Galactic Civilizations: Lightning Alpha Strike formula

Create account

Downloads

NewsGroup

Community

Purchase

Galactic Forum

Strategies

Mods

Empires

Do you still think GalCiv 1 is fun even with GalCiv II out?

758 votes

1- Yes

2- No

Lightning Alpha Strike formula

Search:

Sort by:

Go to Bottom

#50 by Citizen Matthew Downie - 1/10/2004 7:05:02 AM

are you finding you can do this without military?

Staying out of wars tends to be easier on larger maps.

#51 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard - 1/11/2004 12:49:52 PM

Dastardly? How can you call me "dastardly"? It's the death furnaces for you! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oops. Sorry about that. My evil twin, you know.

So, is 51 "good" then? Wouldn't it be consistent if the stat screen also said "Evil" at 47? Or is this the subjective viewpoint where they see me as evil and I don't?

as a side note I tried playing this style choosing research and production bonuses rather than my standard morale and economy, and the bribes required increased by something like 50%.

Hmm...how about when you take diplo bonuses? Does the econ outweigh the diplo?

Interesting study of game mechanics, isn't it. Fascinating simulation.

'Tis!

One thing though...at gigantic it is freaking tedious to get through each turn. If only I could put constructors on "guard" so I didn't have to wait and hit space for each 5-stack. Could I avoid this if I changed the option to skip units with moves left? [Yeah, yeah, "go and test it yourself."]

[You know, that "neutral" icon at the bottom looks like it just bit into a prune...]
[Message Edited]

#52 by Citizen JaxomCA - 1/11/2004 1:04:20 PM

If only I could put constructors on "guard"

Press the "G" key on the keyboard, or the "S" key to put them on sentry.

#53 by Veteran Maxtipherous - 1/11/2004 2:05:13 PM

you can put constructors on guard -- by hitting g. I used to think I had to stack them with scouts to get them to guard. Man, I thought I was the only bozo *wink wink* *nod nod*

how about when you take diplo bonuses

yeah, I meant diplo, econ, and morale bonuses

#54 by Citizen Matthew Downie - 1/11/2004 3:59:51 PM

Yeah, I took ages to work that out. Boy, did I feel stupid. As stupid as I feel every time I trade for the Diplomacy tech and then forget to upgrade my government type.

#55 by Citizen Wild Wombat - 1/12/2004 3:28:29 AM

Various thoughts:

Matthew - yes I agree with your approach...this technique gives you one hell of a quick clean up phase! And yes, I forget to change my govt too!

Hermann - you'll still need to go back to the influence game a bit, plus take the time to research those diplo advances to help out. Currently I'm choosing pop 70+ in bonus picks, and experimenting with morale, diplo and other stuff, working on the principle that pushing my pop is the way to max the meta score. Get the aphro/virtual/frictionless TGs; usually no need, as Maxti says, to get ANY wonders and I dont build anything but constructors. Best time so far is just under 40 mins for a small game averaging around 29,000 (game score); I seem to get 4-6k on the meta board for each game but of course that is compromised by the calc system and dividing the total by the square of game submitted (at least, I think that's how it works) as well as the time of the month, phase of the moon, and whatever else Stardock is adjusting this week!

#56 by Citizen LDiCesare - 1/12/2004 8:15:34 AM

I tried that and still found it long and tedious. I allied myself with the Torians who were the big boys, managed to drag them into a war against their other allies the Altarians, and finally won allied with both of them after destroying a few stars.

I played a Large map. Smaller means you'll risk being at war while researching expensive techs you can't easily dump on the aliens to get diplomatically out od trouble.
I started in a corner and believe that 5 constructors are more tedious to fleet/assemble than a fleet of AMMs, combat transports, and a single reusable ship to get rid of the colony ships in orbit (frigate or whatever else - your initial survey ship is as good a bet as an avater). AMMs and alliance are still my preferred weapon. You don't need to alpha strike every planet of your opponent and can sue for peace and continue afterwards.
This method works well, but I'm not sure if it's really much faster than other strategies (I tend to avoid larger maps, and this one doesn't seem to work very well for medium).

#57 by Citizen Damon Bryson - 1/12/2004 12:18:51 PM

I tried this method, and was surpised how well it works. I hadn't realized that the metaverse scores have NOTHING to do with the rest of the scoring system, which led me to believe that building a large empire actually gave more points. To that end, I have played with abundant habitable planets on almost every game. It is MUCH easier playing with rare planets. My habit was the opposite of Maxtipherous.

I think the next version of GC needs a fix for the terror star alpha strike problem. You shouldn't be able to build a terror star if you don't have the $5000 needed. That would be more consistent with the rush-build rules for everything else - you can't rush build unless you have a positive cash balance. I might still do terror star alpha strikes, but only one empire at a time, as build up the money to do it.

Wow, now I'm starting to sound like Sirian, with his galactic domination morality and honor system. Oh, well. Great minds, you know...

#58 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard - 1/12/2004 1:08:37 PM

I used to think I had to stack them with scouts to get them to guard. Man, I thought I was the only bozo *wink wink* *nod nod*

Maxti: "I think we're all bozos on this bus!" (7 points to the first to identify that ancient quote.)

you'll still need to go back to the influence game a bit, plus take the time to research those diplo advances to help out. ... Get the aphro/virtual/frictionless TGs

WW: I've never flipped a planet while using this strategy, though since I had other planets catching up in social builds, I built some "Culture Clubs" and the Political Capital to put some pressure on Yorian worlds. Meanwhile, the I-League was rolling up Yorian worlds. I rarely get any TGs in this strategy at maso; some minor always grabs them.

(I tend to avoid larger maps, and this one doesn't seem to work very well for medium).

LDiC: It seems there are a lot of strategies that don't work very well on medium maps, but work okay on smaller or larger maps. Maybe "medium" should be a component of "hardest" challenges.

I think the next version of GC needs a fix for the terror star alpha strike problem. You shouldn't be able to build a terror star if you don't have the $5000 needed. That would be more consistent with the rush-build rules for everything else - you can't rush build unless you have a positive cash balance.

DB: Agreed, but to be consistent, you should be able to rush-build the first terror star if you have a positive cash balance. That one should plunge you into the red and then no rush-building until the treasury recovers.

Speaking of the treasury, that's the biggest problem I'm having on small maso maps in this strategy. I end up stuck down around -500bc with spending well below 100%. If I survive long enough, trade revenue will gradually bring me out of the toilet, but meanwhile the aliens are pulling away. -- HtL

#59 by Citizen musicfan55 - 1/12/2004 4:57:02 PM

Maxti: "I think we're all bozos on this bus!" (7 points to the first to identify that ancient quote.)

Firesign Theater from the album, "we're all bozos on this bus". They put out some funny stuff.

Speaking of the treasury, that's the biggest problem I'm having on small maso maps in this strategy. I end up stuck down around -500bc with spending well below 100%. If I survive long enough, trade revenue will gradually bring me out of the toilet, but meanwhile the aliens are pulling away.

Agree. It helps to be near minors where you can tech swap for trade technology and then build 2 to 6 freighters ASAP. If you are near majors, you may wish to trade for freighters near a desirable trading partner-to-be. You can have a trade route in one turn. After colonizing 4 to 6 planets, I make establishing trade route a very high priority.

You can also be more picky on the control-N. On gigantic maps, I like to be more central so I can get contact and get my trade routes going sooner. Having a 19 or 20 Earth is nice too so the 1000 bc at start lasts longer. Hope this helps.

#60 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard - 1/12/2004 7:12:12 PM

Firesign Theater from the album, "we're all bozos on this bus". They put out some funny stuff.

ricbayer is hereby awarded Seven Points. "Give that man a kewpie doll!" Yes, they did put out some funny stuff. After all these years, "Nick Danger" holds up quite well. A lot of the other stuff was a bit too topical...and some would say it was better appreciated under the influence of mind-altering chemicals. Somehow I avoided those, but still enjoyed Firesign Theater. "Are you a bozo?"

It helps to be near minors where you can tech swap for trade technology and then build 2 to 6 freighters ASAP.

That even helps get around the aggravation when I get a set of Alexians who *won't* buy tech. I like trading for freighters, and in a small/rare game the route will probably go to my best system, because it's going to my ONLY system.

I haven't done Ctrl-N on the last few. On the gigantic game that I recently posted (merely "Crip") I started almost alone in the lower right quadrant. In fact, I *was* alone in that quadrant except for the Kilwasians, who promptly morphed into the I-League. I ended up with far more planets than I expected, and *especially* more than I expected when I failed to find habitable worlds in any of the adjacent sectors...but I ended up beating the AI to some worlds that were at least ten sectors out.

#61 by Citizen LDiCesare - 1/13/2004 4:06:00 AM

except for the Kilwasians, who promptly morphed into the I-League.

They tend to do that systematically, don't they?

Maybe "medium" should be a component of "hardest" challenges.

Yes. That's what several players agreed on in a thread on the topic. That and, in some circumstances, having only 1 opponent (or a bunch of good enemies and you play evil).

#62 by Citizen Monkson - 1/13/2004 9:33:11 AM

I have a question about this which may be ignorant, but here goes:

When you are ready to strike with all your terror stars, how do you afford it? Don't they cost 5000 bc each to build? Are you supposed to aquire enough wealth to do this beforehand?

Thanks for your insight.

-Monkson

#63 by Veteran vincible - 1/13/2004 9:56:40 AM

You can go into debt to build them.

#64 by Citizen Monkson - 1/13/2004 10:19:08 AM

I thought I read that earlier in the post, but I thought that could not be the case. How could such a flaw exist?

#65 by Veteran vincible - 1/13/2004 10:28:05 AM

Ask Stardock :/

#66 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard - 1/13/2004 12:43:36 PM

I thought I read that earlier in the post, but I thought that could not be the case. How could such a flaw exist?

"It's not a bug, it's an undocumented feature!"

Kilwasians, who promptly morphed into the I-League.

They tend to do that systematically, don't they?

Ah, in my limited experience, I didn't know that. I was a bit alarmed when they morphed so early (2185 or so). I thought they might become a menace, possibly by influence. As it was we got along famously, and they would even buy some techs (at "Crip").

#67 by Citizen musicfan55 - 1/13/2004 3:12:38 PM

The Kwilasians routinely morph to the I-League but I can't see that it changes much. They tend to have strong influence (orange color), variable military (sometimes tough), don't particularly like demonic players, and they get to vulture all the discontented planets that become independent, which can make them quite spread out.

If one couldn't go into debt to buy terror stars, that would be a big nerf. But, one can get the bc to avoid debt if trade is active and tech-purchasing Alexians are nearby (and you are playing "rare").

#68 by Citizen JaxomCA - 1/13/2004 3:20:43 PM

If one couldn't go into debt to buy terror stars, that would be a big nerf

This would only delay the inevitable. Making the AI react to constructors in their sectors would spice things up and be a better fix.

[Message Edited]

#69 by Veteran vincible - 1/13/2004 8:29:45 PM

The Kwilasians routinely morph to the I-League

I think the I-league always appears from the Kwilasians on Gigantic maps.

This would only delay the inevitable. Making the AI react to constructors in their sectors would spice things up and be a better fix

Only as long as terror star construction was slowed down, too. One terror star module at a time, so that the AI has time to react.

#70 by Citizen JaxomCA - 1/13/2004 8:40:23 PM

terror star construction was slowed down

I am not talking about terror stars, I am talking about constructors. A constructor in alien owned sector show be considered the same as a warship, or better yet as a sneak attack in the making. That would solve both the alpha strike terror star problem and the cultural bombing problem.

Then again, that too would only delay the inevitable. The AI has to be able and capable to win by culture or by tech to make the game competitive.

#71 by Veteran vincible - 1/13/2004 8:55:54 PM

It wouldn't stop people from parking constructors in adjacent sectors, then moving them in when the time is right (just like people can do with warships.)

Also, that would make it hard to develop resources.

I guess the AI could be more sensitive to stuff in adjacent sectors, but then you have the problem of "false positives" where the AI sees threats in totally innocent behavior.

#72 by Veteran Maxtipherous - 1/14/2004 1:04:08 AM

false positives, kinda like soda-pop factories. you can make peach soda in them, but you can also make cyanide from the pits.

"But it is just a mining Death Star -- we had reports of resources in this sector."

#73 by Citizen JaxomCA - 1/14/2004 1:17:16 AM

you have the problem of "false positives"

I don't see that as a problem, if you want to avoid war at all cost, don't send any ships near AI territory, plain and simple. If you want to mine a ressource in AI territory, make it your territory first. There are multiple ways of doing that, like using cultural starbases or capturing a nearby planet. It would be nice if you could capture a starbase instead of destroying it and the AI should really never sell their starbases or ships.

Anyway, it's a bit off topic so I'll shut up now.

#74 by Citizen Hermann the Lombard - 1/14/2004 12:49:49 PM

It wouldn't stop people from parking constructors in adjacent sectors, then moving them in when the time is right (just like people can do with warships.)

Well, in 1.13 if you put a warship on "guard" in an adjacent sector, even on your own starbase, "friendly" majors will declare war on you. You could apply the same logic to parked constructors (but if so, I'd like to see some mention in the release notes; I got clobbered by friendly Torians in my first 1.13 game!) I don't much like that idea, though. Trade starbases in neighboring sectors should be "unthreatening." Active culture starbases should be viewed as a threat, generating demands to hand it over (or at least to dismantle the cultural modules).

Here's a thought: constructors in an adjacent sector should not be deemed a threat. Constructors in the AI's sector should be. If you build a TS in an adjacent sector, that should be viewed as a threat, and the AI has time to react. If you zip the constructors adjacent to the planet and build the TS, the AI has one turn to react (at least forcing escorts; right now the AI pays no attention to even an adjacent TS). However, the idea of incremental construction of a TS is even better, and even the first TS module should be viewed as a provocation.

Anyway, it's a bit off topic so I'll shut up now.

When did *that* ever slow us down?

I suppose these ideas belong in another thread. I don't know if anyone from Stardock has the time to read threads like this one. -- HtL
[Message Edited]

<<	<- 1 2 (3) 4 5 ->	>>
Page 3 of 5

Go to Top

Go Back to Message Board

Go to Top

To be able to post something you have to become a member
Click here!