Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Salmeuk]

I'm thinking RC + SS just to make it interesting as possible. But ultimately RC + spread out is fine with me.

I am going to get SO trounced its not even funny. I will be the clown of this game.

I assume large planet size. I want there to be at least a few geographical features I can play around, so mountains or lake and whatnot, but it doesn't have to be overboard. no other preferences here, really.


now might be a good time to throw down some basic 'protips', I've read the game manual and played a handful of games, but  the meta play is completely opaque to me. It seems as long as I can play the industrial side of things well enough, then the warfare plays out as one might expect in regards to unit types and all that. But I am wondering if there are 'correct' things to research and build towards.

[E. Albright]

I'm thinking RC + SS just to make it interesting as possible. But ultimately RC + spread out is fine with me.

"As interesting as possible" would suggest to me "no RC + SS" - do you mean to suggest we should or should not have AI major regimes? I'd assume you mean we should.

It occurs to me that a strong point in favor of having 4+7 majors is that it would put a hard limit on the possibility of snowballing via charismatic foreign affairs directors, which was definitely something we saw happen in our last game. As soon as a minor goes to war with any major it can't become a protectorate/vassal, so having 11 majors would mean wild expansion would require actually expanding for the most part.

I'm wary of going in too heavily for seas - they're hard barriers that can only be directly bypassed via airbridges, and that's quite an undertaking. OTOH, mountains are soft barriers once you get your industry rolling - IP smashed through very deep mountain ranges in the prior game. Likewise swamps, jungles, and canyons.

I'd be happiest with xeno or terran ag being possible even if it might not be ideal conditions for one or the other. That rules out magma and ice planets for the most part. I'm sorry, but I have a sick, disgusting areal fetish and it really revs my engines to see farmland spread and supplant native forests. I'd also like fairly advanced forests just b/c it's less boring. Ideally, I'd like a pink, teal, or taupe plant color pallet, but that's really being finicky. I'm willing to hear opinions, though - if someone wants red or turquoise seas, or borderline-fluorescent-green or yellowish trees we can probably make that happen.

I'm leaning towards mid-sized megafauna - a max of 10-15m is probably the safest, and that's actually enough to create some horrific death beasts. It also makes it easier to avoid having too low gravity, which tends to lead to fewer minerals to mine. Moderate gravity and reasonably thick atmosphere will allow for flexible aircraft options as well.

Any other thoughts?

[Il Palazzo]

I'd vote no RC (let's see how it plays with majors this time) and no SS (less minors means less potential to snowball?). But I'm on the fence with the latter.

2 zones + 2 armies per. But maybe I'd up that to 3 zones + 2 armies if SS is going to be on. My thinking here is 3 zones would help level the playing field against the aforementioned snowballing.

I wouldn't sweat it too much with alien fauna sizes - even large ones are not going to be that much of a deadly bother when we start at tech 4 with a few brigades at the ready.

Other than that, I'm fine with the proposed settings. More mountains than water is always a plus in my book.
And while I do like some colours more than others (mmhmyeah turquoise seas), I can live with anything - even the pink variety of ammonia-carbon biosphere or whatever is the one that looks like brown vomit.

Anyway, it's quite possible we'll end up immediately restarting with a new map, because somebody starts with an untenable position.

now might be a good time to throw down some basic 'protips', I've read the game manual and played a handful of games, but  the meta play is completely opaque to me. It seems as long as I can play the industrial side of things well enough, then the warfare plays out as one might expect in regards to unit types and all that. But I am wondering if there are 'correct' things to research and build towards.

I don't know if there are. I tend to have lots of infantry, so going preferentially for infantry-related techs is sensible for me. Other than that I'm mostly reactive to what I see, rather than doing any long term planning.
I suppose it's good to pay attention so that you have things like heavy/high-tech industry discovered and built at some point before you actually need to use those. So as to avoid bottlenecks later.
Other than that I can't think of anything.

[Karlito]

In singleplayer I have a habit of reaching a point and then kind of sitting back and coasting, not trying especially hard to continue building up- which I suspect is one I'll have to kick. Always gotta keep expanding until you hit a bottleneck and then work on widening that.

Watching the traders for high-tech parts or trying to push for hi-tech industry to build up the advanced stuff is pretty important for the later game too.

2 or 3 zones doesn't make much difference to me I feel.

[E. Albright]

I'd vote no RC (let's see how it plays with majors this time) and no SS (less minors means less potential to snowball?). But I'm on the fence with the latter.

I'll test to try to be sure, but my understanding is that SS adds more zones w/o adding more population. That'd mean that there's more non-minor zones (nomads, slavers, mutants, etc.) but also the minor regimes would have lower population per zone simply b/c there's by necessity more zones to account for.

I'm also kinda wary b/c one of my hotseat tests had 3 zones per major but apparently the engine couldn't find a spot for one where it could have 3 and gave it 1 instead. I submitted a bug report for that, FWIW. No response as yet. That's the main sort of reasoning I'm using to lean towards 2 instead of 3; it seems like the engine is struggling for room sometimes and that's even before we consider if it can space things out.

Re: critters, it's a crapshoot. The save you requested from me with the rhinos killed me the first time I tried it but the second time I was fine b/c I started with different specific wildlife next to me. I'm honestly more scared of something midsized with a nasty combo of feats than a giant beastie, b/c I'm not sure I've ever seen more than 1 attack on something over 40m, while something 15m with 8 or 16 attacks per round can vaporize battalions in a round or two.

I suppose it's good to pay attention so that you have things like heavy/high-tech industry discovered and built at some point before you actually need to use those.

At a certain moment it might be wise to stop researching new techs until you discover Heavy or High-Tech Industries. I'd say that's most true with Heavy. I ended up doing that with my econ council for several turns last game, but you may need to do it with mil and air as well if the alternative is opening a new tier and potentially indefinitely delaying your getting Heavy Industry.

[Edit: Hmm. I'm growing increasingly convinced that SS is indeed leading to more population rather than just spreading what there is more thinly. Drat.]

[Salmeuk]

'm sorry, but I have a sick, disgusting areal fetish and it really revs my engines to see farmland spread and supplant native forests. I'd also like fairly advanced forests just b/c it's less boring.

I agree with this sentiment.

space WWII needs its space bocage

[Karlito]

I think one of my most memorable maps was a very flat world covered in cloud forests and jungles, except for the perfect hexagonal sections cut out by the independent farmers.

[EuchreJack]

Really, the best planets are Fungus with Killer Worms.

[Salmeuk]

Really, the best planets are Fungus with Killer Worms.

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri came to mind. on that topic.. it would be fun if you had more civ traits or perks to select at the start of this game, if only to bring out the character of each faction.

[EuchreJack]

I'm sorry, but you have to EARN your Nwabudike Morgan or Sheng-Ji Yang.

[E. Albright]

I'd vote no RC (let's see how it plays with majors this time) and no SS (less minors means less potential to snowball?). But I'm on the fence with the latter.

Oh. So my brain kinda turned off and I forgot the big reason for SS last night when responding: our choices are 2 AI majors (no SS) or 7 (yes SS). I feel like having fewer AIs than humans could be even more unbalancing than having lots of minors.

[Il Palazzo]

You know what? Do what you think is right. It's all just random guesswork from me anyway.

[E. Albright]

I generated a mess. I'll post basic reports once we decide if anyone is in a clear-lose-on-turn-1 situation. I'm not. I've got some good points and some bad ones. The basic bits for Aqonia IV are that it has perfect Terran agriculture, native cloud forests (of the blandest possible color, sigh), slightly-above-average-gravity coupled with a thick atmosphere (so my starting recon planes are range 10), 12m apex predators coupled with small carnivores and mid-sized herbivores, and mostly scavengers & hunters for remnants. There will be rad belts b/c fallout is the best Dissolution for reducing the 150m pre-fall population.

Anyway, everyone should make sure they're up to v1.11.09, and if you want to do fancy progress gifs eventually, go in before you open your first turn, and make sure screenshots are on under the PREFS tab. I'll send out a mass PM where we can exchange emails and set up turn order.

[Il Palazzo]

Note to the new players: you need the beta from Matrix. Steam is behind on versions or something.

[Salmeuk]

alright, I am busy this morning but will respond to PM's by the afternoon. Ready to run my civilization into the radioactive ground