Race selection in MOO1 and balance

[Harv]

Does it really matter if a race is good in a field or stinks at it? I think it only really matters if you are specializing in a technology field instead of balancing research. So I never really put much weight into what fields the race excels at or stinks at. For example, the Klackon are excellent in Construction and stink at Propulsion.

Does that mean they never get good Propulsion technology, or does it merely mean that they just have to throw more money at it. They can run research at 22+18+18+16+16+10 and it will balance.

My experience with MOO1 is limited and I have not successfully tried Impossible difficulty, and am not that smooth with the other methods of obtaining technology, like trading or stealing. So maybe it does mean not investing in technology the race is terrible at, unless necessary.

To answer the OP, I would put the Klackon in with the Psilon in the easiest by far category. Production fixes everything.

 

[Darza]

Well, races bad at some field have more chances to miss technology in this field. Also fields arent equal in importance, due to theyr side effects (like prod bonus from planetology level) and overall economic importance. Say, race what is good in weapons, but bad in construction would have slower start, as it need to pay more for important early development tech (thus get it later than race what dont need to pay extra cost, so will use it less turns, so other race would already even more ahead, as it will research next good thing already with help of previous tech), and weapons are of no use this time. Actually tech boni of races of huge importance.

"They can run research at 22+18+18+16+16+10 and it will balance." - sorry, i didnt get this part at all.

 

[civvver]

For the silicoids, I'm not getting that hung up on their planetology research, it's their overall poor research and slow population growth that I think hurts them more. But I haven't played them much yet. I prefer slow build, turtling games so they don't suit my playstyle. They're certainly not the worst race in MOO, just not as good as klackon or psilon and I prefer meklar over them too.

Tech specialization does matter. Bulrathi being bad at computers is a huge deal, just like meklar being good at it is a huge deal. Some techs don't matter as much as others, like you're right, propulsion for klackons isn't a problem. For one they have so much production they can afford the extra cost but also while super high level engines can be leveraged into a quick striking, high defense fleet of ships, it's better to have high computers and weapons for the actual ships and high planets and construction for your economy. There are two very crucial techs if you get them though from propulsion- high energy focus and sub space teleporter. Both can be game changing if you use them right.

Most races aren't *hurt* really for poor research ratings, as the fields might not be that essential or they are excellent in other fields. The only ones I feel that really suffer are bulrathi because computer tech is just so important and silicoid, but they have poor in all but computers for balance. Meklar being poor in planets kinda sucks but they have more than enough production to overcome the disadvantage.

It's more being excellent in some fields that helps races a ton. Obviously psilon good at everything coupled with their racial research bonus is a huge advantage. Meklar being excellent in computers is big, and sakkara excellent in planets is really good. If I had to rank the tech trees from overall most important to least it would be computers, planets, construction/weapons equal then force fields/propulsion. Aside from a few key techs in propulsion that I mentioned and planetary shields in force fields I mostly ignore those fields.

 

[Darza]

Actually its way more important to have a good engines than computers or especially weapons. You cant subsitute a good engines, and you can use bad computers with good weapons and weapons are aplenty, you cant miss them all. Mostly you are fighting a missile bases, so computer of no real issue anyway, while engines are important for everything, and especially for economy (moving population).

Also computer field by itself is by no way strong, it have no real economy techs exept robotic controls. Most important ones are planetology and construction, then propulsion, then with some gap computers, then with big gap force fields and weapons. And most crucial tech in game is repulsor beam, if you care to use that broken, ofc. Also its hard to get to HEF, as game is literally over with omega-v, autoblaster and autorepair already (if not earlier ofc).

 

[civvver]

I still disagree on computers, the computer field is really strong, even against missile bases. My neutronium bomb damage done tripled when I designed the same ship with no battle computer vs a lvl 10 battle computer.

But I am seeing your point about force fields and engines. This last game my enemy kept equal footing in tech with me so I literally could not reach their planets before getting killed. He even had inderdictors so I couldn't teleport. I finally got hyperdrives + stabilizers so I can reach his planets in one turn before he hits me. Then I got displacement device and shields 15 and now he can't even dmg me. So they are very powerful research fields if your enemy has good tech. But usually focusing on planetology and computers for robitic controls gets me enough production to jump way ahead, then I use my battle computers and advanced ecms to allow my small stacks to dominate AI huge stacks.

 

[Darza]

You are talking about some extremally obscure distant techs, surely most of research fields have some overpowerful tech in last areas, but it is of little importance, as game usually cant last so long. Cant if you will use initial research in correct order, and any of gamebreaker techs you get would seal the game later. Engines are simply very important in economical development, and FF helps in early ground combat. First time i hear about bombs depending on targeting computers, but it surely could be (you tested both types of ships in SAME battle, right?).

 

[civvver]

Yes it was same battle, exact same turn. My ships without battle computers score very little dmg per bomb. Computers definite affect attacking bases. Which if you hover over your planet and click when cursor is a ? I think it shows your bases' defense values vs beams and missiles. I would assume bombs go vs the beam one but their damage is not halved unlike beams.

 

[Darza]

I guess they go against ecm, as the BD of planets do not rise in process (thus assuring 100% hit very fast), but i cant be sure right now. And yes, bombs definitely affected by equpment what rise BA values.

 

[Antilogic]

Actually its way more important to have a good engines than computers or especially weapons. You cant subsitute a good engines, and you can use bad computers with good weapons and weapons are aplenty, you cant miss them all. Mostly you are fighting a missile bases, so computer of no real issue anyway, while engines are important for everything, and especially for economy (moving population).

Also computer field by itself is by no way strong, it have no real economy techs exept robotic controls. Most important ones are planetology and construction, then propulsion, then with some gap computers, then with big gap force fields and weapons. And most crucial tech in game is repulsor beam, if you care to use that broken, ofc. Also its hard to get to HEF, as game is literally over with omega-v, autoblaster and autorepair already (if not earlier ofc).

You can miss with enough.

Although you actually use the auto-repair? Since it only affected one ship, I always considered it a sucker's ploy.

You are talking about some extremally obscure distant techs, surely most of research fields have some overpowerful tech in last areas, but it is of little importance, as game usually cant last so long. Cant if you will use initial research in correct order, and any of gamebreaker techs you get would seal the game later. Engines are simply very important in economical development, and FF helps in early ground combat. First time i hear about bombs depending on targeting computers, but it surely could be (you tested both types of ships in SAME battle, right?).

I disagree on FF, probably because you can overwhelm on ground combat so thoroughly (i.e. send massive numbers) and both Construction and Weapons tech can offset someone having PDS/PAS throughout the early and mid-game.

Computers, though, affect intelligence, give you first-move first-shot capability, affect your ability to even hit the enemy much less damage them, have the all important robotic controls techs, have the scanners, etc.

 

[Darza]

Ill try to reformulate. You need to build economy. After you did - its no matter if you sometimes miss a shot, as your main targets are planets anyway, where you dont miss. To build economy you need PLA CON PRO, and only after this COM. And yes, i found the most easy way to build huges with autorepair, tho its surely not the best possible way of playing, if you playing for speed. With huges you cant get a game moving after omega-v and autoblaster anyway, as its over.

On what exactly you disagree about FF? They are less important than COM, needed only for some certain techs, one of them is most unbalanced in the game tho.

 

[Antilogic]

I thought you were saying FF was one of the most important tech areas alongside engines. FF is basically all useless with a couple exceptions (i.e. planetary shields).

I figure autorepairs are terrible because they repair one ship in the stack while allocating that space to weapons gives you that much more firepower for every ship in the stack.

 

[Darza]

Most important ones are planetology and construction, then propulsion, then with some gap computers, then with big gap force fields and weapons. - post 24.

Actually its about damage per turn in case of autorepair. Suppose your ship with AR do X damage in Y turns, surviving a damage. Now you take smaller ships without AR, the will have theyr damage diminishing per turns, as they would be destroying in process, even if they have initial pack of damage stronger than one huge thus theyr damage in Y turns could be even smaller than X. Also there is some numbers of damage, where AR ship cannot be destroyed at all, while smaller ships will take a beat, in this case AR simply more effective, as you dont have to hurry to win a battle if you dont get your ship destroyed anyway. For optimal game its unneeded surely, just huges are the least bothering to manage imho.

 

[metatron]

I disagree on FF, probably because you can overwhelm on ground combat so thoroughly (i.e. send massive numbers) and both Construction and Weapons tech can offset someone having PDS/PAS throughout the early and mid-game.

Have a look at this table of tech costs (for average diff.) up to tech level 24:

Tech|Cost|Cost per die roll point|cost per point over prev. tech
Hand Laser|120|24|24
Deflector Shield|1920|192|192
Duralloy Armor|3000|600|600
Battle Suits|3630|363|363
Ion Rifle|4320|432|864
Zortium Armor|8670|867|1734
Absorption Shield|13230|660|1320
Fusion Rifle|17280|1152|3456
Exoskeleton|17280|864|1728

PDSs are amazeballz.

They also give decent miniaturisation for lvl1/lvl2 shields, offering the possibility to abandon all FF research at that point.

 

[Harv]

For the table above, the research cost is proportional to the square of the technology level.

Cost = 30*L^2

 

[Darza]

Tbh im puzzled about 2 last columns exact meaning. What is a "die roll point" here? Breakthrough chance rise by 1%? But it cant be 24 for 120 and 192 for 1920 (its 384 then). Or im totally miss the point? Cant decript last column entirely.

 

[metatron]

Tbh im puzzled about 2 last columns exact meaning. What is a "die roll point" here? Breakthrough chance rise by 1%? But it cant be 24 for 120 and 192 for 1920 (its 384 then). Or im totally miss the point? Cant decript last column entirely.

The ground combat bonus the tech offers.

 

[Darza]

Well, thanks. Was too creative for me to get, sorry.

 

[metatron]

Generally its Klackons, Psilons, Sakkras\Humans(if you bother with diplomacy with AI), Silicoids, Meklar, Alcari, Bulrati, Darloks and 5 heads below Mrasshans. And yes, there is no balance in game at all.

What designers did with Mrasshans is a mystery, they are simply next level of difficulty, as for all theyr enurmous malus they have a single bonus in most unimportant techfield and very weak combat difference. Still actually a single choise after you found all other races as steamroll.

I used to hate the Mrrshans and the wiki agrees with me--bonus accuracy is just too weak, and they don't have good bonus tech rates.

I'd like to defend the cats here a bit.
Generally i mostly agree with the rankings on strategy wiki (although i feel that the Klackons are vastly superior to the Psilons) but disagree with much of the reasoning behind it.
And i don't see the Mrrshans as the worst race in the game. That honor has to go to the Alkaris and/or Darloks.

First of all:
The targetting bonus is vastly superior to the maneuver bonus.
You, Darza, said it yourself: You kinda need a decent engine anyway. So the Alkari bonus doesn't save you any early research.
On the other hand any other race teching for some reasonably early mid game warfare needs a battle comp and miniaturisation for it. Maybe something like Battle Comp 2 and an overtech for miniaturisation (say Robotics 3 or ECM 2).
Mrrshans can just tech the (ridiculously cheap) ECM 1 and quit researching Computers. In doing so they still have superior targetting and save the space on their ships others have to use for their Battle Comp 1 or 2.
Meanwhile as an Alkari you still need those Sub-Light Drives to get your transports up from that crippling snail speed. So the bonus saves you no research at all.

And the weapons tech bonus is not exactly irrelevant. Waging war with Fusion Bombs and Neutron Pellet Guns (instead of, you know, crap), is kinda nice, particularly since a single Class 5 Planet Shield can stop your Nuclear Bomb fleet dead in its tracks while a Fusion Bomb fleet proceeds largely unobstructed, albeit with increased losses.

And other races like say the Bulrathi are arguably stronger than the cats based on their superior race bonus (the ground combat bonus in that case) but their research specialties aren't really that superior to the Mrrshans'.

 

[Darza]

Well, reason in this chart (badly c\p as it hard to do formatting on a netbook, sorry):

Race |Computers|Constructn|Force Fields|Planetolgy|Propulsn|Weapons
________|_________|__________|____________|__________|________|_______
Alkari | ------------- | -------- | Poor | -------- |Excellnt| -----
Darlok | Good | -------- | ---------- | -------- | ------ | -----
Mrrshan | ------- | Poor | ---------- | -------- | -- ---- |Excllent

While Alkari have the probably most unimportant racial bonus by themselves they are exellent in 3-rd in importance field, and bad in one of most unimportant. Darlok doesnt have any bad fields at all, and have some fun ability, what is synergical with field they are good in. Mrasshans have some semi-decent combat bonus, what it absolutely destroyed by being poor in second in importance techfield. Its of no matter how good your ships in battle if you cant build them. Other difference between Alkary and worst 2 is in other chart, is diplomatic. But main difference is what Alkary have one exellent in field needed for economic development, and no bad in this fields, while Darloc have 0 to 0, and Mrasshans have not only exactly 0 good eco fields, but also one bad, making them the worst race at economical development, as theyr Exellent field doesnt have any real importance till midgame, there they are already trail back badly, so it doesnt change anything.

 

[metatron]

Well, reason in this chart (badly c\p as it hard to do formatting on a netbook, sorry):

Race |Computers|Constructn|Force Fields|Planetolgy|Propulsn|Weapons
________|_________|__________|____________|__________|________|_______
Alkari | ------------- | -------- | Poor | -------- |Excellnt| -----
Darlok | Good | -------- | ---------- | -------- | ------ | -----
Mrrshan | ------- | Poor | ---------- | -------- | -- ---- |Excllent

While Alkari have the probably most unimportant racial bonus by themselves they are exellent in 3-rd in importance field, and bad in one of most unimportant. Darlok doesnt have any bad fields at all, and have some fun ability, what is synergical with field they are good in. Mrasshans have some semi-decent combat bonus, what it absolutely destroyed by being poor in second in importance techfield. Its of no matter how good your ships in battle if you cant build them. Other difference between Alkary and worst 2 is in other chart, is diplomatic. But main difference is what Alkary have one exellent in field needed for economic development, and no bad in this fields, while Darloc have 0 to 0, and Mrasshans have not only exactly 0 good eco fields, but also one bad, making them the worst race at economical development, as theyr Exellent field doesnt have any real importance till midgame, there they are already trail back badly, so it doesnt change anything.

No need to post the chart.
And you are not really responding to the points i've made. I shall try again:

1. The Mrrshan disadvantge regarding technology weaknesses (Construction vs. Force Fields) is irrelevant if you plan to do early warfare. You may for example reaseach Ind. Tech 9, 80% waste, Class 2 Shields and Personal Deflector Shields as a reasonable setup for early warfare. Those four techs in total are actually cheaper for the Mrrshans. You may gain 80% waste a turn later, but that is an insignificant diadvantage.
What would you want to research in either field in addition to that? If you need Duralloy for your ships, your ships stink in the first place. For raising your ground combat ability both Duralloy and Battle Suits are horribly inefficient compared to PDS.
Ind. Tech 8 may be nice to have but is in no way necessary. And even if you actually do research it, the loss on the Mrrshan side comes out at something like 400 points. That's noticible but not all that damning either.
2. If you engage in early warfare all Propulsion research beyond Sub-Light Drives (or Fusion Drives if you don't have access to the former) is virtually irrelevant.
On the other side every point you gain in weapons technology lets you shove more bombs and more NPGs (or whatever you want to use) into your ships.
3. You have completely failed to adress the point that Mrrshans can just forgoe early Computer research. You know what? I'll just not research ECM 2 and Battle Comp 2. That saves me 2220 points. I'll take those, pay the 204 extra on 80% waste & Ind. Tech 9, pay the 1728 points difference on Sub-Light Drives. That leaves almost 300 points, for what imay lose on Hydrogen or Deuterium. That already covers your Alkari advantage. At that point you still have to pay extra for all the FF and Weapons research you do. What's the plan here? Making war with Gatling Laser without miniaturisation?
4. After that we get into our actual early wars. Now, we all know that if the AI loves one thing it's researching tons of redundant Computer techs. And if we know another thing it's that the AI does not make any sensible use of covert ops until the late midgame. So i will likely not suffer any punishment for deficient Computer research and once i have read "new tech found" one or two times in the ground combat screen i will have gotten a brickton of Computer technology, getting me even further ahead.
You on the other hand get to conquer the Propulsion techs that you skipped, which are of absolutely no use to you.

In summation: If you want to play a strict builders game, yes Alkari are better at that than Mrrshans. If you plan to do any early game / early mid game war, Mrrshans are vastly superior and do in fact outtech your Alkari, do better in the actual war after that and stand to benefit more of that war on top of it.

Of course there are exceptional circumstances where the Alkari are better. Say you need range 6 to make it to your second colony. Sure, then Alkari are better. But this is uncommon. Starting near, say, a Bulrathi or a Sakkra or a Klackon is comparatively common. And there you are with your glorious Alkari, all useful systems in range 4 or 5 reach of each other, everything close enough together that the economics of transporting people within our empire is a non-concern, but after having gotten some decent systems you are now boxed in. And you can't break out now all that easily, cause you happen to have neither Hand Laser nor PDS in your tech tree, cause your research specialties suck. So you have to tech up in order to break out. And all of a sudden those "unimporant fields" become rather important: Computers and Weapons.
A cat in that situation likely has Hand Lasers and has a free +4 Battle Comp level and does weapons research at 60% of your cost.


With all due respect for your affinity for Propulsion research,
the Alkari just plain suck.

And the race entries in the strategy wiki are subject to an overwhelming bias regarding what the AI does with the races. So essentially the strategy wiki has the Mrrshans as weaker than the Alkari because the Mrrshans get uber-terribad leaders all the freaking time, while AI Alkaris not that rarely get an Honorable Diplomat or whatever who manages to not get his empire into three simultaneous wars, like those Ruthless Militarists (and similar imbeciles) the Mrrshan AI usually gets.