Builder vs. Conqueror? (Or Both?) - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Builder vs. Conqueror? (Or Both?)

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Builder vs. Conqueror? (Or Both?)

Natguy posted 05-09-99 09:59 PM ET
Ihave seen this topic springled in amongst faction debates, but as yet, I saw no threads for it, so here it is:
Is it better to build up a large, rich, and peaceful empire or should you concentrate on building a massive army to tear down the poop little builder's buildings? Or is a combination of the two (build an insurmountable edge in tech and money, simply roll across the world)
And yes, I know it depends on your personality and your preferred mode of victory.
Builder:
Conqueror:
Both:
Neither (I don't know what this would be but you never know):
Plato90s posted 05-09-99 10:35 PM ET
At higher levels, you can't be a builder exclusively. Your faction needs to have a standing garrison of at least comparable size with your contemporaries, or you are just inviting attack.
The basic strategy types that I use are:
1) Fast and Dirty. After researching only a few basic techs like Plasma Steel, Impact weapons, and foil technology, I go conquering. This strategy works best with Hive/Spartans/Believers but can work with Gaians if you substitute Mindworms. Usually, you can wipe out enough of the enemy that you have a smooth ride for the rest. However, this strategy doesn't work well when the world is too large.
2) Peaceful builder. This is where you build up heavy infrastructure, limite your geographical size, and make many alliances/treaties. You are biding your time for a diplomatic victory or when you are far enough ahead in tech that you can go conquering. Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work well on Transcend because AIs are more aggressive and get more production/research bonus benefits.
3) Cyclical. This is where you alternate. First you spread peacefully for a while, then go conquering, settle down to digest your gains, and then go conquering again. Downside - you often end up with a horrible reputation which makes the end game difficult.
4) Steady growth. This is the balanced approach where you establish zones in your empire. The core produces military units shipped out to the front. The frontier zone is building up a minimum of infrastucture to be self-sustaining, with the view of eventually being included as a core city. And the battle zone consists of a bunch of tiny cities with big garrisons. You deploy units constantly from the core to build up forces for attack and update in technology as you grow. War never really ends, only the tempo changes. The Hive and University is good for this approach. UoP can keep up decent R&D even while pumping out forces and the Hive can do a spread-out empire with battle-zone bases the best.
Smeagol posted 05-09-99 11:36 PM ET
Plato-- I don't seem to notice any drastic research benefits for the AI on transcend... while their production seems amazing, it still is possible to get way out ahead in tech. So a peaceful builder can still get a nice tech advantage, and with that get secret projects by virtue of having the tech first.
Urban Ranger posted 05-10-99 01:08 AM ET
I would like to propose another stretagy: the aggressive builder.
It is similar to a peaceful builder, but expands rapidly, almost rabidly, to claim as much territory as possible. Of course, this needs to be done in such a fashion that the cities can support each other in the eventuality of an attack. The aggressive builder emphasizes heavily in tech, but maintains a sizable force of well trained garrisons where conflict is expected to occur.
The aggressive builder is likely to rely on probe teams (and hence the Hunter SP) to wage "shadow wars." An energy reserve is required to subvert hostile military units to your side.
David Johnson posted 05-12-99 03:16 AM ET
What size of map? I always play the largest standard size (I like the idea of a large empire) which is clearly best suited to a builder strategy. Amount of water would also make a difference. Even with the normal amount, on a huge map, you are often on your own island. So who needs armies?
Yes, you can be an exclusive builder at transcend level. At least until you have so much stuff you can effortlessly flatten opposition [eg wipe out a faction in less than 4 turns].
So for a large map it is "best" if you mean a high score and/or a fast victory.
Urban Ranger posted 05-12-99 03:58 AM ET
I also found out that bigger maps favor builders and smaller maps favor conquerors. Since I generally play on huge maps I generally start alone -- you can tell whether you start alone by number of initial colony pods you have -- an aggresive builder stretagy works fine.
I also found that if you get big, the computer opponents are less likely to get mean with you.
David Johnson posted 05-12-99 01:39 PM ET
"you can tell whether you start alone by number of initial colony pods you have "???
I've always had 1 base and one pod every time irrespective.
[I'd have noticed them missing since I usually destroy my own base and all pods on the first move -- the extra former and 'flexible start'-for-me-only seems worth a one turn delay, although when I have tried flexible start on a small map the AI seems to take its sweet time about settling anywhere so maybe....]
Bingmann posted 05-12-99 05:42 PM ET
The game is designed so that you must be a conqueror in order to win unless all of your enemies agree to leave you alone. It takes the same amount of military power to defend against an enemy invasion as it does to invade them instead. Kind of screwy, but that's the way it is. If you choose to win some other way, that's just self-restraint.
Koshko posted 05-12-99 11:10 PM ET
If you build the Empath Guild, you'll see the advantages the AI has on tech. You'll get to 1000+ pts tech requirements Long before they do.
If you have a continent to yourself, you can be predominately Builder. A simple way to keep Peace would be to do no exploring beyond your land. They can't fight what they can't find.
Bingmann posted 05-13-99 10:12 AM ET
You can hide on a continent vs. computer (a handful of planes/choppers will knock off the occasional transport), but not vs. human players (or a smarter AI if there ever is one). A human player knows how to make land bridges (easiest) or use an invasion fleet with air cover (much more work).
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: Builder vs. Conqueror? (Or Both?)
Natguy	posted 05-09-99 09:59 PM ET Ihave seen this topic springled in amongst faction debates, but as yet, I saw no threads for it, so here it is: Is it better to build up a large, rich, and peaceful empire or should you concentrate on building a massive army to tear down the poop little builder's buildings? Or is a combination of the two (build an insurmountable edge in tech and money, simply roll across the world) And yes, I know it depends on your personality and your preferred mode of victory. Builder: Conqueror: Both: Neither (I don't know what this would be but you never know):
Plato90s	posted 05-09-99 10:35 PM ET At higher levels, you can't be a builder exclusively. Your faction needs to have a standing garrison of at least comparable size with your contemporaries, or you are just inviting attack. The basic strategy types that I use are: 1) Fast and Dirty. After researching only a few basic techs like Plasma Steel, Impact weapons, and foil technology, I go conquering. This strategy works best with Hive/Spartans/Believers but can work with Gaians if you substitute Mindworms. Usually, you can wipe out enough of the enemy that you have a smooth ride for the rest. However, this strategy doesn't work well when the world is too large. 2) Peaceful builder. This is where you build up heavy infrastructure, limite your geographical size, and make many alliances/treaties. You are biding your time for a diplomatic victory or when you are far enough ahead in tech that you can go conquering. Unfortunately, this strategy doesn't work well on Transcend because AIs are more aggressive and get more production/research bonus benefits. 3) Cyclical. This is where you alternate. First you spread peacefully for a while, then go conquering, settle down to digest your gains, and then go conquering again. Downside - you often end up with a horrible reputation which makes the end game difficult. 4) Steady growth. This is the balanced approach where you establish zones in your empire. The core produces military units shipped out to the front. The frontier zone is building up a minimum of infrastucture to be self-sustaining, with the view of eventually being included as a core city. And the battle zone consists of a bunch of tiny cities with big garrisons. You deploy units constantly from the core to build up forces for attack and update in technology as you grow. War never really ends, only the tempo changes. The Hive and University is good for this approach. UoP can keep up decent R&D even while pumping out forces and the Hive can do a spread-out empire with battle-zone bases the best.
Smeagol	posted 05-09-99 11:36 PM ET Plato-- I don't seem to notice any drastic research benefits for the AI on transcend... while their production seems amazing, it still is possible to get way out ahead in tech. So a peaceful builder can still get a nice tech advantage, and with that get secret projects by virtue of having the tech first.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-10-99 01:08 AM ET I would like to propose another stretagy: the aggressive builder. It is similar to a peaceful builder, but expands rapidly, almost rabidly, to claim as much territory as possible. Of course, this needs to be done in such a fashion that the cities can support each other in the eventuality of an attack. The aggressive builder emphasizes heavily in tech, but maintains a sizable force of well trained garrisons where conflict is expected to occur. The aggressive builder is likely to rely on probe teams (and hence the Hunter SP) to wage "shadow wars." An energy reserve is required to subvert hostile military units to your side.
David Johnson	posted 05-12-99 03:16 AM ET What size of map? I always play the largest standard size (I like the idea of a large empire) which is clearly best suited to a builder strategy. Amount of water would also make a difference. Even with the normal amount, on a huge map, you are often on your own island. So who needs armies? Yes, you can be an exclusive builder at transcend level. At least until you have so much stuff you can effortlessly flatten opposition [eg wipe out a faction in less than 4 turns]. So for a large map it is "best" if you mean a high score and/or a fast victory.
Urban Ranger	posted 05-12-99 03:58 AM ET I also found out that bigger maps favor builders and smaller maps favor conquerors. Since I generally play on huge maps I generally start alone -- you can tell whether you start alone by number of initial colony pods you have -- an aggresive builder stretagy works fine. I also found that if you get big, the computer opponents are less likely to get mean with you.
David Johnson	posted 05-12-99 01:39 PM ET "you can tell whether you start alone by number of initial colony pods you have "??? I've always had 1 base and one pod every time irrespective. [I'd have noticed them missing since I usually destroy my own base and all pods on the first move -- the extra former and 'flexible start'-for-me-only seems worth a one turn delay, although when I have tried flexible start on a small map the AI seems to take its sweet time about settling anywhere so maybe....]
Bingmann	posted 05-12-99 05:42 PM ET The game is designed so that you must be a conqueror in order to win unless all of your enemies agree to leave you alone. It takes the same amount of military power to defend against an enemy invasion as it does to invade them instead. Kind of screwy, but that's the way it is. If you choose to win some other way, that's just self-restraint.
Koshko	posted 05-12-99 11:10 PM ET If you build the Empath Guild, you'll see the advantages the AI has on tech. You'll get to 1000+ pts tech requirements Long before they do. If you have a continent to yourself, you can be predominately Builder. A simple way to keep Peace would be to do no exploring beyond your land. They can't fight what they can't find.
Bingmann	posted 05-13-99 10:12 AM ET You can hide on a continent vs. computer (a handful of planes/choppers will knock off the occasional transport), but not vs. human players (or a smarter AI if there ever is one). A human player knows how to make land bridges (easiest) or use an invasion fleet with air cover (much more work).