Im passing up a lot of bonuses playing good ... what exactly is gained?
     
| |
|
|
|
#2
by Citizen Baerd - 4/20/2003 3:46:07 PM
Good races tend to make friends with other good races more easily and good races are less likely to turn on other good races - though you still need a good military to keep them from just engulfing you.
They also get a few unique techs.. but I'm not sure what they do - I haven't gotten that far in good.
 
| |
|
|
|
#4
by Citizen AGM 84D - 4/22/2003 1:45:27 PM
yup. I've noticed that my influence goes down pretty remarkably when I go the evil path. Also, not getting hyperwarp on a gigantic map is a pisser.
| |
|
#5
by Citizen Stregone - 4/22/2003 4:17:56 PM
Other good civs tend to like you and help you out more, unless you aren't doing good and they can take out out easily 
| |
|
Well, both of my tech wins were "pure good" but my two cultural wins were split between chaotic good/chaotic evil and my one military victory was as chaotic good (odd game, that one, the Drengin were the only people I wasn't at war with, and I wasn't declaring any of the wars), so I guess when I'm chaotic, I'm unpredictable . I'm finishing up my first game as pure evil, and I could win any way I wanted to. I'm in the tech lead (Overlords vs Rangers, yum!), my military is twice the size of everyone elses except for the Drengins (and they don't have anything better than dreadnoughts, and I haven't even seen many of those), and culturally I've already got well over half the map, though my % of total influence isn't that high.
Then again, I'm not a rusher even when I do play evil. I'm an oportunist, culturally exploiting my allies as well as my enemies (when I play evil, that is), and making sure that even my enemies do things that benefit me once in a while (like taking out a starbase on a resource I want, when the person on the resource is someone I don't want to personally go to war with, or being at war with another of my enemies).
     
| |
|
Addressing the original question, when I play good, I can be on good terms with everyone, Drengin included, since evil are practical. When I play evil, I'm usually not on good terms with the chaotic/pure goods, because they're less practical, more snooty. I actually prefer playing good, but I have my own ideas as to what constitues good and evil, so unless I make a concerted effort, I usually don't reach pure good.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
You don't have to worry about a Fundamentalist revolt, either.
Is there any equivalent for good civs?
   
| |
|
#11
by Citizen AGM 84D - 4/23/2003 11:49:55 AM
I just finished a game where I had all the civs set to Pure Good while I was consistantly taking the evil option regardless of the cost/benefit (some of them really don't buy you much for taking the evil path). What I found is that the "pure good" drengins are still warlike as hell. They're just a lot more self-righteous about it and tend to drag the rest of the universe into war against you with them.
| |
|
The Drengin seem to be hard-coded warmongers. Unless they've started in a really nasty location, they always seem to get corvettes before anyone else and are prolific shipbuilders.
| |
|
I wanted to bump this thread to hear what others thought, particulary with newer versions of Gal Civ. There is a nice discussion at the Unofficial Strategy Guide by Gibbie99 and Ralegh here:  Link
The threads hint that on large, huge, gigantic settings that being good might be easier because trade will be better and you will have more $. But on tiny, small, medium (or games with very few planets like rare setting) evil may be easier because killing those worms makes a great PQ bonus. So do goodies tend to trade less with you if you are chaotic evil? How about pure evil? It would be a drag if they sent all their trade only to non-evil factions and you missed out because you killed those worms. 
In my games where I have been evil the "relations" menu shows the Torians and Altarins may be hostile but they still seem to trade with me so I can't tell if I am missing some trade I would have had if I were neutral or good. On the other hand playing evil is kind of scary because that UP ruling of one trade route would really stop the trade income. The fundamentalists I have seen aren't so tough but other have reported they can be.
My play style is to try to stay neutral unless going evil gets me a 20% or better PQ bonus. That is usually the kill the worms scenario, which is very hard to resist. If it only yields a little gain to go evil, I stay neutral. I have never been good enough to get new techs and the evil techs only add a little to my style of play so I am happy being neutral until I know which way the wind is blowing. If the Altarians and Torians disappear then there seems to be little advantage to being good but if the Dregnins and Yor are wiped out then being neutral allows a big happy family.
Please share your experience and comments. I am trying to get better but this area has me stumped a little bit. This is great game. Thanks everyone.
Rick
     
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Evil gets the life force power, which ups your economy by 25%. And once the equivalent is made (Paladins, I think), evil will get the Death Knights only 
    
| |
|
|
|
Evil alignment is suited for the aggressive style of play. Many of the evil techs are military in nature. The Death Knight is also an offensive ship. As an aggressor, there is less incentive to mantain good relations with other races.
Good alignment helps the builder. Good techs are trade in nature. I believe the good guys would get a good defensive ship. The good relations would help to encourage trade and minimise wars.
Frankly, I don't see the advantage of remaining neutral. The penalties for moving to good are not so painful when you consider the benefits you get from good alignment. Else go evil and wipe the floor with everyone.
  
| |
|
|
|
Thanks Ray and Gengsta. I understand a little better now. As Gengsta points out the AI sometimes, "makes an offer one can't refuse" . So do either of you have guidelines for ways to go "good" and still have a collection of high PQ, producing planets with good morale? My favorite way to play GalCiv is to get a military win withour firing a shot (except maybe at sharks or pirates). It seems good might help this if I can figure out how to work the colonizing events without ruining my planets. After playing great tactical combat games like Combat Mission and SM Gettysburg for years, the shooting wars of GalCiv leave something to be desired. But, for a game where one can win with diplomacy and culture, GalCiv is tops. The glee of winning by invading an opponent's culture with gambling casinos, media, and fashion is just too funny.  But how to be good . . . isn't that often the question? . TIA.
Rick
| |
|
This is what bothers me about the Good and Evil choices. There are techs that can only be researched if you are Good or Evil but when it comes down to the Events every single one, that I have seen, benefits the Evil players. Where are the Events that will Benefit the Good players, other than raising their alignments even higher.
 
| |
|
Apparently the evil path is the quick and easy way. I agree we need to see some beneficial 'good' events.
| |
|
But that's part of the point! Being good is about making the difficult choice and doing the right thing in spite of the cost. The reward for being good is much more nebulous and long-term than the fast, obvious gains made by the expediency of evil.
 
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
