Efficiency and Waste - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Efficiency and Waste

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Efficiency and Waste

presence posted 04-26-99 10:40 PM ET
In my games, I typically have social engineering choices that net me a +5 to +7 on the efficiency scale... but I still have inefficiency and waste at nearly all of my bases! Is this not the case at lower difficulty levels? It's very annoying and confusing.
Just in case people start pointing to too large a number of bases, I usually only have 10-15 bases when this starts to become a problem.
R A Spottiswood posted 04-26-99 11:04 PM ET
You will ALWAYS have inefficiency to some degree. It is impossible to eliminate. If it is any compensation, if you had lower efficiency you would be getting far more waste. Of course, if you are deadset on having no inefficiency, you could always play Yang with V2.0 or higher. He gets immunity to inefficiency.
RAS
Plato90s posted 04-26-99 11:10 PM ET
Yang is NOT immune to inefficiency.
The Hive is immune to having NEGATIVE efficiency. To rephrase that, the Hive can't have efficiency below zero even counting in negative effects from social engineering choices.
However, at higher difficulty levels, even zero efficiency is not enough. You need efficiency levels of at least 5 to run a large empire effectively.
pentalarc posted 04-27-99 04:32 AM ET
I think that Yang's immunity to negative effeciency is a bit unbalancing. The Hive was one of hte strongest factions anyway, primarily due to the fact they start with perimeter defense.
Darkstar posted 04-27-99 04:34 PM ET
The Hive only has Immunity to Efficency due to SE. Distance from HQ still affects them. As the Hive is at a loss on Economy, they have a lousy late game potiental compared to all other factions except the Believers.
The Hive is a great early to mid game faction though and when exercised correctly, you won't ever have to worry about becoming a Faction left behind as you have conquered the rest of the world.
I do think that when you have +7 Efficency that it should have a greater effect than what I have seen in the game, but perhaps I am missing a subtler effect that is not easily observed, but like gravity, is inescapable and environmental.
Note: You can play a Faction in any matter, but some play styles (Aggressive Militants, Diplomatic Builders, Passive-Vengeful Builders, etc) work better than others due to a Faction's baseline special abilities, bonuses and penalties.
-Darkstar
Plato90s posted 04-27-99 04:38 PM ET
Well, I also tend to think that if you have +7 efficiency, you should ahve no loss to inefficiency. After all, when you have +6 growth, population goes into boom. When you have +4 probe, your bases/units become invulnerable. But when you have maximum efficiency, you are still subject to the penalties.
David Johnson posted 05-02-99 03:20 AM ET
If you have a very large [global spanning, 100+ cities] empire you might consider eliminating your HQ entirely. This makes for a better average than a small number of good cities and a large number of utterly awful cities. Shoot the bureaucrats!
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: Efficiency and Waste
presence	posted 04-26-99 10:40 PM ET In my games, I typically have social engineering choices that net me a +5 to +7 on the efficiency scale... but I still have inefficiency and waste at nearly all of my bases! Is this not the case at lower difficulty levels? It's very annoying and confusing. Just in case people start pointing to too large a number of bases, I usually only have 10-15 bases when this starts to become a problem.
R A Spottiswood	posted 04-26-99 11:04 PM ET You will ALWAYS have inefficiency to some degree. It is impossible to eliminate. If it is any compensation, if you had lower efficiency you would be getting far more waste. Of course, if you are deadset on having no inefficiency, you could always play Yang with V2.0 or higher. He gets immunity to inefficiency. RAS
Plato90s	posted 04-26-99 11:10 PM ET Yang is NOT immune to inefficiency. The Hive is immune to having NEGATIVE efficiency. To rephrase that, the Hive can't have efficiency below zero even counting in negative effects from social engineering choices. However, at higher difficulty levels, even zero efficiency is not enough. You need efficiency levels of at least 5 to run a large empire effectively.
pentalarc	posted 04-27-99 04:32 AM ET I think that Yang's immunity to negative effeciency is a bit unbalancing. The Hive was one of hte strongest factions anyway, primarily due to the fact they start with perimeter defense.
Darkstar	posted 04-27-99 04:34 PM ET The Hive only has Immunity to Efficency due to SE. Distance from HQ still affects them. As the Hive is at a loss on Economy, they have a lousy late game potiental compared to all other factions except the Believers. The Hive is a great early to mid game faction though and when exercised correctly, you won't ever have to worry about becoming a Faction left behind as you have conquered the rest of the world. I do think that when you have +7 Efficency that it should have a greater effect than what I have seen in the game, but perhaps I am missing a subtler effect that is not easily observed, but like gravity, is inescapable and environmental. Note: You can play a Faction in any matter, but some play styles (Aggressive Militants, Diplomatic Builders, Passive-Vengeful Builders, etc) work better than others due to a Faction's baseline special abilities, bonuses and penalties. -Darkstar
Plato90s	posted 04-27-99 04:38 PM ET Well, I also tend to think that if you have +7 efficiency, you should ahve no loss to inefficiency. After all, when you have +6 growth, population goes into boom. When you have +4 probe, your bases/units become invulnerable. But when you have maximum efficiency, you are still subject to the penalties.
David Johnson	posted 05-02-99 03:20 AM ET If you have a very large [global spanning, 100+ cities] empire you might consider eliminating your HQ entirely. This makes for a better average than a small number of good cities and a large number of utterly awful cities. Shoot the bureaucrats!