[MoO] Whats the most unbalanced custom race you've ever made (MOO2)?

[Darza]

Shshsh... try tolerant or aqua +2 prod instead of sub, in case you are bother to play production race vs ai, tripleing AI's pop its not too much in fact.

 

[El_Machinae]

I love aquatic. It's the poor man's subterranean. Plus 1 food in the early game. No need to Gaia your planets. It's all around pretty spiffy.

It's a huge advantage in mid game, where you can almost always pop in a couple of your boys to act as farmers in conquered populations. I inevitably take it.

 

[Darza]

Errr, aquatic is a huge deal in early, not mid game, as unlike sub its make a 50%+ initial food increase, thus outperforming both tol and sub at a start. Just later its rely on a luck about finding right planets, what is not a deal for those two. Its a "peak performance VS reliability", not "poor man's".

 

[civvver]

I'm also finding I hate democracy. It's really expensive for what you get. Yes having tons of cash is nice for rush buying buildings, but it's so food constrained early.

Does anyone else find it weird that only one AI race uses unification and only one uses democracy? Not much variety with them.

Another race combo I've been liking that's not the most optimal but is a lot of fund is repulsive, -ship defense, -ground combat, subterranean, creative, unification. You have to do the -ship defense and -ground combat to get to enough points. I'd rather go -spying but there are no other -1 modifiers to get to the 20 points you need. Creative here is not needed and expensive but man it is fun building every possible building.

 

[Darza]

Democracy is weaker than unification, obviously, thats why. Mods fix it with making food cheaper, making morale techs actually presenting in game, and still had to sell democracy with discount compared to uni.

AI races doesnt using full maluses, the only maluses they use are "for storytelling" (weak psilons, repulsive silicoids etc), yet game designers decided to use all the positive perks "for storytelling", again. So the races they created wasnt about actual perfomance, but as a way of "displaying" perks in use. And as they didnt used negatives, if they was able to create a race without them (the really huge design flaw by them), most races floating around 10 base picks (except feudal ones, and few "flavour races"), thus making it impossible to use all desired perks, and also to use uni and demo in many races, at the same time, as they are expensive picks. The flawed design decision is also a ground of too much feudal AI races, as feu was a way to give enough points to use up the abilities they created in game. In result all the base races are true disaster, more or slightly less.

The is absolutely no problem with [-rep -defense -ground], as its the most stable negative-10 choice. Despite -defense is pretty creepy perk, you cant evade it usually, as all other choices is worse. The only really possible alternatives are [-rep -spy] (so only 9, but works for unitol) and [-LG -spy -ground] (no economy development at all, so blitz only).

 

[Daedwartin]

-10 Spy however is not something i mix with Democracy. Your adding -10 spy onto a existing penalty to counterespionage. And since Demo is often the choice when you want quick teching, it means you are allowing easier ability to spy on you and remove your tech advantage.

 

[Darza]

If you're about game VS AI - counter spying is nothing to worry about there at all. For multiplayer it could be some other story, making this correct.

 

[El_Machinae]

I find that being spied upon is psychologically tough, but doesn't really impact my play outcomes.

 

[Giftless]

I like using Aquatic in combination with Subterranean and Fantastic traders. This allows me large population agricultural worlds (with a cash bonus from food), which is usually followed up with freighter fleets to support barren "moon" colonies. Later on, I rush buy and terraform everything in sight-- also if Antareans strike one of my planets I simply relocate the population and just keep on building.

 

[Darza]

.

I hope you are joking. About Fantastic traders etc. Its much more simpler to just shot down Antaran weaklings, than to relocate population (as its unneeded). Read the thread, it have a good playable races in.

 

[Giftless]

I hope you are joking. About Fantastic traders etc. Its much more simpler to just shot down Antaran weaklings, than to relocate population (as its unneeded). Read the thread, it have a good playable races in.

Against the Antarans, what techs do you use and are you playing on Tactical? I play on Strategic so combat generally isn't worthwhile until battleships and titans roll out.

Fantastic Traders is great, and I'll tell you why. Excess food has no pollution penalty. Anytime I run a grain surplus those BCs become production in a 2 to 1 ratio.

 

[Harv]

I play on Strategic so combat generally isn't worthwhile until battleships and titans roll out.

But Tactical Combat is half the game! With Strategic Combat, you miss on designing your own ships and guiding them in combat.

How many exploits revolve around Tactical Combat? Blowing up an incoming Battleship in the early game in one shot with Auto-Fire Armor-Piercing Lasers comes to mind.

Also, with Assault Shuttles and good Ground Combat you might get lucky in the early game and capture one of those little Raiders and scrap it for game-breaking technology - then have it stolen the very next turn by your opponents.

 

[Darza]

Against the Antarans, what techs do you use and are you playing on Tactical? I play on Strategic so combat generally isn't worthwhile until battleships and titans roll out.

Fantastic Traders is great, and I'll tell you why. Excess food has no pollution penalty. Anytime I run a grain surplus those BCs become production in a 2 to 1 ratio.

On tactical? Nearly anything, as by the time Antarans appears, you have plenty of everything, if only you hadn't finished the game already. For example you can use simple mirved nukes for them, its more than enough.

Fantastic traders is slightly useful, but the most overpriced positive pick in the game, it should cost something around 0.5 pick max, not whooping 4. And main usage of it is ability to use Trade Goods more effective, not few cents profit from some food excess (that is not really good way of using food). And any food have no pollution penalty.

But Tactical Combat is half the game! With Strategic Combat, you miss on designing your own ships and guiding them in combat.

How many exploits revolve around Tactical Combat? Blowing up an incoming Battleship in the early game in one shot with Auto-Fire Armor-Piercing Lasers comes to mind.

Also, with Assault Shuttles and good Ground Combat you might get lucky in the early game and capture one of those little Raiders and scrap it for game-breaking technology - then have it stolen the very next turn by your opponents.

Actually playing the AI using the Strategic is more fair, as Tactical combat is just exploits and overkill there. You are using the real ships and real combat movements against random tin cans of AI, that are unable to do anything beside all forward\stand still\retreat, accompanied by some random shots. But, of course, its better to understand that is the real ships for Tactical combat too (though same goes for Strategic, just the designs is different, and well, its actually more hard to design the ships for Strategic).

 

[Giftless]

On tactical? Nearly anything, as by the time Antarans appears, you have plenty of everything, if only you hadn't finished the game already. For example you can use simple mirved nukes for them, its more than enough.

Fantastic traders is slightly useful, but the most overpriced positive pick in the game, it should cost something around 0.5 pick max, not whooping 4. And main usage of it is ability to use Trade Goods more effective, not few cents profit from some food excess (that is not really good way of using food). And any food have no pollution penalty.



Actually playing the AI using the Strategic is more fair, as Tactical combat is just exploits and overkill there. You are using the real ships and real combat movements against random tin cans of AI, that are unable to do anything beside all forward\stand still\retreat, accompanied by some random shots. But, of course, its better to understand that is the real ships for Tactical combat too (though same goes for Strategic, just the designs is different, and well, its actually more hard to design the ships for Strategic).

I could see the argument for +1 to Research or +1 Production as alternative picks, but I do think Fantastic Traders is better than say, the straight-up 0.5 BC boost. For instance if you tend to run into planets with native lifeforms that can only be used as farmers, you can get a credit flow rolling when the game would otherwise assign you with 1 BC for the single "true" colonist. Of course it's always better to use extra food to support extra scientists or factory-workers, even if they may be off-planet, but in cases where production is poor it never hurts to have a supply of grain ready to go. It's really like having food act as an alternative trade goods button.

Something else to mention is that I believe the food enhancing techs tend to come faster than the production-related ones. So it doesn't amount to just a penny here or a penny there, it's more like 8-10 food per colonist. That usually means 4-5 extra BC per colony even if you don't want to go full bore with a grain surplus.

 

[Giftless]

But Tactical Combat is half the game! With Strategic Combat, you miss on designing your own ships and guiding them in combat.

How many exploits revolve around Tactical Combat? Blowing up an incoming Battleship in the early game in one shot with Auto-Fire Armor-Piercing Lasers comes to mind.

Also, with Assault Shuttles and good Ground Combat you might get lucky in the early game and capture one of those little Raiders and scrap it for game-breaking technology - then have it stolen the very next turn by your opponents.

I've been meaning to try Tactical, the part of it that really gets me though is getting used to the extra production costs of having to refit the ships with new equipment. It seems like Alpha Centauri in that respect where one really has to know "when" to build and upgrade their military at key points in the game.

I notice the auto-designer too tends to use far too much ship space for carrying bombs, seriously I don't think more than 10 per ship is needed in any decent-sized fleet.

 

[Giftless]

Actually playing the AI using the Strategic is more fair, as Tactical combat is just exploits and overkill there. You are using the real ships and real combat movements against random tin cans of AI, that are unable to do anything beside all forward\stand still\retreat, accompanied by some random shots. But, of course, its better to understand that is the real ships for Tactical combat too (though same goes for Strategic, just the designs is different, and well, its actually more hard to design the ships for Strategic).

The AI is pretty weak on the defense as well; even with badly-designed Strategic ships what I'll do is avoid direct engagement with their big and nasty fleet all stacked in a single system, opting instead to take out all their other colonies & star bases so they then have no fleet support points to work with. Even if I leave many systems undefended and "trade punches" with the A.I., I'll tend to rebuild quickly whereas they do not.

It's weird, I don't think the A.I. really gets the need to have a strong point defense at their most valuable multi-planet systems (which have the most potential command points!)

 

[Darza]

The AI is pretty weak on the defense as well; even with badly-designed Strategic ships what I'll do is avoid direct engagement with their big and nasty fleet all stacked in a single system, opting instead to take out all their other colonies & star bases so they then have no fleet support points to work with. Even if I leave many systems undefended and "trade punches" with the A.I., I'll tend to rebuild quickly whereas they do not.

It's weird, I don't think the A.I. really gets the need to have a strong point defense at their most valuable multi-planet systems (which have the most potential command points!)

Not really sure i get the correct point there, but AI is very weak in almost any aspect of game (or in any, likely), just the most valuable place for human player's exploits - is tactical combat, both in ship design, and especially in actual combat maneuvers (exploiting the "wait", concentrating fire, evasive moves etc).
"Badly-designed Strategic ships" - is slightly other story, as i understand, Strategic combat rules is simply different from Tactical combat rules (not the same as if same ships would just fight using "auto combat", more like civilization unit's rolls or something). And as far i know nobody really ever dug what is good-designed Strategic ship is. Actually im planning to run deeper into Strategic when will have a free-time spell (sadly unlikely to be in a foreseeable future).

 

[Darza]

I could see the argument for +1 to Research or +1 Production as alternative picks, but I do think Fantastic Traders is better than say, the straight-up 0.5 BC boost. For instance if you tend to run into planets with native lifeforms that can only be used as farmers, you can get a credit flow rolling when the game would otherwise assign you with 1 BC for the single "true" colonist. Of course it's always better to use extra food to support extra scientists or factory-workers, even if they may be off-planet, but in cases where production is poor it never hurts to have a supply of grain ready to go. It's really like having food act as an alternative trade goods button.

Something else to mention is that I believe the food enhancing techs tend to come faster than the production-related ones. So it doesn't amount to just a penny here or a penny there, it's more like 8-10 food per colonist. That usually means 4-5 extra BC per colony even if you don't want to go full bore with a grain surplus.

Your example is pretty weird, if you get the natives, you free your farmers with them, not use them as "bad gold deposites" (you have to use them this way only if you are lithovore, as the only drawback there). You earn money by growing your colonists, not by selling excess food. Straight +0.5 BC (if you mean money bonus racepick) is absolutely incomparable in power with FT, as its a good useful pick actually, especially if used with Democracy (as its the way it usually do). In general you grow a food on a specialized worlds, where food is good (ideally some small poor gaias or so), and use a freighters to ship it elsewhere. The rich on production production planets build a ships, poor worlds do research, small bad planets do housing to ship the produced population to a constantly colonizing new planets (aswell as exceeds from regular growth from "normal" planets). To spend a whooping 4 picks (1\5 of total!) in hope of getting few extra BC from natives is simply nonsense.
Usual research path for non-blitz races is Lab\Autofactory and only after that is coming Soils. Actually the food balance in a game is really bad, as you need to have at least 3 food per colonist at start (if you want a playable race (by playable i mean actually playable, not just "able to win some impossible AI's", as its not a problem at all), and there is only few special races as exclude here). There is simply too few food in game, you cannot rely on selling it, you need it to enable more colonists instead. And by the time of 8-10 food per colonist output is reached - game is over for long-long time ago already. And extra 4-5 BC per colony is simply 2 cents by that time. Fantastic Traders could be used to channel a prod into money using trade goods, but its slightly different thing, and again, worthy about 0.5 picks.

There is some educational video to see how non-blitz moo2 game is playing (proper economic development): http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=534483

I've been meaning to try Tactical, the part of it that really gets me though is getting used to the extra production costs of having to refit the ships with new equipment. It seems like Alpha Centauri in that respect where one really has to know "when" to build and upgrade their military at key points in the game.

I notice the auto-designer too tends to use far too much ship space for carrying bombs, seriously I don't think more than 10 per ship is needed in any decent-sized fleet.

Exactly, to know when and what to build is the game. Auto-design is very bad, and one of AI weaknesses is using it to build the tin cans. Sometimes you need to build special bomb ships, but in non-modded game bombs is too weak, to be used seriously (actually its many other weapons being too strong, accompanied with too weak shields and planetary defences overall). But most ships have no bombs at all, or have exactly 1 bomb, to prevent ship from "doneing" after the shot (and also for actual bombardment too, sure).

 

[El_Machinae]

"Doneing"? What do you mean there?

 

[Harv]

He means if you move your ship and fire all your weapons, your ship is done moving. If you have a single nuclear bomb, then your ship is not done moving. You can move and fire all your weapons and move somewhere else.