How many ways to win? 2 or 3? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  How many ways to win? 2 or 3?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   How many ways to win? 2 or 3?

Rang posted 12-03-98 06:08 PM ET
Initially, we were told that you could win either by conquering the world (military), or achieving the Ascent to Transcendence (science). But recent reviews mentioned that you could win by getting three quarters of the planetary council to vote for submitting to you (diplomacy) or by conquering (military). Also, those reviews don't mention the Ascent to Transcendence.
Question: Has the Ascent been replaced by the diplomacy victory option? Or do all three options coexist?
CClark posted 12-03-98 06:13 PM ET
I'm guessing that all three are viable winning conditions.
MOO2 had three victory conditions: Vote, Conquer or Defeat Antarans. So it has been done before.
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 06:18 PM ET
Hopefully three. The voting in by the Planetary council sounds too much like MOO2 for my liking. The ascent to transcendance was tied around the whole philosophy of the game, in that it was the next step in mankind's evolution.
Part one was supposedly covered in CIV and CIV II, basically the change from nomadic tribes to a star-faring race. This next step was the step to the next level of being, a beoing of pure energy.
So, unless they decided to change their whole philosophy on the game, I dare to think it is still there, but they have either told reviewers to shut up about it (and forgotten to tell the oldies from the Firaxis.com forums like me ), or maybe it wasn't in the version sent to the reviewers.
Still, it is an odd situation, you are right.
I for one hope it is still in, as it gives a much more grand ending than just being voted in by a bunch of neurotic Faction leaders. Apart from Lal of course - he stayed sane at least.
Brother Greg.
Gord McLeod posted 12-03-98 06:25 PM ET
I'm torn on this issue... on the one hand, I don't much care for the vote option myself. It tends to end the game too fast. But on the other hand I have serious problems with the 'evolving to a new level of humanity' ending as well, for different reasons - firstly, because 2 or 3 hundred years is ludicriously short, and secondly, because it's even more rediculous to imagine that we'll evolve into beings of pure energy.
But of the two, I'd prefer the evolving into beings of pure energy in a few centuries to the vote, so if they decided to go with one or the other, I'd hope they kept the transcendance. *3* ways is alright as well, I just hope it's not as easy to have the game end abruptly on you as it was in MOO2...
Rang posted 12-03-98 06:53 PM ET
I really hope they don't discard the Transcendence option. I suspect that the diplomacy victory option was include to give the PK a fighting chance of winning. It's hard for them to win militarily or scientifically in comparison to the other factions.
SnowFire posted 12-03-98 07:56 PM ET
Yeah, but the vote and conquer options are basically the same. It just cuts off the last 1//4 conquering phase, as you can simply hold a planetary meeting once you have 3/4 of the land and declare yourself the winner (which your hated enemies accept for some reason, of course.). I also agree that MOO II was too short- you could beat down the Antarans far before the game was over. In fact, the easiest and highest scoring way to win was not to go on a conquering spree but to defeat Antares. I know after conquering nearly the known galaxy and building a gian fleet, I prepared to face the mighty Antarans... and beat them in two and a half rounds. I could have done that years ago.
Spoe posted 12-03-98 08:03 PM ET
SnowFire: There you're assuming that the vote a faction has is proportional to the resources it controls. What if each faction has an equal number of votes, regardless of their power? Plus, it can be fun, with a proper diplomacy model, to convince others to vote for you without being an overwhelming power.
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 08:27 PM ET
Gord, who said anything about 2-300 years? I expect the game to cover 2-3000 years.
Brother Greg.
Keith Bennett posted 12-03-98 10:41 PM ET
I assume that toggling the "victory through transcendence only" on will eliminate both the diplomatic option and the military option.
I'm also pretty sure transcendence hasn't been fully implemented in the Betas people have tried out, which would explain their lack of presence in recent reviews.
Are we sure that transcendence means becoming a Vorlon, rather than something less grand, like achieving "Harmony" (for you Mars trilogy fans) or "Unity" (for those of you who like Julian May) or somesuch?
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 10:50 PM ET
Firaxis did state over 6 months ago that it was achieving a state of pure energy, yeah.
And I tend to doubt that there'll be a "victory through transcendance" only toggle. Could be wrong though.
Must admit that I would like to be able to toggle the planetary council thing off. That wouild be annoying.
Brother Greg.
Shining1 posted 12-03-98 10:59 PM ET
What the hell is this trancendance thing? I definitely have a problem with it.
Firstly, we already are beings of pure energy. Mass is what happens when you get a big bunch of energy that has nothing to do. Anyway, would we be pure kinetic energy or potential energy? Do you get the choice? In short, what the goddamn bloody weird-assed hell?
Secondly, the next step of evolution goes straight to machines. Technology is now 'evolving' at a rate millions of times faster than evolution. And I don't want to transcend into a Dalek.
(P.S I wonder if Brian's tech tree takes intelligence machines into account. Now that certainly would bring an interesting twist to the game).
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 11:09 PM ET
Which raises an interesting question about whether we could invent a machine that was more intelligent than we were.
One day, maybe, but even then I doubt it...
Anyway, it is just the author's (Brian's) bent on what our next step in the evolutionary cycle is. We would "meld with the universe" or something.
Brother Greg.
Shining1 posted 12-03-98 11:24 PM ET
Ahh-haah-hah-haahhh-hahh-haallh-riighh-teeee-theeeeennn.
I'm not saying that a genius level A.I is right around the corner. But you just need to look at the current trends. Unless religion, politics, or disease destroys us, it's gonna happen.
(Not that I'm comfortable with the idea. I mean, our ancestors are today's single cell life forms, and we have a funny way of showing our respect and gratitude...)
Gord McLeod posted 12-04-98 03:01 AM ET
Brother Greg: It was Firaxis who said 2-300 years. I *could* be a little off, but if I am it's not by a lot, maybe 5-600 years, but I remeber it pretty clearly because I was so disgusted by the idea of evolution happening so quickly, even aided by technology. Even 2-3000 years isn't nearly long enough for the types of changes they're proposing.
Arnelos posted 12-04-98 03:26 AM ET
Rang, why do you say the peacekeepers don't have a fighting chance unless diplomatic options are considered.
My expectation is that given the advantages of the peacekeepers we've heard of so far, it will be in the peacekeepers' best interests to remain at peace, where they can maximize their development potential. The peacekeepers have a very high peacetime development potential and their higher maximum population values will all for greater development potential. So all around, if the peacekeepers can avoid having to waste too many resources on lots of wars, they have a significant peacetime edge. Thus if the game remains fairly stable with minimal warfare, the peacekeepers should be ahead as they are best able to maximize their potential in such an environment. Converesely, lots of warfare would severely hurt the peacekeepers it seems because it denies them their greatest strength, their advantage in development potential.
I would think a successful strategy for winning as the peacekeepers would focus on many of the same things (but in vastly different ways and for different specific game mechanics reasons) that you would focus on as a democracy in Civ2. You had to really worry about maintaining peace, because you would almost always get ahead in peacetime. However, your development advantage was ruined and disadvantagous if you had to fight wars all the time. The U.N. was the best things that could ever happen for a democracy in Civ2 because it would make peace much easier. The peacekeepers, even when dealing with human players, will have to concentrate heavily on maintaining peace in order to maximize potential.
Just like every other faction, they have strenghts and they have weaknesses. The good thing for the peacekeepers is that their strengths (high development potential and good diplomacy) complement each other very well. However, their weakness is situations where their diplomacy is ineffective and they can not utilize their development potential.
All of the factions would have weaknesses and strengths like that I would think.
Arnelos
Keeper of Wisdom
Peacekeeper
DCA posted 12-04-98 04:58 AM ET
Greg: Call me cynical, but I'd say it should be pretty easy to invent something smarter than humans..
DCA,
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Roland posted 12-04-98 07:33 AM ET
No, DCA. Artificial intelligence beats real stupidity. Probably in the intelligence slot, more likely in the stupidy slot....
"..to give the PK a fighting chance of winning. It's hard for them to win militarily or scientifically in comparison to the other factions."
In addition to Arnelos' response: All strengths are somewhat entangled, ie dependant on one another. Few poor people won't make big science, even if they are UoP. Few poor people won't make a great army, even if they are spartan. The PKs should have the advantage of a large population and good balance. So the Morgans may be richer per capita, the UoP may make more science per capita, the spartan single soldier may be more powerful, but even and right in a war situation, a chain is just as strong as its weakest ... ehm..link ? (darn language). So if the PKs play their cards well, they should be able to keep up in the factions' military, science and economic potential. Even more so as the diplomatic advantage should make it easier to accomplish for weaknesses through alliances.
Hmmm... if I think about it, the efficiency penalty for the PKs has to be massive to keep the thing balanced...
Roland posted 12-04-98 07:36 AM ET
Greg, what did firaxis say in those ol' days ? Being voted in for planetary governor would give you advantages, but not win the game, right ? Is that still there ? For example, 50%+ = planetary governor, 3/4 = victory ? This is somewhat confusing...
Jimmy posted 12-04-98 11:18 AM ET
I don't know if I like the transcendance thing: it sounds a bit off the wall. But I really like the 3/4th vote option because it allows for a diplomatic way of winning the game which will lighten the military aspect of the game. And you can be sure that this options will not make for a quick game: it is going to be very hard to get 3/4 of 7 factions on your side enough to vote for you with their own ambitions.
The great thing about the three different ways of winning the game is that each person will find one of them to his/her liking.
Rang posted 12-04-98 05:57 PM ET
Arnelos, I don't doubt that teh PK would do well in peacetime. But that doesn't mean that they have a good shot of reaching Trancendence before the University. The diplomatic victory option gives the PK a better chance and emphasizes diplomacy in the game.
SnowFire posted 12-04-98 09:22 PM ET
I think that the Planetary Governor is the one who sets the agenda, much like commitees in Congress. If you oppose an idea you never bring it up to be voted on. Ideas you like (salvaging the Unity fusion core, repealing the UN doctrine against badness) you can hold a vote on in the Planetary Council.
You might want to put the question on the PG in the "Reasonable Questions for Firaxis" thread though.
Brother Greg posted 12-06-98 06:50 PM ET
They never really stated what the Planetary governor would or wouldn't be able to do. That sorta came in after their self-imposed exile.
and it is funny, in the entire time I have spent on the forums, reading every interview and preview that I can, I have never heard mention of how long the game would run in terms of years and the like. Old timers may remember my rant on "Why turns should not be a month".
Brother Greg.
SnowFire posted 12-06-98 06:58 PM ET
Hey, I remember that thread! Mainly because when I was a true newbie I started an extremely similiar thread in Strat&Tac, and you came in and told me where to post my ideas.
AUH20 posted 12-06-98 07:20 PM ET
I think that winning the vote for Planetary Governor isn't a victory condition. Firaxis said the governor could decide when to hold meetings and have veto power. So the governor is just a powerful post to hold.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 12-06-98 09:18 PM ET
The Planetary Governor's faction also gets trade bonus's with all the other faction. Sounds sweet enough to me, but since you all seem to hate the Spartans(& Santiago got kicked out of that planetary council in the pc.ign pic), I'll never be planetary governor
The Ascent to Transcendence should still be there, because when Mike updated the FAQ, he didn't change that part.
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
Rang posted 12-08-98 08:35 PM ET
There is indeed a diplomatic victory option, not the same as becoming Planetary Governor.
According to the Gamespot review (http://www.gamespot.com/features/alphacentauri/page7.html), "You can call for an election for a planetary governor, which benefits the governor elect with increased trade in his empire. You can also hold an election for supreme leader, which requires a three-fourth majority vote. If you get the votes, you win the game."
DAT posted 12-09-98 03:29 PM ET
Regarding "disdain" for winning through election: In MOO2 you could negate the election process (thereby prolonging the gameplay) simply by abstaining. And at least one of the screen shots of the council showed one or more members doing just that.
Also, there is at least one additional way of winning, which is having the most "points" in a time-based game. Although, perhaps that is limited to multiplayer.
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: How many ways to win? 2 or 3?
Rang	posted 12-03-98 06:08 PM ET Initially, we were told that you could win either by conquering the world (military), or achieving the Ascent to Transcendence (science). But recent reviews mentioned that you could win by getting three quarters of the planetary council to vote for submitting to you (diplomacy) or by conquering (military). Also, those reviews don't mention the Ascent to Transcendence. Question: Has the Ascent been replaced by the diplomacy victory option? Or do all three options coexist?
CClark	posted 12-03-98 06:13 PM ET I'm guessing that all three are viable winning conditions. MOO2 had three victory conditions: Vote, Conquer or Defeat Antarans. So it has been done before.
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 06:18 PM ET Hopefully three. The voting in by the Planetary council sounds too much like MOO2 for my liking. The ascent to transcendance was tied around the whole philosophy of the game, in that it was the next step in mankind's evolution. Part one was supposedly covered in CIV and CIV II, basically the change from nomadic tribes to a star-faring race. This next step was the step to the next level of being, a beoing of pure energy. So, unless they decided to change their whole philosophy on the game, I dare to think it is still there, but they have either told reviewers to shut up about it (and forgotten to tell the oldies from the Firaxis.com forums like me ), or maybe it wasn't in the version sent to the reviewers. Still, it is an odd situation, you are right. I for one hope it is still in, as it gives a much more grand ending than just being voted in by a bunch of neurotic Faction leaders. Apart from Lal of course - he stayed sane at least. Brother Greg.
Gord McLeod	posted 12-03-98 06:25 PM ET I'm torn on this issue... on the one hand, I don't much care for the vote option myself. It tends to end the game too fast. But on the other hand I have serious problems with the 'evolving to a new level of humanity' ending as well, for different reasons - firstly, because 2 or 3 hundred years is ludicriously short, and secondly, because it's even more rediculous to imagine that we'll evolve into beings of pure energy. But of the two, I'd prefer the evolving into beings of pure energy in a few centuries to the vote, so if they decided to go with one or the other, I'd hope they kept the transcendance. 3 ways is alright as well, I just hope it's not as easy to have the game end abruptly on you as it was in MOO2...
Rang	posted 12-03-98 06:53 PM ET I really hope they don't discard the Transcendence option. I suspect that the diplomacy victory option was include to give the PK a fighting chance of winning. It's hard for them to win militarily or scientifically in comparison to the other factions.
SnowFire	posted 12-03-98 07:56 PM ET Yeah, but the vote and conquer options are basically the same. It just cuts off the last 1//4 conquering phase, as you can simply hold a planetary meeting once you have 3/4 of the land and declare yourself the winner (which your hated enemies accept for some reason, of course.). I also agree that MOO II was too short- you could beat down the Antarans far before the game was over. In fact, the easiest and highest scoring way to win was not to go on a conquering spree but to defeat Antares. I know after conquering nearly the known galaxy and building a gian fleet, I prepared to face the mighty Antarans... and beat them in two and a half rounds. I could have done that years ago.
Spoe	posted 12-03-98 08:03 PM ET SnowFire: There you're assuming that the vote a faction has is proportional to the resources it controls. What if each faction has an equal number of votes, regardless of their power? Plus, it can be fun, with a proper diplomacy model, to convince others to vote for you without being an overwhelming power.
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 08:27 PM ET Gord, who said anything about 2-300 years? I expect the game to cover 2-3000 years. Brother Greg.
Keith Bennett	posted 12-03-98 10:41 PM ET I assume that toggling the "victory through transcendence only" on will eliminate both the diplomatic option and the military option. I'm also pretty sure transcendence hasn't been fully implemented in the Betas people have tried out, which would explain their lack of presence in recent reviews. Are we sure that transcendence means becoming a Vorlon, rather than something less grand, like achieving "Harmony" (for you Mars trilogy fans) or "Unity" (for those of you who like Julian May) or somesuch?
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 10:50 PM ET Firaxis did state over 6 months ago that it was achieving a state of pure energy, yeah. And I tend to doubt that there'll be a "victory through transcendance" only toggle. Could be wrong though. Must admit that I would like to be able to toggle the planetary council thing off. That wouild be annoying. Brother Greg.
Shining1	posted 12-03-98 10:59 PM ET What the hell is this trancendance thing? I definitely have a problem with it. Firstly, we already are beings of pure energy. Mass is what happens when you get a big bunch of energy that has nothing to do. Anyway, would we be pure kinetic energy or potential energy? Do you get the choice? In short, what the goddamn bloody weird-assed hell? Secondly, the next step of evolution goes straight to machines. Technology is now 'evolving' at a rate millions of times faster than evolution. And I don't want to transcend into a Dalek. (P.S I wonder if Brian's tech tree takes intelligence machines into account. Now that certainly would bring an interesting twist to the game).
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 11:09 PM ET Which raises an interesting question about whether we could invent a machine that was more intelligent than we were. One day, maybe, but even then I doubt it... Anyway, it is just the author's (Brian's) bent on what our next step in the evolutionary cycle is. We would "meld with the universe" or something. Brother Greg.
Shining1	posted 12-03-98 11:24 PM ET Ahh-haah-hah-haahhh-hahh-haallh-riighh-teeee-theeeeennn. I'm not saying that a genius level A.I is right around the corner. But you just need to look at the current trends. Unless religion, politics, or disease destroys us, it's gonna happen. (Not that I'm comfortable with the idea. I mean, our ancestors are today's single cell life forms, and we have a funny way of showing our respect and gratitude...)
Gord McLeod	posted 12-04-98 03:01 AM ET Brother Greg: It was Firaxis who said 2-300 years. I could be a little off, but if I am it's not by a lot, maybe 5-600 years, but I remeber it pretty clearly because I was so disgusted by the idea of evolution happening so quickly, even aided by technology. Even 2-3000 years isn't nearly long enough for the types of changes they're proposing.
Arnelos	posted 12-04-98 03:26 AM ET Rang, why do you say the peacekeepers don't have a fighting chance unless diplomatic options are considered. My expectation is that given the advantages of the peacekeepers we've heard of so far, it will be in the peacekeepers' best interests to remain at peace, where they can maximize their development potential. The peacekeepers have a very high peacetime development potential and their higher maximum population values will all for greater development potential. So all around, if the peacekeepers can avoid having to waste too many resources on lots of wars, they have a significant peacetime edge. Thus if the game remains fairly stable with minimal warfare, the peacekeepers should be ahead as they are best able to maximize their potential in such an environment. Converesely, lots of warfare would severely hurt the peacekeepers it seems because it denies them their greatest strength, their advantage in development potential. I would think a successful strategy for winning as the peacekeepers would focus on many of the same things (but in vastly different ways and for different specific game mechanics reasons) that you would focus on as a democracy in Civ2. You had to really worry about maintaining peace, because you would almost always get ahead in peacetime. However, your development advantage was ruined and disadvantagous if you had to fight wars all the time. The U.N. was the best things that could ever happen for a democracy in Civ2 because it would make peace much easier. The peacekeepers, even when dealing with human players, will have to concentrate heavily on maintaining peace in order to maximize potential. Just like every other faction, they have strenghts and they have weaknesses. The good thing for the peacekeepers is that their strengths (high development potential and good diplomacy) complement each other very well. However, their weakness is situations where their diplomacy is ineffective and they can not utilize their development potential. All of the factions would have weaknesses and strengths like that I would think. Arnelos Keeper of Wisdom Peacekeeper
DCA	posted 12-04-98 04:58 AM ET Greg: Call me cynical, but I'd say it should be pretty easy to invent something smarter than humans.. DCA, Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Roland	posted 12-04-98 07:33 AM ET No, DCA. Artificial intelligence beats real stupidity. Probably in the intelligence slot, more likely in the stupidy slot.... "..to give the PK a fighting chance of winning. It's hard for them to win militarily or scientifically in comparison to the other factions." In addition to Arnelos' response: All strengths are somewhat entangled, ie dependant on one another. Few poor people won't make big science, even if they are UoP. Few poor people won't make a great army, even if they are spartan. The PKs should have the advantage of a large population and good balance. So the Morgans may be richer per capita, the UoP may make more science per capita, the spartan single soldier may be more powerful, but even and right in a war situation, a chain is just as strong as its weakest ... ehm..link ? (darn language). So if the PKs play their cards well, they should be able to keep up in the factions' military, science and economic potential. Even more so as the diplomatic advantage should make it easier to accomplish for weaknesses through alliances. Hmmm... if I think about it, the efficiency penalty for the PKs has to be massive to keep the thing balanced...
Roland	posted 12-04-98 07:36 AM ET Greg, what did firaxis say in those ol' days ? Being voted in for planetary governor would give you advantages, but not win the game, right ? Is that still there ? For example, 50%+ = planetary governor, 3/4 = victory ? This is somewhat confusing...
Jimmy	posted 12-04-98 11:18 AM ET I don't know if I like the transcendance thing: it sounds a bit off the wall. But I really like the 3/4th vote option because it allows for a diplomatic way of winning the game which will lighten the military aspect of the game. And you can be sure that this options will not make for a quick game: it is going to be very hard to get 3/4 of 7 factions on your side enough to vote for you with their own ambitions. The great thing about the three different ways of winning the game is that each person will find one of them to his/her liking.
Rang	posted 12-04-98 05:57 PM ET Arnelos, I don't doubt that teh PK would do well in peacetime. But that doesn't mean that they have a good shot of reaching Trancendence before the University. The diplomatic victory option gives the PK a better chance and emphasizes diplomacy in the game.
SnowFire	posted 12-04-98 09:22 PM ET I think that the Planetary Governor is the one who sets the agenda, much like commitees in Congress. If you oppose an idea you never bring it up to be voted on. Ideas you like (salvaging the Unity fusion core, repealing the UN doctrine against badness) you can hold a vote on in the Planetary Council. You might want to put the question on the PG in the "Reasonable Questions for Firaxis" thread though.
Brother Greg	posted 12-06-98 06:50 PM ET They never really stated what the Planetary governor would or wouldn't be able to do. That sorta came in after their self-imposed exile. and it is funny, in the entire time I have spent on the forums, reading every interview and preview that I can, I have never heard mention of how long the game would run in terms of years and the like. Old timers may remember my rant on "Why turns should not be a month". Brother Greg.
SnowFire	posted 12-06-98 06:58 PM ET Hey, I remember that thread! Mainly because when I was a true newbie I started an extremely similiar thread in Strat&Tac, and you came in and told me where to post my ideas.
AUH20	posted 12-06-98 07:20 PM ET I think that winning the vote for Planetary Governor isn't a victory condition. Firaxis said the governor could decide when to hold meetings and have veto power. So the governor is just a powerful post to hold.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 12-06-98 09:18 PM ET The Planetary Governor's faction also gets trade bonus's with all the other faction. Sounds sweet enough to me, but since you all seem to hate the Spartans(& Santiago got kicked out of that planetary council in the pc.ign pic), I'll never be planetary governor The Ascent to Transcendence should still be there, because when Mike updated the FAQ, he didn't change that part. Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
Rang	posted 12-08-98 08:35 PM ET There is indeed a diplomatic victory option, not the same as becoming Planetary Governor. According to the Gamespot review (http://www.gamespot.com/features/alphacentauri/page7.html), "You can call for an election for a planetary governor, which benefits the governor elect with increased trade in his empire. You can also hold an election for supreme leader, which requires a three-fourth majority vote. If you get the votes, you win the game."
DAT	posted 12-09-98 03:29 PM ET Regarding "disdain" for winning through election: In MOO2 you could negate the election process (thereby prolonging the gameplay) simply by abstaining. And at least one of the screen shots of the council showed one or more members doing just that. Also, there is at least one additional way of winning, which is having the most "points" in a time-based game. Although, perhaps that is limited to multiplayer.