Live stream "Masterclass: Faction Strategies" Friday, Sept 26 at 2pm EST

The alliance mechanic could create a WW1 situation where if you have 2 major blocs then all it takes is one declaration of war to draw everybody on both sides into a world war.


But if the AI is anything like Civ V, the factions that get drawn into the conflict by surprise may never make a substantial contribution to the war effort and may even lose cities to the strongest player.

Half of them will sue for peace as soon as possible. It would be cool if there was a treaty that you could sign between allies to make sure that they all signed peace treaties together.
 
'Cause that's not exploitable. Buy all the computer's gold for a few favors, use gold to buy units, DOW and attack.
 
As far as I can tell, Favors are just a resource that can be traded back; the deal is still subject to AI approval. I don't think the AI has to accept the trade just because it involves favors. I'm pretty sure I heard a previewer say that he tried to get an AI faction who owed him a favor to declare war on a neighbor, and was unsuccessful.
 
Is it possible that a certain number of favors are required to budge the AI into doing something, depending upon the state of relations at the time? Are favors like another form of currency, where you have to accrue a certain number and trade them in for a desired outcome from the AI?
 
Is it possible that a certain number of favors are required to budge the AI into doing something, depending upon the state of relations at the time? Are favors like another form of currency, where you have to accrue a certain number and trade them in for a desired outcome from the AI?

Pretty much exactly that. Favors are another form of currency to use with the AI. Basically a "shut up and stop asking me for extra gold for nothing. I'll give you my excess currency but only if you promise me something down the road." At the same time, depending on the AI's moods there will be some things that no amount of called in favors will convince them to do.
 
Thanks, I don't think I've seen favors "cashed in" with the AI yet in any of the vids I've watched. I've seen them being earned, but not expended.
 
I think changing the purity 1 bonus to "explorers take 50% less damage from aliens" would be enough. Explorers would be more resistant but aliens would still attack it, thus eliminating the exploit.

That wouldn't be enough, they only have 3 strenght. IMHO, the trait could be changed to make them as strong as a soldier or marine while DEFENDING (3-5 times stronger). This would make it much more viable to dig up stuff close to aliens, while being significantly less abusable. And it would fit Purity better.
Their pitiful offensive capabilities would still make proper soldiers the only way to clear alien nests.
 
From the comments I've heard by now from the lead designers, the game has been deliberately designed to be fairly brutal against the human player, particularly for the first 100 turns or so. Losing explorers is historically part of the process exploring unknown places. If that is true on earth, it will be even more likely on a new planet in the future. I don't care to see too many safeguards built in to protect Explorer units for that reason...they are expendable, really. What I don't want to have happen is for the measures taken to preserve them, end up being characteristics that can be exploited against the AI, which needs all the help it can get as it is.
 
I can handle a bit of brutality, but I already hate alliance. If yor friend is also friends with a warmonger you'll have no possibility to avoid a war with your main trading partner. It reminds of the bad old days of vanilla Civ V and really makes me reconsider a pre-order or even 2014 purchase.
 
I can handle a bit of brutality, but I already hate alliance. If yor friend is also friends with a warmonger you'll have no possibility to avoid a war with your main trading partner. It reminds of the bad old days of vanilla Civ V and really makes me reconsider a pre-order or even 2014 purchase.

So don't make any alliances if you don't want to join the next war your ally is part of. That's what they do, why would you ever agree to one if you just wanted a peaceful game?
 
The problem is that the AI players will make alliances. If your friend allies with somebody who doesn't like you and decides to start a war, you're at war with your friend and lose all trade. Coupled with the lack of luxury/health resources, research agreements, and a planetary council/world congress, there's a high probability that diplomacy will be something you can and should completely ignore in BE.
Those alliances look like the devs have not received only learned nothing from Civ V, but also from Master of Orion 2.
 
Gotta wonder what will happen if you're allied to Brasilia, and he's allied to PAC, and you declare war on PAC.

Brasilia probably declares war on you since you're the aggressor.

Honestly the alliances sound mostly like a way to help curb overly aggressive warmongering players, and give the lackluster AI a chance since the player won't be so eager to lose all of their trade to curbstomp the AI's military.
 
Somehow, MadDjinn did not seem deterred by the BE diplomatic system and used it to his advantage, alliances and all. Perhaps there's something to be learned from watching him play some more. He certainly has had his share of impact upon BE's development and balancing, it seems. Admittedly I'm not in his league and don't pretend to be, but I can learn techniques and tips as well as the next guy.
 
Gotta wonder what will happen if you're allied to Brasilia, and he's allied to PAC, and you declare war on PAC.

That's why I think alliances are not bilateral..
If you are allied with Brasilia, and Brasilia can only ally with PAC if PAC allies with you.
(And then you can't declare war on an ally.)


Also, did anyone notice when talking about the weather controller (which places basic resources) they mentioned an orbital that would place strategic resources?
The Orbital Fabricator?
 
Top Bottom