Review-in-Progress (Open Thread)

[Solver]

I really don't agree that Good vs Evil falls into this category. It's a difference in style of play, and just because one way works "better" doesn't mean it is the "right" one. You can make different choices to get different flavors of game.

If you have a choice between getting, say, extra planet quality or extra research and not getting that, then the only right choice strategically is to get it, period. For it not to be so, there need to be other factors involved. Surely you can not pick that choice and call it a different playstyle, but that doesn't change the fact that only one choice is right strategically.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Solver

If you have a choice between getting, say, extra planet quality or extra research and not getting that, then the only right choice strategically is to get it, period. For it not to be so, there need to be other factors involved. Surely you can not pick that choice and call it a different playstyle, but that doesn't change the fact that only one choice is right strategically.

It depends on your goal. If your objective is "Win with only Good choices", then "choose Evil" is not the right choice.

Suppose I convince you that cultural victory is always easier to achieve than military victory. Does that mean that attempting a military victory is "wrong"? No. It just means you're setting a different goal for yourself in this game.

[bonscott]

Originally posted by Solver
Another thing struck me as weird, I'm playing the Altarians, and despite making Evil choices, I'm really leaning Good. This is because the Altarians lean Good initially - but it creates an issue. Not many ethical choices seem to come up during a game, and despite me having selected Evil every time, I'm still leaning Good. Looks like with the Altarians I can make Evil choices to get the immediate benefits of Evil, yet stay globally Good to gain the global Good benefits that Sirian mentioned.

It could be. However (I think it was mentioned before) your ethical choices are all on a scale of 1-100. So you start the game typically at 50 (neutral). If you make 5 evil choices during the game but they are all worth only 2 pts toward evil then you'll be at 60 which is leaning evil. You could also make 5 evil choices totaling 10 then 1 good choice might be worth 15 toward good which would give you 45, leaning toward good. Could go the other way as well by making all good choices for 15 toward good then take that one evil choice for 30% PQ that swings you 30 toward evil.

Not sure if the Altarians start out leaning toward good or not. You can check this if you start a new game as the Altarians and then check your Ethics/alignment right away in the Civ manager screen.

[yin26]

And not to beat a dead horse, but I role play those decisions (note: the definition of role-play is up for grabs because I 'role play' that actual choice I might make were I the leader of the human race), knowing full well the game will become harder for me in some ways. That's fine!

I also made a customized civ, which is good for two reasons:

1) (O.K., this is an assumption, I guess) You start as neutral (?) or can elect to start with any alignment (?).

2) (This I know for sure) Any ships you design, say, as the Drengins will not be available to you if you later play as the Humans, etc. With a customized civ, though, I can always change my civ attributes around without losing my ship designs.

[Solver]

Altarians do start leaning Good, that's why I mentioned them.

It depends on your goal. If your objective is "Win with only Good choices", then "choose Evil" is not the right choice.

Suppose I convince you that cultural victory is always easier to achieve than military victory. Does that mean that attempting a military victory is "wrong"? No. It just means you're setting a different goal for yourself in this game.

I disagree. Cultural victory or military victory is victory. Although even victories could be imbalanced to the point where one is always better, by far. However, the case with "win with Good choices only" is a self-imposed limitation, really. Because Good choices, as it is, don't bring you closer to victory. "Win with Good only" is in the same league as "Win without building Capitals" or "Win without laser weapons" - possible as a goal or for fun, but not better or making more sense in the strategic sense.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Solver

However, the case with "win with Good choices only" is a self-imposed limitation, really. Because Good choices, as it is, don't bring you closer to victory. "Win with Good only" is in the same league as "Win without building Capitals" or "Win without laser weapons" - possible as a goal or for fun, but not better or making more sense in the strategic sense.

It's easy to see how a race could be fundamentally good or evil, and so you're not playing that race if you make contrary choices. It's clear that the designer intended to add a role-playing element to the game, where you can play different types of races in different ways. This style of game may not appeal to you, but it's not broken.

In any game with multiple paths to victory, some of them are going to be consistently easier than others. I think people who always play in the same way just because that works the best are rather lacking in imagination. Approaching Civ4 or GC2 or other 4X type games as if the only possible goal is to achieve the greatest victory and one must, along the way, always make only those choices that contribute most to victory, is a shame and greatly reduces the fun one can have.

Actually, I do think that "play without laser weapons" is a perfectly reasonable style, too. One can easily imagine playing a race that has limited knowledge of optics and doesn't use such weapons. Suppose that you do discover that one weapon line is "best". Is the game going to be more fun if you always choose that path?

In summary, I guess I would say that what you call "self-imposed limitations", and I call "varied style of play", are not only appropriate for 4X style games, they are nearly essential if the games are to maintain one's interest.

[Solver]

You make a valid point. I guess I'm just looking at the games differently - while I am very much against exploiting games, I do always play making the best strategic choices using my best judgement - with very rare exceptions.

And my strategic sense tells me that if I can make Evil choices as the Altarians, gain those bonuses, and still lean Good and get those bonuses, too, then I should do it. Yep, not roleplaying, but playing it strategically. And that's where my game design sense kicks in and tells me that it's bad because I have an Only Right Choice situation there.

[Gufnork]

In RaceConfig.xml you'll find [Alignment], which states every races starting alignment. Custom race starts with alignment 50, just as you suspect. Altarians have an alignment of 99, while Drengin and Korx (surprise to me) start at 1. Torian and Dratha have 75, while Yor have 25. The rest are at 50.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Solver

And my strategic sense tells me that if I can make Evil choices as the Altarians, gain those bonuses, and still lean Good and get those bonuses, too, then I should do it. Yep, not roleplaying, but playing it strategically. And that's where my game design sense kicks in and tells me that it's bad because I have an Only Right Choice situation there.

In that case, one way to look at this is that the Altarians have a racial advantage of Goodness, which allows them to make a few Evil choices, when they deem it necessary, and nevertheless maintain a positive reputation. All of the races have various advantages (and they aren't perfectly balanced, nor do they have to be), so I don't think this is a problem, either.

[Solver]

That's a better way to look at it . But I am somewhat a rigorous critic when it comes to balance . I may even come off sounding more negative than I am, in fact.

[Gufnork]

In the case of Altarians, take a look at their bonuses. They start with 30 Luck, 30 Creativity, 5 Logistics, 20 Morale and 10 Economics. This makes them the absolutely worst race in the game. 25 Luck is 1 point, 25 Creativity 1 point, 20 Morale 2 points and 10 Economics 2 points totalling six points. That's less than a Custom Race, not to mention the lowest Logistics of them all. Having the advantage of starting über good isn't exactly unrealistic. The same cannot be said for the other races though, making my point fairly moot.

[Solver]

Funny enough how little I understand about the game at this point. 30 Creativity and 10 Economics seemed good to me when I was just picking my race to play with.

[bonscott]

Originally posted by yin26
2) (This I know for sure) Any ships you design, say, as the Drengins will not be available to you if you later play as the Humans, etc. With a customized civ, though, I can always change my civ attributes around without losing my ship designs.

You are correct sir! One reason why I made a custom race, so I can keep ship designs from game to game. But don't change your hull type or else you'll lose 'em. Basically same race and same hull type translates to keeping custom ships.

[bonscott]

Originally posted by Solver
Funny enough how little I understand about the game at this point. 30 Creativity and 10 Economics seemed good to me when I was just picking my race to play with.

Yea. What creativity does is once in a while you might get a random event that gives you an extra 25% research toward your current tech or an anomaly that does the same. You might also get a "free" tech right away after discovering a tech (a "breakthrough") one might say. But it's all random and you can't count on it so I'd much rather spend those points in upping diplomacy or economics.

[Solver]

OK, recommend me a civ for my second game . My first game where I started without having the slightest idea of what to do is soon to be over I guess.