Civ IV and GalCiv 2 [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

DoomMunky

09-22-2007, 12:46 AM

EvilIdler

09-22-2007, 01:03 AM

They're different games, but I think Civ4 might be the game for you. You could also wait,
and get the Civ version coming for consoles, if you're feeling REALLY overwhelmed by strategy titles ;)

Greatatlantic

09-22-2007, 01:08 AM

Civ IV is incredibly user friendly. The key is pop ups help you keep track of things and tell you what commands do, and the ingame civopediea(sp?) tells you everything else you need to now. A lot of things are also automated so you don't need to worry about micromanaging to much. Still, its a 4x game. GC2 probably requires a little more complex thinking, with the sliders and and the redesigning of the ships, but Civ. 4 will require you to make long term stategic decisions. Obviously, I can't know for certain where it falls on DoomMonkey's Spectrum of complex<->fun. The demo might acomplish that. If nothing else you can always play on an easy setting and not worry about having to micromanage.

Oh, and watch out for the Beyond the Sword expansion. The addition of espionage makes the game considerably more complicated early on. I'd recommend the expansion to anyone interested in 4x games, but that might not be you.

Equisilus

09-22-2007, 05:27 AM

I absolutely loved Civ4, even when I lost and lost and lost on the higher difficulties. GalCiv2, however, was just okay. It never drew me in quite like Civ4 could but I'm not sure if that's because of the setting or the gameplay. It's not that GalCiv2 is a bad game (it's good at what it offers) but it never made me interested enough to want to keep playing over other games I have available.

I'd certainly suggest giving Civ4 a try, especially when you're someone who likes strategy games in general.

durwoodx

09-22-2007, 05:31 AM

Also, Civ IV has such a huge variance of AI difficulty. The lower ends of the difficulty range a retarded monkey could beat. The higher ends are red hot smoking death to all. There's got to be something on that whole spectrum for every level of player.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-22-2007, 07:58 AM

I've always liked CivII and love tactical games like Silent Storm and, well, pretty much only Silent Storm, actually.

Silent Storm was awesome. I'd reinstall it if it didn't have Starforce.

Why can't I take over a planet after I've shot all their ships down? What's the difference between Sentry and Guard? Why do I feel like a failure when I know that the complex UI, demanding learning curve, and nuanced, subtle gameplay choices are probably a bit over my head, and none of it is helped by the layer of remove that the space setting puts on the whole experience?

1. You need to invade with ground troops, which means you'll need to get the Planetary Invasion tech, design a ship with one or more Troop Modules, load a bunch of your citizens into it, and land it on the planet while it's undefended. Planetary Invasion is not trivial to research; it will take a while and is the main barrier to entry in terms of being technologically ready for a major war. No Planetary Invasion means you'll never take planets, and few enemies will want peace if they haven't lost any planets.

2. Sentried units "wake up" if enemies approach. Guarding units don't. Just like Civ. (I don't use the sentry feature myself, so I'm not sure of the details. I hope enemies don't have to come within one square to wake sentries; that wouldn't be very useful.)

3. I can't speak to all possible reasons for Galciv 2 making you feel like a failure, but I think you're being too hard on yourself. Look through the manual, check out the official site (http://www.galciv2.com/), consult the wiki (http://galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Galactic_Civilizations_Wiki) when necessary, and hell, jpinard wrote a Beginner's Guide (http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=104908). If you'd like to try a new game of Galciv 2 and continue this thread by posting your questions as they arise, I for one would be happy to answer them as best I can.

tylertoo

09-22-2007, 08:14 AM

.... jpinard wrote a Beginner's Guide (http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=104908). If you'd like to try a new game of Galciv 2 and continue this thread by posting your questions as they arise, I for one would be happy to answer them as best I can.
Jeff's guide is very good, as is the "Paths to Victory" guide (http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/925349/46577)...both of which helped me 'get' GalCiv2 finally. If you're interested in keeping at it, try both.

If you go for Civ IV, try this guide (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=165632).

Iron Xides

09-22-2007, 08:32 AM

Silent Storm was awesome. I'd reinstall it if it didn't have Starforce.
I think Silent Storm only has Starforce on the Russian release.

Rock8man

09-22-2007, 08:32 AM

DoomMunky, I felt the same way about the GalCiv games. They're just a tad bit more complex, with lots of little tricks you have to learn beyond just what's obvious. And what made it worse for me is that the AI seemed to know all those tricks from the beginning.

That's one of the reasons why I still like MoO2 better than the GalCiv games. In Galciv 1, after playing on and off for years and continuing to lose to the AI, (And by on and off, I do mean, trying a game once a year or so) I finally was able to learn enough about the game and the system to be able to game the system a little bit and actually beat the AI on a decent difficulty level. The key in GalCiv 1 was that you needed Constructors to build those space station module thingies, which were the key to the whole game. And I hated that the AI seemed to know all that from the beginning of the game even on lower difficulty settings, but I had to kind of stumble my around and figure it out the hard way.

And then, just when I finally thought I had that concept down, GalCiv2 came out. And suddenly, I couldn't win again, because it added new subtleties that the AI knows about and how it games the system, but that I don't know about yet, and instead of trying to learn them, I just kind of gave up and went back to playing MoO2.

The equivalent example I can think of for Civilization 2 was the Caravans. If you wanted to beat the game on higher difficulties, the key discovery every Civ2 player eventually makes is that if you build lots and lots of caravans, you can actually compete with the AI on getting wonders built first. The caravans help you finish your wonders fast, so having lots and lots of caravans was one of the ways "game" the system and get ahead even on the higher difficulties.

But if Civ2 had been a GalCiv game, the computer would have been building caravans and using that technique to game the system from the beginning of the game, making defeats even more crushing even on lower difficulties. I just think GalCiv's AI is what's to blame here. It's just a little TOO good. Instead of acting out roles of races with its diplomacy, and behavior, it acts out roles of other competing human players and what they would do to try to win. It's certainly a more interesting way to do AI when you're looking to give players a challenge, but I think it makes the game less immersive. I actually kind of prefer games like Civ2 and MoO2, where the AI kind of behaves and acts out like you would think a Darlock would act out, or the French would act under Napoleon, or how the repulsive rock-eating silicoids would act out. I don't want the AI to act like its a bot in a botmatch in Unreal Tournament where its kind of trying to emulate human behavior and be challenging by being like a human player.

On the other hand, Unicorn McGriddle's offer of help is a very generous one. If I'd had somewhere to turn to when I first trying to learn GalCiv2, it might have made for a lot less frustrations at the hands of the AI and its gaming of the system. I'd take him up on the offer myself if Halo 3 wasn't coming out in 3 days. :)

MikeJ

09-22-2007, 08:49 AM

It isn't that Galciv2 is super-complex. It's just that the way the economy works can be pretty strange and counter-intuitive if you're not Brad Wardell. The other factor is that you start with a good reserve of resources at the beginning of the game, so you're expected to do a lot more in the opening 20 turns than you would in a standard Civ start. This doesn't help the beginner, especially when the economic sliders start at "No, I'd rather not use all my production potential, thanks!"

However, you can reduce the AI difficulty to the point where they will basically just sit and wait to be invaded, so I wouldn't say that it's a harder game than Civ. Just harder to grok.

DoomMunky

09-22-2007, 11:10 AM

I wouldn't say that it's a harder game than Civ. Just harder to grok.

Perfectly put. I think my main issue with GalCiv2 is that I learned how to do a lot of stuff in the game, but I've never been fully clear on WHY stuff works when it does (or doesn't). Some of the tech tree stuff is pretty hard to use (planning for future tech is really easy in Civ), and because of the setting it's not always clear what stuff is or what it'll lead to down the line. That was one of my issues with Alpha Centauri as well, as I'm sure others have mentioned.

There's also something frustrating about reading up on GalCiv2 online and realizing that most of the guides are written by and for very high-level strategic players, and tend to give out WAY too much information for a player like me, who's just looking to 'get' the game. After having read up on the game quite a bit, I know a fair number of tidbits that just end up confusing me and/or leading me off down unhelpful technological paths while I neglect basic things like the economic balance on my planets.

I'm just a little frustrated at the moment, and maybe I am selling myself short, but there's something about GalCiv2 that just hasn't 'clicked' for me yet.

Thanks for all the offers of help, guys, and for pointing me at those sweet guides. I'm downloading CivIV as I type, so I'm gonna give it a serious shot and see if it clicks for me. But posting about my questions in GalCiv is very appealing as well...

Tyjenks

09-22-2007, 11:19 AM

Perfectly put. I think my main issue with GalCiv2 is that I learned how to do a lot of stuff in the game, but I've never been fully clear on WHY stuff works when it does (or doesn't). Some of the tech tree stuff is pretty hard to use (planning for future tech is really easy in Civ), and because of the setting it's not always clear what stuff is or what it'll lead to down the line. That was one of my issues with Alpha Centauri as well, as I'm sure others have mentioned.

I loved both GalCivs, but I agree, DoomMunky about games with space settings having more bumps in the learning curve. It is a manufactured reality that is made up of technological inventions that some (including me) have trouble relating to. The Civ games, for the most part, have real world technological advances that we are accustomed to and can more readily wrap our brains around and for which we can recognize their logical purposes. To a lesser extent, fantasy settings are a bit easier also, probably because we have seen the same items and conventions so many times in games and books we have read.

Alpha Centauri I never enjoyed for this very reason. Luckily, I did put the time into the GalCiv games and was rewarded with teh Fun.

Qenan

09-22-2007, 11:21 AM

I didn't like GalCiv2 that much either. Too much work for the entertainment level.

However... while I loved Civ2, I'm not wild about Civ4. It's very polished, but the balance is different from earlier Civ games. The combat is more complex,which I disliked (as for me combat simulation isn't really the point of the game). In my experience, there is very little fighting in the ancient world, which is OK gameplay-wise, but which absolutely ruins the feeling of historical immersion.

Fundamentally, what I enjoyed about Civ was exploring and founding cities; I typically lost interest once that phase of the game was over. In Civ 4, that part of the game seems less fun -- exploration is much slower, and the chance of stealing an enemy city early is basically zilch. While the overall game is challenging enough, it's no longer a game I care much about playing.

YMMV, of course.

Edit: speeling

DoomMunky

09-22-2007, 11:22 AM

Equisilus

09-22-2007, 11:26 AM

2. Sentried units "wake up" if enemies approach. Guarding units don't. Just like Civ. (I don't use the sentry feature myself, so I'm not sure of the details. I hope enemies don't have to come within one square to wake sentries; that wouldn't be very useful.)

I may be mixing this up, but I was pretty sure that a sentry wakes up on the approach of anyone, enemy or otherwise, while a guard only wakes up on enemies. I used guard a lot for that reason, since I wanted to know mainly about enemy approaching, not the occasional ally.

To DoomMunky: I find the larger maps make for a more enjoyable game when you are a builder as opposed to a blitz player. If you like a slower pace and enjoy expansion and advancing your civilization, then smaller maps would cramp your style. I can't say what an average game would take, because that really depends on your play style and the circumstances of the map. Perhaps someone else can give you a good idea, but all of my games seemed to take several hours at least, most times much more than that.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-22-2007, 12:14 PM

Does the average game in GalCiv2 take several hours? My current game is about 3 hours in, and I've just gotten 6 trade routes established and a well-funded economy. I could start piling out the Constructors for starbases or I could pump out some fighters for warfare (which I tried after saving but the Yor Collective kicked my ass). It feels about halfway done, maybe a little less. I'm on a Medium map with 5 other races. Did I start too big? Should I play on some more small maps until I get my feet under me? I have played several times on smaller maps, but that was several months ago...

It depends on the settings -- not just map size but also map density (stars/planets/habitables). Three hours and halfway done sounds reasonable for a medium map -- I'd guess playing the game out could take six to eight hours depending on how things shake out, but that's just a guess. What's your difficulty? What are the other races? How many planets have you got compared to them? Do you have any likely allies? How's your technological position compared to everybody else, particularly your closest neighbors? Has anyone tried to extort you lately? Where are you on the Military Power graph?

I wouldn't say you started too big. It's a matter of taste. If you'd like to play smaller maps, then by all means, go for it.

Aeon221

09-22-2007, 01:48 PM

Okay, I'm trying not to feel stupid here, but Galactic Civilizations 2 is turning me off. I've never been very good at strategy games, but I've always liked CivII and love tactical games like Silent Storm and, well, pretty much only Silent Storm, actually.

But GalCivII is so freakin' complex and nuanced that I can't help but feel dumb. Why can't I take over a planet after I've shot all their ships down? What's the difference between Sentry and Guard? Why do I feel like a failure when I know that the complex UI, demanding learning curve, and nuanced, subtle gameplay choices are probably a bit over my head, and none of it is helped by the layer of remove that the space setting puts on the whole experience?

If I go buy CivIV on Steam (like I want to right now) will I regret it? I haven't played a Civ game seriously since Civ II, and I never really advanced very far down the difficulty path. I'm not sure I played a single serious game on anything other than Chieftan level. The baby level.

So I guess I'm asking you guys to tell me that I'm not lame for being overwhelmed and underequipped for GalCiv2, even though I want to play a more "indie" game and support it.

Also tell me I should buy CivIV, that it'll satisfy my strategy jones, and that I'm not dumb for wanting the more 'mainstream' experience.

It does have a manual, you know. If that still isn't enough, a quick perusal of sites like gamefaqs will net you plenty of specific, useful information that will enable you to not play like a newb =D

I'm not playing GalCiv because I don't enjoy space 4x games. I'm actually a tad soured on the whole genre after the fiasco that was the Civ4 launch (I was fairly well known in the modding community and highly addicted to Civ3, but even years after I've still got a total meh feel on Civ4). I bought GalCiv because I really like how well they "interface" with the community, and because I want them to be successful and emulated throughout the industry.

DavidKaye

09-22-2007, 01:56 PM

Okay, first question:

Does the average game in GalCiv2 take several hours? My current game is about 3 hours in, and I've just gotten 6 trade routes established and a well-funded economy. I could start piling out the Constructors for starbases or I could pump out some fighters for warfare (which I tried after saving but the Yor Collective kicked my ass). It feels about halfway done, maybe a little less. I'm on a Medium map with 5 other races. Did I start too big? Should I play on some more small maps until I get my feet under me? I have played several times on smaller maps, but that was several months ago...

You're fine on Medium. Assuming you have a vaguely decent set of worlds to your name, I'd forget about military conquest - too much micromanagement, particularly when you're new - and try to build towards a cultural victory.

Don't fall totally behind on the military tech (trading for it is a good strategy) and keep a bit of a fleet around for defensive measures so the more aggressive AIs don't invade you, but that's unlikely to be a major issue at lower difficulties.

Focus on the cultural/influence techs and start building some cultural starbases to start expanding your area of influence. You'll get increasing amounts of tourism income and eventually you'll start flipping opponents' worlds to your civ.

This should give you a nice, leisurely game that will give you plenty of time to learn the tech tree and get a feel for how it all works.

scharmers

09-22-2007, 02:01 PM

I've found that the old "keep playing unfinished games until you start to get it" method works well with GalCiv2.

You know, the non-instant gratification method.

DoomMunky

09-22-2007, 02:55 PM

What daedalus has suggested really seems like a good idea for me; try a low-key cultural conquest and get familiar with the concepts and the game.

Question 2: The economy. I'm really confused by the whole spending level thing. I get how to focus production on specific worlds, and that by prioritizing my overall allocations of military, cultural, and research I can change what overall percentage of resources each world will spend on those things (that's how it works, right?), but why in God's name would I want to not fully fund the projects I'm working on? Is this just a high-level option for economic management which I should ignore for now? I tend to set it at 100% and forget about it. Does it have any non-expert level use?

Thanks for everything, guys. Not only is this really helping me approach the game in a different way, you're making me want to avoid CivIV till I've given GalCiv more of a fair shake! (and you make this forum look good, but that's too sappy to say, and will therefore be couched in an ironic distancing device by placing it in parentheses; warm fuzzies all around)

MikeJ

09-22-2007, 03:09 PM

why in God's name would I want to not fully fund the projects I'm working on? Is this just a high-level option for economic management which I should ignore for now? I tend to set it at 100% and forget about it. Does it have any non-expert level use?

In some situations, your income isn't high enough to fund your industry at full pace, so you have to cut spending somehow. You can do this by prioritizing military construction and leaving planets without build projects, but sometimes it can be easier to just cut the slider down.

You might run into a cash crunch situation at higher difficulties if you are trying to expand quickly and end up paying maintanance on many worlds before your population gets large enough to provide a strong tax base.

DavidKaye

09-22-2007, 03:32 PM

you make this forum look good, but that's too sappy to say, and will therefore be couched in an ironic distancing device by placing it in parentheses; warm fuzzies all around

Don't worry, it's only a matter of time until someone accuses you of being a viral marketer.

DoomMunky

09-22-2007, 03:47 PM

Okay, so it can be useful to have in certain economic 'crunch' situations. Cool.

Question 3, with slight lead in, including minor boast: I just successfully performed my first ship to ship combat. The Yor have level 4 mass drivers and level 2 armor (both are in the same 'military' category) on their attack craft. To attempt to counter this, I built a ship with level 2 armor and level 2 missles, which aren't defended against by the armor. And I kicked their asses! They hurt my manly MissleBoats, sure, but I defeated them in both engagements, which means I have ships that need repairs. So Question 3 is how do I repair? Park a ship on a planet with a Starport?

Question 4 is an adjunct: If I'd had level 4 armor, would the Yor ships have hurt me at all? Do weapon level and armor level (in the same category) cancel each other out if equal?

Don't worry, it's only a matter of time until someone accuses you of being a viral marketer.

Sweet! We can get it out of the way then: Halo halo halo. Roxxors. L33t. You guyz are c00l, have you tried GamerFuel ha ha lolz it's teh awesome.

L33t.

Okay, now that I'm fully back into it I have another one.

Question 5: Can you capture starbases in the base game? I'm working with only Dread Lords, and now that I bought CivIV this morning (damn hastiness!) I've used up my gaming bucks for a little while, and won't be able to get the expansion (Dark Alliance?) for a month or so.

EDITED to add question 5 and for clarity

MikeJ

09-22-2007, 05:05 PM

Q3: IIRC, ships repair a bit every turn, even in deep space, but I think they repair in a planetary orbit. I don't know if a starport makes a difference.

Q4: They've changed the combat system a couple of times, so I'll go with what it was the last time I played. Every time an individual enemy weapon fires on your ship, you roll the targetted ship's total defence score against that weapon type. You subtract your roll from the damage and the weapon roll is subtracted from your defences.

So an enemy ship with two mass drivers with 2 damage each will have a mass driver rating of 4. A ship with 4 armour (and no other defences) has a defence against mass drivers of 4. So,

attacker rolls 0-2: rolls a 1
defender rolls 0-4: rolls a 3 --> defence reduced to 3 (for this round)
attacker rolls 0-2: rolls a 2
defender rolls 0-4: rolls a 1 --> defence reduced to 1 (for this round), 1 damage

What tends to happen is you can expect 10 defence rating to block about 16-18 points worth of the appropriate attack rating in a given round before failing. If you have a bunch of small ships facing a large fleet, they will tend to burn through each of your ship's defences fairly quickly. If you have a big ship facing a not-so-big fleet, they might not be able to burn through your defences in a single round, in which case your defences are back up to full next round.

Q5: None of the versions of the game let you capture starbases, as far as I know.

cliffski

09-22-2007, 05:28 PM

reading this just reminds me how massively galciv 2 kicks ass. I may have to reinstall it and have a blast. I much prefer galciv 2 to civ 4 in every possible way, but then i love games with spaceship design and silly named weapons.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-22-2007, 05:36 PM

I think there's a technology that helps repairs, a trade good that helps repairs, a racial ability that helps repairs, and a military starbase module that helps repairs. These things aside, it's my impression that the poorest repair rate is in enemy territory, followed by no-man's-land, followed by your own territory, followed by friendly orbit (the best). You might also get a faster rate of repair for ships that skip their turn. I don't know any of that for sure because when my ships are damaged, I either write them off ("don't worry, boys, we'll send another wave") or send them back to base. It's possible that you don't get the benefit on planets without starports. Again, not sure. Starports are great places to send your shattered fleets, because they can get replacements right off the production line while they're being fixed up.

Marcus

09-22-2007, 05:42 PM

Q5: None of the versions of the game let you capture starbases, as far as I know.

Couldnt you gain them from influence though? I know thats not really capturing them but still.

DavidKaye

09-22-2007, 06:25 PM

I don't think starbases flip. Mining bases in the expansion do, but I don't think regular military/culture/trade starbases do.

Jab2565

09-22-2007, 11:05 PM

I keep on trying to get into Galciv 2 but each time I stop playing after a hour. The game feels sterile compared to civ or alpha centauri. I agree about how there is alot going on and your not sure how, even though I'm horrible at civ, I understand the majority of how things work. The advertisement of unique tech trees for each side with the new galciv expansion might help things for me, but I wish the game was as interesting as the blog that was posted here a few weeks ago.

Damien Neil

09-23-2007, 01:04 AM

It's too sterile for me as well. The very generic tech trees just leave me cold; when I try to play, I just find myself wanting to play Alpha Centauri instead.

I wouldn't have thought you could make conquering the galaxy seem boring, but GalCiv does it for me. Alas; I wanted to like it, since I love the company.

Taranis

09-23-2007, 10:28 AM

I love both games, but Civ4 is with out a doubt my favorite 4x-TBS of the two. I haven't stopped playing Civ4 since it launched, and the new expansion "Beyond the Sword" is superb and adds to its longevity. The best phrase I've read to describe Civ4 is: " It's complex, but not complicated" and thats Civ4 in a nut shell, anyone can jump right in and have a blast; this isn't true of GalCiv2, unfortunately.

GalCiv2 is a great game, but things like the generic tech tree and no MP eventually degraded my enthusiasm for playing it, but I still consider it one of my favorite 4x-TBS games.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-23-2007, 10:33 AM

Yeah, Galciv's number one problem is a lack of character. Trying to get into it, it seems bland as shit. However, when you've played for a while, you'll realize that you're now drawing that "character" impression from stuff you've seen other races do. For example, twice now I've seen the Torians go through Torian 9/11, break their Alliance with me, and declare war. Nobody else has ever done this. Now I see the Torians as dubious allies, cloaking their desire for conquest behind an initial pose of neutrality, weakness, and even friendship. And sure enough, in later games I've noticed the Torians beating up on the minors and going after vulnerable civs.

I have no idea to what extent this is actual Torian-specific stuff as opposed to the luck of the draw and my own capacity for self-delusion. But it FEELS like it has more character now, and for something as nebulous as "character," there's really no other way to measure it.

DoomMunky

09-23-2007, 12:21 PM

I'm loving learning the new races, their proclivities, and seeing how subtlely the devs use the game mechanics to explicate and display the behaviors of the various races.

Question 6: Is there any 'next ship with moves left' key? I'm getting tired of looking all over for ships on paths, finding their autopilot destinations and clicking those. I like to sheperd them along their routes because frequent detours may be necessary, especially in the early game as you're zipping past various star systems.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-23-2007, 12:59 PM

Tab. It won't select ships on autopilot, though. I don't know if there's a way to do that.

Edit: Have you considered using a system of rally points for common destinations? It may not solve your "guiding autopilot" problem, but it could be helpful in other ways. I like to have staging worlds where I combine the production of several planets into fleets suitable for the front lines.

DoomMunky

09-23-2007, 01:07 PM

I haven't gotten fleets that are large enough to justify the need for rally points yet, but once I get more militaristic, I'm sure I'm going to want to set up a series of perimeter defences, and rally points will probably serve my purposes well.

I just started a new game and am following the Paths to Victory guide very closely. It has a TON of useful advice, and though occasionally I wish it explained the details of certain systems more thoroughly, it is a remarkably straightforward and helpful guide. I feel finally like I'm getting a handle on what my various priorities should be, how to set up production vs. research vs. economy and so on, and how to establish a firm foundation for later in the game. It's great stuff, so thanks, y'all.

DoomMunky

09-23-2007, 10:26 PM

Okay, new question, number 7: Is there any reason not to trade Alliances with other races? I'm playing on a Large map with 9 other races, and they're all excited as hell to get Alliances from me, often trading several lower level techs AND several hundred bc for the right to have Alliances...

Unicorn McGriddle

09-23-2007, 10:53 PM

Alliances are awesome and you should generally take them if you can get them. If your opponents are eager to ally with you, it means they see you as being in a position of power. Maybe you're huge, maybe you're militarily capable, maybe you have tons of diplomatic techs, maybe you've got a huge tech lead. All these things make everybody take you more seriously.

You'll also have an easier time allying with civs that share your alignment or alignment tendency. Particularly as Good. Like Jews in Civ4, Good civs tend to form a powerful voting and fighting bloc as the game goes on. (In Civ4, it's because Judaism is founded early, so that "they're part of our faith" or whatever bonus pops up pretty fast. In GC2, every alignment is tracking right from the start and all of them require Xeno Ethics to go active, but Good is just more inclined to alliances. Good is a buddy squad, Neutral is a commerce partnership, and Evil is, at best, a loose truce dedicated to killing everyone else.)

There are, however, some reasons to avoid alliances. Here's my attempt at a complete list:

1. The civ in question is a hot conquest prospect. If the war won't be too costly, it may be better to take over than just shake hands.

2. The civ in question is too friendly/tradey/already allied with a civ you can expect to go to war with.

3. The civ in question might take advantage of a partnership to grab all the good bits in a coming war. (Seen it happen a million times. You fight down the planetary defenses, you invade, your invasion falls barely short, you re-route a troop pod from someplace else to finish the job, but just before you get there, the fucking Arceans sweep in. Ancient and honorable society, my ass.)

4. The civ in question is a cultural threat. If you ally with them, they can still flip your planets.

5. The civ in question is gunning for a victory that they can attain while allied. (Cultural, Scientific, Diplomatic.) This is REALLY bad if you won't share the victory.

6. There just isn't anything in it for you. Many small civs don't have anything to offer and wouldn't be useful to ally with. If you're not going for a diplomatic victory, why bother?

Wait 'til you get Dark Avatar and discover Treaties. Some arm-twisting goes on there, let me tell you.

Edit: Yeah, there were more. I forgot two very important ones.

7. The civ in question is a bunch of bastards and they're gonna BLEED god dammit! Man, when somebody's given me trouble in the early game and then comes crawling for an alliance after I make it big, my impulse is to refuse, extort them, and then attack. I don't always follow that impulse, especially if I've still got a bigger boot on my neck and I need the help, but nobody plays realpolitik all the time. Sometimes it's got to be about the sweet revenge.

8. If they're the Torians. I'm not saying never ally with the Torians; sometimes it's a good idea. But the Torians typically abuse my patronage to drag me into their incredibly greedy wars of conquest, and after all that grief, there's still a pretty good chance that they'll have Torian 9/11 and put a jihad on you. Fucking Torian ET mother fuckers.

DoomMunky

09-23-2007, 11:03 PM

Oh poop! That's a ton of good info, Unicorn, and thanks! But I wasn't clear enough. I meant the other civs just want to trade the Alliances TECH with me, and offer a lot for it.

But you made me wonder about some other stuff, mainly how you get an alliance with someone! I think you have to have Friendly or better relations with them? Then what? How do you establish an alliance?

Also, I just thought of what I guess is Question 9: Do the maintenance costs for spacecraft go to the culture at large, or are they paid by the planet that built them, like in Civ? I want to garrison all my planets, but only have starports in a few locales, and hope to build defenders at those places, then ship them around the galaxy to defend where needed. Will that screw me like it would in Civ?

Unicorn McGriddle

09-23-2007, 11:49 PM

They want the alliances tech because they want to be able to make alliances, and also because it's a diplomatic tech which will help them in all their diplomatic relations. And it's part of the road to better governments, too. If you're comfortable with giving a civ these capabilities, go ahead. Note that giving somebody the tech is often a good opener to maneuvering for an alliance with them.

You have to be Close to forge an alliance, which is a step beyond Friendly. Sometimes it's very hard to get there, even effectively impossible. Some civs are just not interested in playing nice with you. Once you have Close relations, you can just open up the diplomacy screen with that civ and suggest an alliance. They may be willing to give you stuff for deigning to ally with them, or you may gave to give them stuff to get them to throw in with you. This depends on your relative diplomative standing, which is a question of power and diplomatic bonuses.

As I understand it, ship maintenance is paid from your empire budget. I don't recall a ship maintenance entry in any planetary details screens I've seen, and even if there was, planets don't have individual budgets. The income listed for a planet goes into the general treasury, and the expenses listed for each planet go out of the general treasury. (Yes, even in a Star Federation under a Federalist government. Go figure.)

I like to garrison each planet myself, often with just a token ship on the rockballs. This deters casual invasion -- no lone troop transports taking my planets. Obsolete defense ships from your key worlds are perfect for this.

Naeblis

09-24-2007, 01:40 AM

I think the main virtues of GalCiv 2 are the excellent AI in a general sense, the correct balance between the macro and micromanagement overall, and the diplomacy of the games (i watched alliances flow and break, back-stabbing, extorsion, bullying, exchange of favors, cries of help, trust and mistrust, etc, and on top of that diplomacy affected by UP resolutions or changes of moral alignment) which gives the game character and affect the "meta-game" in a more superior level than the normal management of the planets/armies.

If the games is hard for you, just remember there are 9 difficulty setting, nine. And the first ones are braindead. :)

But yeah, the economic system is a bitch to understand.

DoomMunky

09-24-2007, 02:07 PM

I think the main virtues of GalCiv 2 are the excellent AI in a general sense, the correct balance between the macro and micromanagement overall, and the diplomacy of the games...

I've been a big fan of the game since I first downloaded it early this year, but the damn thing has enough weird little wrinkles that I just couldn't figure out that I ended up putting it down for five months. But something brought me back, too. There's something compelling about the world they've created that may be the systems they use, the way the gameplay flows, or maybe it's just the romance and excitement of Space Colonization and Empire Building! Whatever it is, I came back, and now thanks to this thread I'm really happy I did! It's really damn sunny here in the East Bay and I may have a date tonight, but I'd be totally fine with going back home and falling into Galactic Conquest Mode for five straight hours...I'd say that's the mark of a compelling game.

But yeah, the economic system is a bitch to understand. It's getting better, but man, it's hard to get into.

DoomMunky

09-25-2007, 11:59 AM

Wow! Thanks to all your help on here, I've been able to get to a VERY satisfactory mid-game position on a Large map with 9 other civs! The Drengin just declared war on me after a splash screen told me that a disgruntled farmer killed one of their diplomats (but didn't give me the option to punish the farmer! rats!), so now I'm using my (gasp!) very first waypoint as a staging area before I assault their planets. Their war is a good pretext to wipe them out.

But DANG does it take a while to build a fleet! My planets are spread far and wide, so getting guys to the front takes a while. My economy has also been focused on research, so tooling up for war takes a while, what with building new Starports and developing new ship designs. I've also got to research Planetary Invasion and get a few troop transports to the front, as well as some swarms of smaller ships to peck away at the defence. Which leads me to my questions.

Question 10: I've been using the Paths to Victory guide as a shipbuilding resource, and it's great, but it doesn't have any recomendations for specific fleet makeups. I've got several Small attackers at the front, and a couple Medium sized badass attack craft, and I want to add a bunch of little guys as support, but do y'all have any particular suggestions or guidelines for building even small fleets?

Question 11: Without using really unpleasant methods like Planetary Disruption or whatever, do other races look down on exterminating a race? The Drengin have three planets, and I'm looking to take them OUT. No one has alliances with them, and they're not trading much. Other than the usual affiliations based on diplomacy, alignment, and the like, are there any factors to worry about when thinking of wiping out a race?

Unicorn McGriddle

09-25-2007, 01:58 PM

10. One of the biggest bitches about someone else declaring war on you early is that you have to scramble for Planetary Invasion and an attack fleet. I like to skimp on engines when it comes to defense, so I often don't have a strike force ready to go when somebody jumps me. On the bright side, a strong defense CAN deter attack, even if it's not necessarily suitable for fighting the whole war.

SHIPBUILDING: Four things should dictate your fleet composition and ship production:

I. Production. This is the most important one. Not every world is going to be viable at all as a shipyard. Those that are will vary in output. Powerhouse worlds with precursor factories and shit are more suited to more costly ships, and less productive planets -- or ones focused elsewhere -- are more able to produce smaller, cheaper craft. This is obvious, I know, but what's not obvious is making this the first thing you consider. Don't come up with a magic mix of hull sizes and then try to bend your production to fit unless you have money to burn on ship purchases. There is no hard and fast "small ships or large ships" answer. Produce according to your capabilities.

II. Logistics. Your fleet composition will have to accomodate your logistics limits. Self-explanatory, and often a good reason to avoid going with larger hulls exclusively. If your logistics can support fleets with 1.9 of your biggest ships in them, making only those will seriously hurt you.

III. Technology. You generally want to go with the best stuff, but there will be times to cheap it out. Some things are more vital to research or include than others. Often your defensive fleets can skip engines and support. There are certain ship technologies that are alignment-exlcusive, the most important of these being the Evil weapons. These technologies are very powerful, but also very costly in terms of implementation, so choose wisely. I don't like to put Psionic Beams on cheap, fragile hulls -- for their cost, I want to be able to retreat and repair so I don't lose my investment. Don't worry as much about defenses on smaller ships, since they're more replaceable than survivable.

IV. Your Opponent's Ships. There is a moderately strong rock-paper-scissors dynamic between the weapons and the defenses. Shields are optimal against beams, armor is optimal against projectiles, and jamming is optimal against missiles. A defense defending against a non-applicable weapon will apply only the square root of its rating against an attack. (This means that the early defenses, with values of 1, are equally good against everything!) Basically, to respond to your opponent's capabilities, you ideally have defenses over 1 against his primary weapons and are mostly using weapons against which he has no defense. In the early game, these things probably don't matter very much, since defenses are not very advanced and all similarly effective.

11. The Drengin generally have few friends, because they are dicks. I'm not sure other races recognize what invasion techniques you use, even Core Cracking. Depending on the circumstances, some civs may feel threatened by your aggression; others may be impressed by your strength. They started the war, not you, which will help your diplomatic position. The worst diplomatic backlash I ever see is triggered by a civ (often the Torians, the Drengin, or me) invading multiple minors in rapid succession. I think it's because they're declaring a war AND wiping out a race, once each per planet.

If you leave a race helpless before you without conquering them right away, they may surrender, probably to somebody else. Then you lose planets you could otherwise have conquered, and often they go to the absolute worst civ possible. (Who the fuck surrenders to the Yor?) With the Drengin only having three planets, it sounds feasible to strip and invade all of them in a very short time frame, possibly a single turn.

DavidKaye

09-25-2007, 02:05 PM

I think it's safe to assume the diplomat assassination was conveniently arranged by the Drengin :)

Races tend to focus on particular weapon (Laser/Missile/Mass Driver) and armor (Shields/Armor/ECM) techs and neglect others. Find out what they are either prior to war by checking out their techs on the discussion screen, or by looking at their ships. Drengin, for instance, seem to really like Mass Drivers, so get as advanced as you can in Armor. If you haven't done the appropriate research, trade for it. Then, design and build ships that play to those specific strengths and weaknesses and you will punch FAR above your weight.

Given that they declared war on you, I think you are unlikely to suffer diplomatically if you conquer them. Not sure whether or not you get a penalty for gassing the populace or similar. Wouldn't surprise me if you did. Information warfare is great, if you can afford it.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-25-2007, 02:14 PM

Yeah, Information Warfare is my favorite, followed by Mini-Soldiers.

DoomMunky

09-25-2007, 02:24 PM

I like to skimp on engines when it comes to defense, so I often don't have a strike force ready to go when somebody jumps me. On the bright side, a strong defense CAN deter attack, even if it's not necessarily suitable for fighting the whole war.

This is an excellent idea! I didn't even consider this. What a great way to keep costs down. I'm thinking now that I'll use a couple crazy good defenders that can't really move and also a fairly quality attacker on each world, and then build up an attack force as necessary.

With the Drengin only having three planets, it sounds feasible to strip and invade all of them in a very short time frame, possibly a single turn.

Well this is certainly good news, but I'm going to keep my sights a little lower. This will be my first attempt at planetary invasion in almost 30 hours of play, and it may take some getting used to. I think I'll have two invasion boats ready to go and a small attack fleet that counters the Drengin's focus on Mass Drivers. I read about a cool strategy on the AAR board on the official forums, which was to build a basic cargo hull with major engines, boost it to where it's needed, then upgrade it to a troop carrier within striking distance of a planet. Sounds like a good thing to have in the back pocket in case of a sudden uprising from a neighbor or an unexpected crumpling of defences. It would be pretty terrible to lose the planet you've spent time wearing down to an opportunistic neighbor just because you couldn't get an invasion force there in time.

Damn, this game is complex and great, but it's damn hard to keep track of all the different types of ships you can make use of. Just from this thread alone I've described multiple ships within a single type: Two small attack craft, one with good defence and another strong on offence, a base cargo hull with engines and then the upgraded version(s) with troop transports, constructor, or colony modules as well. That's lots of ships. How do you guys keep track of all your ship needs? Lots of clever naming and judicious use of the Obsolete button?

I think it's safe to assume the diplomat assassination was conveniently arranged by the Drengin :)
That was EXACTLY my first thought! I was like, "oooohhh!! those crafty Drengin!!" Rrrrrr!

DavidKaye

09-25-2007, 02:39 PM

I think I'll have two invasion boats ready to go and a small attack fleet that counters the Drengin's focus on Mass Drivers. I read about a cool strategy on the AAR board on the official forums, which was to build a basic cargo hull with major engines, boost it to where it's needed, then upgrade it to a troop carrier within striking distance of a planet. Sounds like a good thing to have in the back pocket in case of a sudden uprising from a neighbor or an unexpected crumpling of defences. It would be pretty terrible to lose the planet you've spent time wearing down to an opportunistic neighbor just because you couldn't get an invasion force there in time.

Generally speaking, I love the strategy of building hyperfast troop dropships from cargo hulls. You can build them for that purpose right from the get go, usually. Depending on the layout of the galaxy and your tech level when you go to war, it's perfectly possible to have dropships that can move from a nice safe staging area on one of your planets to somewhere deep in enemy territory AND invade in a single turn.

Damn, this game is complex and great, but it's damn hard to keep track of all the different types of ships you can make use of. Just from this thread alone I've described multiple ships within a single type: Two small attack craft, one with good defence and another strong on offence, a base cargo hull with engines and then the upgraded version(s) with troop transports, constructor, or colony modules as well. That's lots of ships. How do you guys keep track of all your ship needs? Lots of clever naming and judicious use of the Obsolete button?

Judicious use of the Obsolete button is definitely key, particularly if you're like me and can't resist the urge to optimize your ship designs every time you unlock a new tech, but I might want to use some sort of coded designation alongside the flavor text so you can easily tell what you're building at a glance.

For example, you might build a 'DrenginSlayerM-B8A10-IONX2', which would be a medium hulled attack craft with 8 beam weapon power, 10 armor and two Ion engines. You can upgrade this design as you unlock better weapons, armor and engines, or as your ability to shrink stuff improves. Then just obsolete the old design and you're good to go.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-25-2007, 02:56 PM

I'd rather escort my troop ships than sprint with them. I like small drop pods -- built on the smallest hulls possible. Anything is more survivable than a Cargo hull, which has only one hit point, and many things are cheaper. Enough engine power to match whatever my standard fleet speed is -- early on, two native moves per turn will do it. (Getting the tech for Impulse Engines will increase all ship movement by one per turn, so by the time I'm fighting, a fairly basic engine will put my ships at three moves per turn, which is suitable for a local war.)

You'll be replacing your troop ships a lot, and they'll take population as soldiers. To avoid a second stop, I like to take the soldiers from the planet of manufacture, which in turn means that it's best for me to vary the planets I build troop transports on. Therefore, the smaller hulls make for a ship that I can build almost anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. If more troops are required, I build more of them on other planets and rendezvous them with escorts and each other.

Edit: I prefer to give my designs memorable names that are both unique and brief, provide any necessary explanation in the comment field, and then make new designs based on the original as required, incrementing the number for a general upgrade or adding a letter for a specialized version.

So, for example, I'll have my initial Small attack ships, and I'll call the design Beetongue. Then I'll get some better technology and make a general upgrade, the Beetongue 2. Then I'll get into a fight with the Iconians and need to switch up my weaponry, and I'll create a new design called the Beetongue 2i. As my manufacturing base and technological development grow, I may abandon Beetongues completely for a larger new design, or I may relegate them to other duties like escorting and low-priority planetary defense, or I may scrap them. Whatever I do, I have design categories that clearly reflect a ship's nature and purpose. To me, anyway.

MikeJ

09-25-2007, 03:12 PM

I'd rather escort my troop ships than sprint with them. I like small drop pods -- built on the smallest hulls possible. Anything is more survivable than a Cargo hull, which has only one hit point, and many things are cheaper.

I don't think survivability is a good reason in itself to go with smaller hulls. Basically, you can have transports with weapons or without weapons. If you have weapons they *might* be able to beat a much less costly force on their own, but they are severly hindered by the space requirements for the troop modules. Also, you pay maintenance only on armed ships and you lose whatever investment you made in weapons cost when you invade. The final insult is that putting weapons on your transports might even mean they get targetted before your escorts.

An unarmed transport is going to lose against an armed opponent, no matter how many hitpoints they have, but they will only be targetted once all the escorts are killed. You also aren't making an investment in weapons that you will probably never use.

The other thing I've noticed is that if you have a combat fleet and an unarmed transport fleet in the same square, any attacking fleet will always have to engage the combat fleet first. So you don't need mixed fleets, and can just keep your transports in the same square as maximum-strength escort fleets.

DoomMunky

09-25-2007, 06:41 PM

Oop, new question: Do you need more than one Troop Module to make an effective invasion force? Do you get bigger bonuses to your advantage with more troop modules?

jpinard

09-25-2007, 07:21 PM

Oop, new question: Do you need more than one Troop Module to make an effective invasion force? Do you get bigger bonuses to your advantage with more troop modules?

You can load up more troops with more troop modules. Advanced Troop mod holds 5x the normal troop transport I think. If you take out a planet with enough troops left over (on a ship) you won't lose that ship either.

Just beware of cost and of course if you max out the transport part, you may have left little room for a decent engine.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-25-2007, 08:40 PM

How many troops you need depends on how populated the world you're invading is, and on your relative "Advantage Factor," which is a bonus to ground combat derived from technologies, racial abilities, invasion tactics, and Wonders. When I start invading regularly, the tech bonuses are a huge help. The invasion technologies also unlock more invasion tactics.

Edit: To clarify, the Advantage Factor has nothing to do with how many troops you've got. It's more a measure of tactical and technological sophistication, and how well-trained your soldiers are.

DoomMunky

09-25-2007, 10:54 PM

But so the more troops you bring to the field, the better chances you'll have against a well populated planet? In my recent engagement I kept bringing the minimum 5 million into battles against 12, and I'd do well but still get beaten. Took me three invasions to prevail. Then the fucking Drengin surrender to the Iconians and give their last two planets to them! Grr!

Edit: Also, I'm having some trouble deciding whether to attack the Iconians now. They're "Friendly" with me, but they have a bunch of real estate I want and are very, very weak. How can I set them up to become unhappy with me and push them gradually into war? I demand things from them, like starbases or planets, and they just go "Fack off!" and I cry. How do I change this and make THEM cry?

Sten Friberg

09-26-2007, 01:24 AM

Since you took one of the Drengin planets, I guess you now have a cultural border pretty close to the new Iconian planets, right?
If so, build two or three Cultural Starbases, as close to the new Iconian planets as you can get. That way you'll eventually get both planets, hopefully without going to war with the Iconians.

DoomMunky

09-26-2007, 01:53 AM

Woop, too late! Thanks for the advice, but I'm too impatient to flip the planets. I attacked the Iconians, too, and took thier capital in one turn and the closest planet to it on the next. But they too, surrendered! Now the Torians have their planets, and one turn later they offered me an insulting tribute of 23bc. I think I'm going to have to wipe out everyone.

Is there any good way to prevent a down-and-out civ from surrenduring to another civ? Wtf is this?!

Sten Friberg

09-26-2007, 02:09 AM

As someone said earlier in this thread, ideally you should invade two or three planets in the same turn. That way you minimize the damage if the enemy surrenders to the 'wrong' race.

I don't think you can outright prevent a race from surrendering.

Annoying as it may seem, I think this is a really good mechanic. It's a way to keep the game interesting for far longer than it otherwise would be.
If you're going for a domination victory in Civilization you can easily get into a position where there's just mopping up left, but this mopping up can take several hours. That is no fun at all.
In GalCiv the 'mopping-up-but-I-know-I-have-already-won'-phase is much shorter, and waging an early war and getting an early military lead doesn't tilt the game as much as it does in Civ, imho.

Anaxagoras

09-26-2007, 02:20 AM

I'm actually a tad soured on the whole genre after the fiasco that was the Civ4 launch (I was fairly well known in the modding community and highly addicted to Civ3, but even years after I've still got a total meh feel on Civ4).

What fiasco?

Grifman

09-26-2007, 06:28 AM

Woop, too late! Thanks for the advice, but I'm too impatient to flip the planets. I attacked the Iconians, too, and took thier capital in one turn and the closest planet to it on the next. But they too, surrendered! Now the Torians have their planets, and one turn later they offered me an insulting tribute of 23bc. I think I'm going to have to wipe out everyone.

From galactic flop to galactic Genghis Khan in 2 pages! Gotta love it :)

Grifman

09-26-2007, 06:29 AM

FYI for those that don't know, there's a new expansion coming out that will have unique tech trees for the various races. A nice change, I think.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-26-2007, 11:57 AM

I warned you about that surrendering. It's a good mechanic because it turns excessive divide-and-conquer into You Against the World, which is more interesting. But yeah, it can be frustrating.

There IS a Wonder that Good civs can build which makes surrenders more likely to be given to you. I love waging a war where the enemy gives up and hands over all the rest of his planets. 'Cause I'm so fucking Good. Bonus if I started it and it's a blatant war of acquisition.

DoomMunky

09-26-2007, 11:57 AM

From galactic flop to galactic Genghis Khan in 2 pages! Gotta love it :)

When I get into battle mode in this game, I feel like the guy who tries to knock down Arthur Dent's house in Hitchhiker's Guide: the ancient blood starts to boil, and the sound of a thousand warlike horsmen fills my head. If I'm ready for some carnage, a few surrenders just make me angrier.

The Iconians weren't surrenduring to Munky! They're not surrender Munkys!

DavidKaye

09-26-2007, 12:23 PM

Heh, see how you feel when you ramp up the difficulty a couple of notches and go up against the Korath.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-26-2007, 12:32 PM

The Drengin are way more dangerous than the Korath. The Drengin Super Ability? Hoooly crap.

MikeJ

09-26-2007, 12:44 PM

The Drengin Super Ability? Hoooly crap.

Really? The Drengin super ability seems most useful for frightening computer players with their huge fleet score. At any point beyond the beginning stages of the game, though, the fleets aren't much use because they never get any better, they just get more of them. The Drenging player seems to end up with a huge slow blob of fleets that can never defeat a modern fleet, but drains their treasury anyway.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-26-2007, 12:48 PM

The earlier advantage is enough.

DoomMunky

09-26-2007, 02:27 PM

Whatchoo guys talkin' bout? Some crazy Dark Avatar shit? I dunno about no Super Ability...

I just wish I were at home, playing my game and whooping some Torian ass. I'm steadily upgrading Influence Starbases all up in the Drath's faces, too, and have created little pockets of my own space deep WITHIN the Drathi space. In fact, they're pockets in between all their planets. I've got one more level of Influence upgrades to go, and then...well, I hope they start flipping. Is there a way to make this happen even faster? My Diplomacy and Influence are pretty damn high, and those Influence Starbases are burly as shit. My Military rating is 2nd by a slim margin, and I have a great economy, too. How can I make the Drathi love me more and FLIP!

Flip, bitch!

Quitch

09-26-2007, 02:38 PM

Surely you can't play without Dark Avatar? Okay, it adds some pointless shit in, like asteroids which IMO are right up there with anomalies, but the additional diplomacy stuff is good.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-26-2007, 03:11 PM

Both the Korath and Super Abilities are added in Dark Avatar, which is why one led to the other. Quitch is right, asteroid fields are kind of stupid, but everything else in the expansion pack is neat.

DavidKaye

09-26-2007, 03:53 PM

Is there a way to make this happen even faster? My Diplomacy and Influence are pretty damn high, and those Influence Starbases are burly as shit. My Military rating is 2nd by a slim margin, and I have a great economy, too. How can I make the Drathi love me more and FLIP!

Flip, bitch!

You know influence starbases stack, right?

DoomMunky

09-26-2007, 04:01 PM

Whatchoo mean, Willis?

I know if their "auras" overlap, they provide more influence...are you, sir, implying that I should build MORE of them? The dratted things have already QUITE bankrupted me; I simply can't FATHOM spending MORE money on them...

Alack!

Unicorn McGriddle

09-26-2007, 05:33 PM

Culture flipping is not for the faint of heart... or the poor.

There's an Evil Wonder -- the Mind Control Center, I think -- that makes flipping happen instantly provided the influence requirement is met.

Are any of the enemy planets marked with a little stop sign with a skull on it? That's the "in danger of flipping" icon. Until you see that, you need more influence.

Starbases are not the only way to push culture. If you have a nearby planet, Embassies on it will boost your culture. So will population. So will certain Wonders.

Edit: But yes, more Influence Starbases do help. However, you will get more for your investment by fully upgrading starbases than by making lots of little ones.

DoomMunky

09-26-2007, 06:25 PM

I think it's Starbases ftw, then. I don't have that many nearby worlds, and until I take out the Torians (for some reason their virulent green really gets my goat) I have no easy access through uncontrolled space. I may stomp the Torians for fun, then see where my diplomacy skills can get me with the larger civs.

At this point I'm not sure what kind of endgame strategy to pursue. I'm about neck and neck with the Alceans (is that right? The Alcean Travesty?) in terms of influence and our military strength, but I'm kicking their butt in many other categories. All the other civs are about half our size at their largest, and everyone seems to be at war with the Korx. I rule, diplomacy-wise, and I haven't chosen an alignment yet. I'd really like to start forming alliances, but can't seem to get past "Friendly" relations with the other guys. Maybe more trade? More gifts? We'll see.

What are your guys' favorite victory paths, and why? I like the idea of joint Influence/Military conquest of the whole galaxy, but I think that may take a very, very long time. I think I'm in for a long haul no matter what I do.

Unicorn McGriddle

09-26-2007, 10:27 PM

Trade (by which I mean trade ROUTES, not diplomatic deals), gifts, military strength, and mutual enemies all help alliances along, as does an alignment in common.

I think it's Arcean Empire, but who cares. Despite their own legends about themselves, they're no more noble or honorable than the next guys, and who gives a fuck if their civilization is old.

If you're beating them in tech, and you're comparable or better in production and economy, then you have the means to develop a superior military.

Victories, in order by ease:
Diplomatic. Mix conquest and alliance, form your little club of guys, and take over the galaxy.
Scientific. If you're doing well in general, but for some reason can't ally with or destroy all of your rivals, a scientific victory is the way to go. The nice thing about blinding them with science is that you don't need to do anything aggressive -- just divert your research and maintain a strong enough position that you can't be effectively attacked.
Cultural. Spreading your influence over 75% of the galaxy is fucking hard, especially on bigger maps. It's expensive, it pisses people off, it takes resources and research that you may wind up wishing you'd spent elsewhere, especially on your navy. Excuse me, SPACE navy.
Military. To avoid your conquest of the galaxy ending as a diplomatic victory, you're going to have to have NO allies, or at least no SURVIVING allies. Taking on the world with no help at all? That's the big leagues, no two ways about it.