Builder vs. Conquerer && Progressive vs. Conservative

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Strategies and Tactics
  Builder vs. Conquerer && Progressive vs. Conservative

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Builder vs. Conquerer && Progressive vs. Conservative

Veracitas posted 06-29-99 01:35 PM ET
In Civilisation, it seemed apparent that the deciding factor between a builder and a conqueror was base infrastructure and population. In SMAC, this seemed to be the case, on the surface at least. However, taking a closer look at two of the best conquering factions--the Hive and Believers--it may be noticed that both are very good builders and have large base infrastructures. So what is the real dividing line between a conquerer and a builder? I would say that it is energy--in all forms, for psych, labs, and money. Though a Hive player might a have huge bases and lots of facilities, his tech could still be overmatched by a smaller, less built University. All of the conquering social choices--such as Police State and Fundamentalism--leave a faction energy-poor, no matter how large they are (size becomes a moot point as efficiency drops). Thus, I think that the dividing line between factions should not be Builder and Conquerer, but Energy-rich and Energy-poor. Perhaps a better label would be progressive states vs. conservative states.
So, I would divide the factions into:
Progressive:
University of Planet
Peacekeeping Forces
Gaia's Stepdaughters
Morgan Industries
Conservative:
Hive (though espousing socialist--considered liberal--ideas, still hanging onto old authoritarianism)
Lord's Believers
Spartans

The Spartans are a special case. I would put them more on border-line, even though they are described--idealistically--as extreme right wing. Their objectives are discover/conquer. They are, actually, the most versatile faction. They could swing either way, depending on who controlled them.
Well, that's my case. Perhaps I used certain terms too liberally, but, oh well. Anyone have any better ideas?
--Veracitas
Zoetrope posted 06-30-99 06:42 AM ET
I find the Spartans to be extremely energy-poor.
Whereas when I played the Believers (first Believer game, at Thinker level), they were the richest faction in the game.
An advantage of being the Believers, is that they are naturally so formidable, that they can easily conquer and intimidate with almost any social choice, so they can opt for the high-energy road. After all, who's going to attack their terrain enhancements and live to tell the tale?
Using Democratic/Green/Wealth, they can have very good energy and, thus, research - if and when that's what you want - especially as, in huamn hands, they can expand so fast.
It was too easy to be number one in _everything_ as Miriam. Everyone's afraid of you and promptly give in to your demands for money, tech. You name it, they'll cave in.
On a Huge map by MY 2200 the game was well and truly over bar the mopping up. (The mind boggles at how quick the win would be on a smaller map.)
Believer probe teams have a consistently very high rate (>80%) of dismantling perimeter defences and provoking drone riots, so you can easily conquer, or even buy, any base you want.
It's easy to get research and energy-rich factions as submissive pact partners, BUT I found that I could expand and conquer relentlessly _while_ being an effective builder.
After all, I had more energy generated per turn than anyone else long before I had contact with most factions, which is supposed to be when the Believers are weakest.
I've been hesitant to try Transcend (in Civ2 I could win Emperor consistently, but never won Deity - maybe because I never used Golden Ages?), but I'd try it with the Believers.
Other factions I think might do well at Transcend are the Peacekeepers, and the Hive. At Thinker, I've found those easy to win with: they're so easy to grow.
To return to the point at hand: The Hive's poor economy, and the Spartans lack of Wealth, hurt their energy ratings.
However, the Believers have no energy deficiency, no negative efficiency, good support, great probes, excellent attack.
That means they can expand with confidence, build a ton of units, kill lots of mindworms ("money, money, money"), pop unity pods galore with little to fear - just keep many units close by ("hunt in packs") to kill the worms that often appear.
Miriam may not be Morgan but she has normal hab limits; she's not constantly worried by drones as the University is, so she can concentrate more easily on growth; her negative planet rating is just an opportunity to make more energy so she's not afraid of anything, whereas the Gaians' are vulnerable to early attacks by conventional units; and her normal efficiency rating means she can expand better than the PKs: and you know that more territory means more energy resources.
Dowdc posted 07-01-99 01:59 AM ET
Not that this is a Believer thread, but...
Everything you just said is true! The Believers are just about the best faction (contrary to popular opinion), and certainly my favorite. They have a lot of energy compared to most factions (esp. if you can get the Planetary Datalinks and go 100% economy) and the most viscious probe teams on planet. Anything that the Believer military can't destroy can be bought.
The Believers RULE!!!!
MichaeltheGreat posted 07-01-99 03:01 AM ET
I'm CMN and player in two seven player PBEM seven game sets going in opposite directions, where every player rotates and plays a different faction in each game of the set. I consistently conquer with the Gaians, PK and UoP, and I can transcend with any faction at TI.
None of the factions are so radically different that they can't be adapted to any kind of game - it's just a matter of play style. The Spartans have a little energy penalty since they can't use the Wealth SE choice, but they can still build strong societies with enough top of the line weapons (due to tech/economy) to dominate anyone.
It's really more a question of play strength and consistent, efficient strategy and ability to match your style to the strengths and weaknesses of your faction.
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. Conquerer && Progressive vs. Conservative
Veracitas	posted 06-29-99 01:35 PM ET In Civilisation, it seemed apparent that the deciding factor between a builder and a conqueror was base infrastructure and population. In SMAC, this seemed to be the case, on the surface at least. However, taking a closer look at two of the best conquering factions--the Hive and Believers--it may be noticed that both are very good builders and have large base infrastructures. So what is the real dividing line between a conquerer and a builder? I would say that it is energy--in all forms, for psych, labs, and money. Though a Hive player might a have huge bases and lots of facilities, his tech could still be overmatched by a smaller, less built University. All of the conquering social choices--such as Police State and Fundamentalism--leave a faction energy-poor, no matter how large they are (size becomes a moot point as efficiency drops). Thus, I think that the dividing line between factions should not be Builder and Conquerer, but Energy-rich and Energy-poor. Perhaps a better label would be progressive states vs. conservative states. So, I would divide the factions into: Progressive: University of Planet Peacekeeping Forces Gaia's Stepdaughters Morgan Industries Conservative: Hive (though espousing socialist--considered liberal--ideas, still hanging onto old authoritarianism) Lord's Believers Spartans The Spartans are a special case. I would put them more on border-line, even though they are described--idealistically--as extreme right wing. Their objectives are discover/conquer. They are, actually, the most versatile faction. They could swing either way, depending on who controlled them. Well, that's my case. Perhaps I used certain terms too liberally, but, oh well. Anyone have any better ideas? --Veracitas
Zoetrope	posted 06-30-99 06:42 AM ET I find the Spartans to be extremely energy-poor. Whereas when I played the Believers (first Believer game, at Thinker level), they were the richest faction in the game. An advantage of being the Believers, is that they are naturally so formidable, that they can easily conquer and intimidate with almost any social choice, so they can opt for the high-energy road. After all, who's going to attack their terrain enhancements and live to tell the tale? Using Democratic/Green/Wealth, they can have very good energy and, thus, research - if and when that's what you want - especially as, in huamn hands, they can expand so fast. It was too easy to be number one in _everything_ as Miriam. Everyone's afraid of you and promptly give in to your demands for money, tech. You name it, they'll cave in. On a Huge map by MY 2200 the game was well and truly over bar the mopping up. (The mind boggles at how quick the win would be on a smaller map.) Believer probe teams have a consistently very high rate (>80%) of dismantling perimeter defences and provoking drone riots, so you can easily conquer, or even buy, any base you want. It's easy to get research and energy-rich factions as submissive pact partners, BUT I found that I could expand and conquer relentlessly _while_ being an effective builder. After all, I had more energy generated per turn than anyone else long before I had contact with most factions, which is supposed to be when the Believers are weakest. I've been hesitant to try Transcend (in Civ2 I could win Emperor consistently, but never won Deity - maybe because I never used Golden Ages?), but I'd try it with the Believers. Other factions I think might do well at Transcend are the Peacekeepers, and the Hive. At Thinker, I've found those easy to win with: they're so easy to grow. To return to the point at hand: The Hive's poor economy, and the Spartans lack of Wealth, hurt their energy ratings. However, the Believers have no energy deficiency, no negative efficiency, good support, great probes, excellent attack. That means they can expand with confidence, build a ton of units, kill lots of mindworms ("money, money, money"), pop unity pods galore with little to fear - just keep many units close by ("hunt in packs") to kill the worms that often appear. Miriam may not be Morgan but she has normal hab limits; she's not constantly worried by drones as the University is, so she can concentrate more easily on growth; her negative planet rating is just an opportunity to make more energy so she's not afraid of anything, whereas the Gaians' are vulnerable to early attacks by conventional units; and her normal efficiency rating means she can expand better than the PKs: and you know that more territory means more energy resources.
Dowdc	posted 07-01-99 01:59 AM ET Not that this is a Believer thread, but... Everything you just said is true! The Believers are just about the best faction (contrary to popular opinion), and certainly my favorite. They have a lot of energy compared to most factions (esp. if you can get the Planetary Datalinks and go 100% economy) and the most viscious probe teams on planet. Anything that the Believer military can't destroy can be bought. The Believers RULE!!!!
MichaeltheGreat	posted 07-01-99 03:01 AM ET I'm CMN and player in two seven player PBEM seven game sets going in opposite directions, where every player rotates and plays a different faction in each game of the set. I consistently conquer with the Gaians, PK and UoP, and I can transcend with any faction at TI. None of the factions are so radically different that they can't be adapted to any kind of game - it's just a matter of play style. The Spartans have a little energy penalty since they can't use the Wealth SE choice, but they can still build strong societies with enough top of the line weapons (due to tech/economy) to dominate anyone. It's really more a question of play strength and consistent, efficient strategy and ability to match your style to the strengths and weaknesses of your faction.