving more food in Civ4 is not realistic - in the game, communism to me is just a label for a food bonus.

BTW, Yin, you promised me a Civ4 MP game. Now you do have the game, so...

[yin26]

It's a matter of role-play vs. earn a bonus you know the AI will struggle to handle. I role play. This is one of the reasons I found some of the wonky tech attributes so off-putting in Civ (communism = more food, etc.). I agree, though, if you plan always to take the biggest advantage on those answers, then you'll always become Evil and always have the ability to beeline to over-powered weapons. But I don't take that path because the result is pretty much foretold, then there's no game.

Of course, you'd still have to contend with the Good civs (and there are in the game), and you'd still have an epic fight of Good vs. Evil if you get a good map setting. Map setting in Civ is important, too, for similar reasons. I just enjoy the fact that my neutrality means I need to beat Good and Evil with a more carefully balanced approach. That's the puzzle for me...and the fun.

[Solver]

See, that's a negative for me. I don't exploit games - I don't make use of bugs or specifically make a point of exploiting in another way. But, when the game presents me with a strategic choice, I make the choice which I believe to be the best. In your example, I find it hard to imagine what could be the reason not to choose c, strategically. If I am choosing between losing production or gaining it, of course I want to gain it!

[yin26]

By the way, Sirian raises an important point that highlights the way I choose to play: Most of my alignment decisions run neutral (at points in the game you are presented with moral decisions to make, like "There is a primitive race on this new planet, do you a) leave them be (= lose some production) b) move them to a concentrated area (= lose a lot less production) or c) exterminate them (= gain production)?"), so I never get nor seek uber evil weapons or uber good weapons (as you said, techs only open to you if you are evil or good). Some players call this "hadicapping" yourself, but I see two things here:

1) My "real life" answer to most of the moral questions that pop up in the game tends to be grey/neutral, so I'm role-playing anyway.

2) Understanding that getting uber weapons will cripple the AI means I choose not to get them. The game then stays on my shelf longer.

It's like in Civ: I choose land maps with enough civs to form blocs. Sure, the naval game in Civ isn't completely dead, but I prefer to give the AI a good shot at getting me. You can approach GalCiv the same way on some of these larger issues Sirian is presenting.

[Solver]

What's Good/Evil in GC2 terms? Something like the ultimate techs along certain parts of the tech tree?

[Sirian]

If you lean Evil in GC2, you can eventually get to "evil only superweapons" which then overwhelm any defense on the field. If you lean Good, you can get to "good only superdefenses" which can stop any weaponry and render you invulnerable.

Since the AI as yet has shown ZERO inclination to research this branch of the tree, you are in SMAC Land if you refrain from trading it to them. (That's not good!)

The AI is missing out on a whole chunk of the tech tree that it doesn't bother to emphasize. This was also true in GC1, where the winning strategy was to divert AWAY from what the AIs as a pack would research/trade and pick up a bunch of monopoly items (techs and wonders) they would ignore, then trade these judiciously. That is still the uberstrat in GC2.

Brad would have to rework tech trading from the ground up to change this positively, and I don't expect that to happen. Small steps taken to try to nudge it seem likely (in my opinion) to make things worse, not better. (The small steps taken in Civ3 expansions to make things better simply didn't work, for example. They generally had more negative effects than positive. For example, making government techs highly valued by the AI unleashed the Nationalism Slingshot Uberstrat, while the pricier monopoly techs cemented "rich get richer" dynamics.)


I would recommend to have the AIs take some interest in Xeno Ethics, though. Too much of the diplomatic system is crippled because the AIs are all stuck on Unaligned.


- Sirian

[Solver]

The problem of one right strategy is, in fact, not really pertinent to victory conditions. It's pertinent to how you achieve victory. In Civ3, ICS+Massive conquest was the Right Thing, etc. If GalCiv2 doesn't force me into warmongering, that's already a plus.

With the combat system, though... I think I get it. For example, you have beams, which the AI counters with shields. That's fine. But what if I have a tech lead and my beams are a couple of levels above the AI's armor. Does that mean I'm going to run him over? Civ4 balances that out by having a line of strong defensive units that aren't too easy to overcome, meaning the attacker needs a large enough force unless he's two ages ahead in tech.

Anyway, you've changed my mind: Buy GalCiv, put down Civ for a while, and report back soldier!

Love your decisionmaking

[yin26]

I played GalCiv1, so a lot of it came back to me. That said, within 2 to 3 hours you should be already working on some of the finer points and ready to up the difficulty levels. What's so nice to me about GalCiv2 is that while there are actually a limited number of things to tinker with, each thing --and each combination of things-- adds up to a lot of options and strategic depth. Sure, you only have a) beam weapons b) mass driver (bullet) weapons and c) missile weapons ... but how many you place of each kind, and how developed each piece is, radically changes your battles against an AI that generally seems to learn and counter. The same goes for your defense against a) b) and c). These are very simple concepts that, in gameplay terms, can spin in tons of directions.

As for one strategy dominating others, I've won a cultural victory already. I can see the military victory looming (large "mop up" as Sirian says, but you get that in Civ, too). The tech victory doesn't seem crazy, nor does diplomatic (particularly useful once your alliances are all in place, though you might need to kill off a hold out or two). Of course, any good human player can optimize his start, attack hard with good tech early, expand his holdings, and win by volume/attrition if nothing else. This is when you up the AI bonuses, just like in civ.

Anyway, you've changed my mind: Buy GalCiv, put down Civ for a while, and report back soldier!

[Solver]

You're right, I do not intentionally abuse the system. However, there's a line between abuse of the system and an overpowered strategy - when something in the game is so powerful that doing it becomes the one right choice, as was the case with some aspects of Civ3. Not having GalCiv2, I can of course not say which of these is the case with it.

Another consideration is that, for me, the AI is a key concept of the SP game. If it features a strong AI, I am willing to overlook many things. I enjoy Civ4 largely because of an overall competent AI. So I'm watching AI comments with a particular interest.

By the way, how big is the learning curve in GalCiv2? I'm obviously a seasoned Civ player, but haven't played the original GalCiv either. I assume, though, that the basics should still seem familiar?

[yin26]

Solver: From what you've written before about Civ4, you don't intentionally seek to "abuse" the system. You enjoy the spirit of the game as it was intended. Assuming your stance on that hasn't changed, GalCiv2 would make a awesome addition to your library. However, guys like Sirian are out in front identifying what somebody can do to the system when pressure is applied carefully enough. My guess is that Brad can and will respond with his proven record of updates.

[Solver]

A GalCiv2 demo .

But see, the problem is that you're one of the people whose opinions I respect a great deal, so I'd rather continue to read what you think about the game .