A few Q's about tech stagnation - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  A few Q's about tech stagnation

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   A few Q's about tech stagnation

trick6 posted 02-24-99 08:30 AM ET
I just finished my first run of the incomparable SMAC and, having played CIV2 too much for my own good, I found that I won hands down using the same basic strategy: expand fast, build only as many military units as necessary to protect your bases, crank out the base facilities and research, research, research until you finish that final secret project. Granted, I did pick probably the most effective faction (Gaians), but I was quickly amazed to find how my dozen or so bases were way above everyone else's in every category, and it was not long before I had outstripped the University on tech advances. Oh yes, everyone except for the Peacekeepers declared vendetta against me eventually, but their occasional and meagre attacks proved ineffective.
Now what I'm asking is this: in order to avoid such an easy victory via the ascent to transcendence, i was considering using Tech Stagnation (and raising the difficulty setting).
Has anyone had good/bad experience with this option? Does it tip the balance too much in favor of a conquest victory?
Kedryn posted 02-24-99 09:41 AM ET
I have found that tech stagnation just increases the gap by which I lead in tech. But I like it because it gives me time to actually *use* a tech before it becomes obsolete. Transcended by 2350 on tech stagnation... it doesn't seem to slow it too much.
CEO Bernard posted 02-24-99 09:45 AM ET
I always play with tech stagnation, and I find it to be loads of fun. You actually tend to use the same military units for a fair period of time, which is kind of cool. It does make it harder to reach trancendence but not too much ... near the end of the game you just have so many cities do so much research that the techs come in 11-20 turns streches which isn't so bad. Tech stagnation tends to turn the poor Believers into an even weaker power however.
Stormhound posted 02-24-99 10:34 AM ET
Tech stagnation would make the finding and using of alien artifacts critical, I'd think. Getting a fair number of those would give a lead, and if you can get to some of the significant techs (like the ones that allow 3+ collection of whatever in a square) ahead of others, you're in good shape.
Hmmm...playing the UoP with tech stagnation, now there sounds like an easy win if you can get the artifacts.
I admit I use exactly the strategy that trick6 employs; expand like hell, protect only as need be, build the financial base and kill 'em with tech. What he might do (and what I may try my next game) is to play the Believers to see if their inherent penalties force me to change styles.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: A few Q's about tech stagnation
trick6	posted 02-24-99 08:30 AM ET I just finished my first run of the incomparable SMAC and, having played CIV2 too much for my own good, I found that I won hands down using the same basic strategy: expand fast, build only as many military units as necessary to protect your bases, crank out the base facilities and research, research, research until you finish that final secret project. Granted, I did pick probably the most effective faction (Gaians), but I was quickly amazed to find how my dozen or so bases were way above everyone else's in every category, and it was not long before I had outstripped the University on tech advances. Oh yes, everyone except for the Peacekeepers declared vendetta against me eventually, but their occasional and meagre attacks proved ineffective. Now what I'm asking is this: in order to avoid such an easy victory via the ascent to transcendence, i was considering using Tech Stagnation (and raising the difficulty setting). Has anyone had good/bad experience with this option? Does it tip the balance too much in favor of a conquest victory?
Kedryn	posted 02-24-99 09:41 AM ET I have found that tech stagnation just increases the gap by which I lead in tech. But I like it because it gives me time to actually use a tech before it becomes obsolete. Transcended by 2350 on tech stagnation... it doesn't seem to slow it too much.
CEO Bernard	posted 02-24-99 09:45 AM ET I always play with tech stagnation, and I find it to be loads of fun. You actually tend to use the same military units for a fair period of time, which is kind of cool. It does make it harder to reach trancendence but not too much ... near the end of the game you just have so many cities do so much research that the techs come in 11-20 turns streches which isn't so bad. Tech stagnation tends to turn the poor Believers into an even weaker power however.
Stormhound	posted 02-24-99 10:34 AM ET Tech stagnation would make the finding and using of alien artifacts critical, I'd think. Getting a fair number of those would give a lead, and if you can get to some of the significant techs (like the ones that allow 3+ collection of whatever in a square) ahead of others, you're in good shape. Hmmm...playing the UoP with tech stagnation, now there sounds like an easy win if you can get the artifacts. I admit I use exactly the strategy that trick6 employs; expand like hell, protect only as need be, build the financial base and kill 'em with tech. What he might do (and what I may try my next game) is to play the Believers to see if their inherent penalties force me to change styles.