Tweet
In reviewing the various strategy threads I see a lot of people focusing on one goal at a time. For example, the "put everything into factories, then put everything into ships" start. I have nowhere near enough experience to say that this is wrong, but I certainly have enough experience to say that other approaches are viable. Personally, I find the game more enjoyable by allowing many streams of activity to flow under my direction rather than muscling my people to accomplish individual discrete goals. For example, my usual starting techs do not include everything I like to have for exploration, so I will never dip research below 20%, and I pick up Stellar Cartography while everything else is getting off the ground. Typically I will throw down around 10% of my starting funds to get that first factory instantly, but in general I like to let things happen at their own pace. I find what gets results for me is to nurture good health across the whole span of my empire, so I may going with a 42% research, 33% social spending, 25% military spending approach, but each of those slices comes out of a much bigger pie because I have not been manhandling my empire into doing everything in discrete serial tasks.
I really do not know how different approaches to starting stack up, but I do know that 5000 bc is plenty enough reserve to throw down 450-550 bc on day one for a significant boost. If that first factory is on an enhanced yield zone, already a 60M/20S/20R budget is enough to spit out scouts instantly and colony ships in 3-5 turns. Even if you buy several factories outright, producing colony in 1 turn (unless you're on a nerfed skill level) seems like an unrealistic plan with basic technologies. With more than three factories on that initial planet, other aspects of early growth will be neglected. I do agree with widespread complaints about the cost of empty social queues, but I also encounter the problem less perhaps because I am happy to let my larger planets have a stack of pending upgrades most of the time rather than maintaining enough industrial capacity to keep them idle most of the time. More to the point -- and here is where "the smooth approach" begins to constitute a strategy -- I decide what techs to research and what outputs to emphasize based on this plan of all-around sustained yet balanced growth.
For example, I will try to lead a new level of research facility with discovery of a new level of factory, since my building plans probably are research-heavy and doing the reverse usually leaves me with a backlog of research construction while my factories become more and more out of date. Yet if I notice a particular problem, like an impending economic crash or borders shifting in the wrong direction, I will research the applicable upgrades as soon as possible (and maybe even slide them up their queues if the need is urgent.) Again, the idea is not to do one thing, then another, but to let billions of people do their many countless things and manage the output smoothly. Both which social project upgrades to research and how to balance that kind of research with military and government techs is a response to where my planets are at in a given moment. If queues look short or core worlds are actually idling, then I believe a major upgrade technology should be a high priority. If social queues are cluttered, that may be a time to focus on the next generation of warships or advances in the government/trade/diplomacy sphere. Of course it would be wrong to be a slave to circumstances and always go with the flow, but my intuition tells me that being aware of the flow and working to harness it is more enjoyable if not also more effective than playing strategies based around a "do X, then do Y, then do Z" approach.
Of course, even perfectionist planners must sometimes adapt to circumstances. Likewise, even completely cold opportunists will benefit from occasionally indulging a personal preference. For example, if you are pursuing vertical expansion (i.e. building a "tall" civilization on a small group of highly developed worlds) and do not enjoy protracted warfare, it may be unwise to build a huge fleet even if you have excess military production capacity or a juicy neighbor looks unable to defend his own turf. On the other hand, if you really relish warfare, having the most productive starbases and best trade routes may not be the right path for you even if astrography and other happenstance make a commercial strategy otherwise ideal. Still, it is entirely possible to pursue coherent goals without breaking down every moment of the game into the pursuit of one discrete goal. Certainly, when war is pending or underway, it makes good sense to ramp up military spending. Yet if the war should not be resolved quickly, completely cutting off tech spending could prove disastrous -- even if the war itself is too bloody for an arms race to develop, other empires are likely to advance while self-imposed tech paralysis lingers. Likewise, there can be no doubt it is crucial to get control of good worlds early in the game. Yet how much more effective is a factory, factory, factory, factory, ship, ship, ship, ship approach than balancing industralization and exploration and research all together in some proportion?
I guess part of my observation is that, while MOO3 sought to create a "you're the emperor of a vast civilization and you can just cruise through and make leadership decisions along the way" experience, GalCiv 2 nearly succeeds without even trying in this area. The design of ships, nuances of buildings, management of trade routes, et al. make it clear that the game was not afraid to allow micromanagement where there was some fun or at least some mental stimulation involved in diving into available details. Yet it is also possible to go for many turns in a series while doing little more than directing research goals and handling diplomacy with other leaders. Even on a fairly large scale or with a fairly large number of planets, things stay smooth and clutter is manageable where it exists at all. I certainly don't want to discourage people from developing and testing strategies that focus on discrete goals. Yet I do want to encourage people to consider other approaches, where empires are managed with a lighter touch and accomplishing your goals is more about farsightedness than brute force. Somehow, I sense what I'm talking about is more in harmony with the essence of the game, but again I make no promises that it is statistically ideal. It just happens to be more fun for me, it may be more fun for others, and my limited experience does not reveal it as coming up short when compared with the alternative approach.
Regards,
Adam Weishaupt
I really do not know how different approaches to starting stack up, but I do know that 5000 bc is plenty enough reserve to throw down 450-550 bc on day one for a significant boost. If that first factory is on an enhanced yield zone, already a 60M/20S/20R budget is enough to spit out scouts instantly and colony ships in 3-5 turns. Even if you buy several factories outright, producing colony in 1 turn (unless you're on a nerfed skill level) seems like an unrealistic plan with basic technologies. With more than three factories on that initial planet, other aspects of early growth will be neglected. I do agree with widespread complaints about the cost of empty social queues, but I also encounter the problem less perhaps because I am happy to let my larger planets have a stack of pending upgrades most of the time rather than maintaining enough industrial capacity to keep them idle most of the time. More to the point -- and here is where "the smooth approach" begins to constitute a strategy -- I decide what techs to research and what outputs to emphasize based on this plan of all-around sustained yet balanced growth.
For example, I will try to lead a new level of research facility with discovery of a new level of factory, since my building plans probably are research-heavy and doing the reverse usually leaves me with a backlog of research construction while my factories become more and more out of date. Yet if I notice a particular problem, like an impending economic crash or borders shifting in the wrong direction, I will research the applicable upgrades as soon as possible (and maybe even slide them up their queues if the need is urgent.) Again, the idea is not to do one thing, then another, but to let billions of people do their many countless things and manage the output smoothly. Both which social project upgrades to research and how to balance that kind of research with military and government techs is a response to where my planets are at in a given moment. If queues look short or core worlds are actually idling, then I believe a major upgrade technology should be a high priority. If social queues are cluttered, that may be a time to focus on the next generation of warships or advances in the government/trade/diplomacy sphere. Of course it would be wrong to be a slave to circumstances and always go with the flow, but my intuition tells me that being aware of the flow and working to harness it is more enjoyable if not also more effective than playing strategies based around a "do X, then do Y, then do Z" approach.
Of course, even perfectionist planners must sometimes adapt to circumstances. Likewise, even completely cold opportunists will benefit from occasionally indulging a personal preference. For example, if you are pursuing vertical expansion (i.e. building a "tall" civilization on a small group of highly developed worlds) and do not enjoy protracted warfare, it may be unwise to build a huge fleet even if you have excess military production capacity or a juicy neighbor looks unable to defend his own turf. On the other hand, if you really relish warfare, having the most productive starbases and best trade routes may not be the right path for you even if astrography and other happenstance make a commercial strategy otherwise ideal. Still, it is entirely possible to pursue coherent goals without breaking down every moment of the game into the pursuit of one discrete goal. Certainly, when war is pending or underway, it makes good sense to ramp up military spending. Yet if the war should not be resolved quickly, completely cutting off tech spending could prove disastrous -- even if the war itself is too bloody for an arms race to develop, other empires are likely to advance while self-imposed tech paralysis lingers. Likewise, there can be no doubt it is crucial to get control of good worlds early in the game. Yet how much more effective is a factory, factory, factory, factory, ship, ship, ship, ship approach than balancing industralization and exploration and research all together in some proportion?
I guess part of my observation is that, while MOO3 sought to create a "you're the emperor of a vast civilization and you can just cruise through and make leadership decisions along the way" experience, GalCiv 2 nearly succeeds without even trying in this area. The design of ships, nuances of buildings, management of trade routes, et al. make it clear that the game was not afraid to allow micromanagement where there was some fun or at least some mental stimulation involved in diving into available details. Yet it is also possible to go for many turns in a series while doing little more than directing research goals and handling diplomacy with other leaders. Even on a fairly large scale or with a fairly large number of planets, things stay smooth and clutter is manageable where it exists at all. I certainly don't want to discourage people from developing and testing strategies that focus on discrete goals. Yet I do want to encourage people to consider other approaches, where empires are managed with a lighter touch and accomplishing your goals is more about farsightedness than brute force. Somehow, I sense what I'm talking about is more in harmony with the essence of the game, but again I make no promises that it is statistically ideal. It just happens to be more fun for me, it may be more fun for others, and my limited experience does not reveal it as coming up short when compared with the alternative approach.
Regards,
Adam Weishaupt
If there's a star, I'm sending a colony ship that way. I have to admit, though, it does matter how rare your planets are in the initial settings. I have a lot of fun going abundant habitable planets, since economy starbases spanning 6 planets are a lot of fun. 
)
Comment