|
|
Post by khamya9 on Jan 26, 2015 12:21:47 GMT -5
fallen - making a "how to" guide for winning on impossible is going to be much harder than I thought. Unlike in STRPG which has a predictable climate, the strategy that needs to be taken in 4X can change drastically depending on certain variables. For example, when negative politics occur and to what extent changes what decisions should be made. How quickly the xenos are spreading, proximity to your colonies and specific AI also changes things and requires different strategies. To say how to win is to include what to do during every single scenario, which will take an incredibly long time. If anyone has trouble with a specific scenario or a common reoccurence I can help, but in terms of surviving in general, my recommendation is to keep playing, try new strategies and get better. Gaining skill and experience is the only way to deal with a changing political climate. There is no "how to" guide that is advanced enough to cover every political scenario. I may be able to make an imperfect guide in the future, but it won't be flawless like the STRPG guide and it is going to take some time. In the meanwhile, if anyone has any questions about what to do in a specific political scenario, I'm happy to try to help. I can also start a "negative politics" thread where players share what strategies they utilized during political stress, and that might help new players in the future. Start small then. "Guide to a strong opening on impossible". Followed by " guide to managing your multi-fon war on impossible" or "preventing the political death spiral on impossible". To bring in my earlier point. Be as specific as possible. I have tried, as near as I can tell every combination of early game actions. I racked up more than 50 losses without ever fighting the ai before giving up and sticking to hard. So saying " try a different strategy" doesn't help. List improvement build orders. Say things like "eve if this happens, don't react until that other thing is complete." Be very, very specific. Even saying "build mines" isn't specific enough. How many? Suck up a few rounds of morale penalty to complete one more before building a hab? Subsidize one or build two? Dont build the second hab until you have three mines? Very specific. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 21:29:01 GMT -5
Okay, so from what I've gathered, it seems that there are A LOT that can influence politics, which may or may not include any of the following: - mines, factories, EP, colonies, ships and other statistics of power/progress equal for every faction- factories, mines, exchanges etc somewhat equally distributed not only throughout every faction, but throughout every planet- faction proximity to one another (thanks khamya9) - total TP- TP distribution - treaties in progress - current conflicts and alliances in place - conflicts with the xeno - number of colonies the player owns overall - total EP? - game time/turns played - morale I don't know how many of these factors have to do with political outcomes, but my guess is that plenty of them do and that there are other factors not mentioned that also play a role. We won't know for sure all the factors until Cory Trese adds them to the help. With so many factors influencing political outcomes, you really have to be very careful that everything is perfect (morale, equality between factions, equality between colonies, right credit distribution towards upgrades, sufficient wealth before expanding, investment to exchanges and palaces, sufficient treasury to subsidize and immediately end incoming conflicts). It also would make sense why it would seem to some that its all RNG, when its really a number of other stuff that they haven't even considered! |
|
|
|
Post by thehowler on Jan 27, 2015 0:49:16 GMT -5
Okay, so from what I've gathered, it seems that there are A LOT that can influence politics, which may or may not include any of the following: - mines, factories, EP and other statistics of power/progress equal for every faction - factories, mines, exchanges etc somewhat equally distributed not only throughout every faction, but throughout every planet- total TP - TP distribution - treaties in progress - current conflicts and alliances in place - conflicts with the xeno - equal number of colonies and ships for every faction - number of colonies the player owns overall - total EP? - game time/turns played - morale I don't know how many of these factors have to do with political outcomes, but my guess is that plenty of them do and that there are other factors not mentioned that also play a role. We won't know for sure all the factors until Cory Trese adds them to the help. With so many factors influencing political outcomes, you really have to be very careful that everything is perfect (morale, equality between factions, equality between colonies, right credit distribution towards upgrades, sufficient wealth before expanding, investment to exchanges and palaces, sufficient treasury to subsidize and immediately end incoming conflicts). It also would make sense why it would seem to some that its all RNG, when its really a number of other stuff that they haven't even considered! I have found through extensive playthrough on crazy and impossible that keeping only 3 planets for the first 100-150 turns keeps the negative politics to the bare minimum. Granted you risk getting overrun, but early on building a few fighters you can survive. |
|
|
|
Post by roman566 on Jan 27, 2015 5:03:46 GMT -5
Population growth is random, so factories contributing to the political climate increases the randomness of the system.
Distributing upgrades across the planets is also based on random factors. How do you make Quality 5 and Quality 20 planets equal? You don't, that's how. There is no way to dump a colony to independent status (I have gave up after about 200 turns at 1 morale) so planetary upgrades not being equal is another random factor affecting the political climate.
Mines are self explanatory, a planet with 2 minerals in one faction vs planet with 20 minerals in another. There is no way to NOT play favorites.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehowler on Jan 27, 2015 10:32:06 GMT -5
Population growth is random, so factories contributing to the political climate increases the randomness of the system. Distributing upgrades across the planets is also based on random factors. How do you make Quality 5 and Quality 20 planets equal? You don't, that's how. There is no way to dump a colony to independent status (I have gave up after about 200 turns at 1 morale) so planetary upgrades not being equal is another random factor affecting the political climate. Mines are self explanatory, a planet with 2 minerals in one faction vs planet with 20 minerals in another. There is no way to NOT play favorites. Who said anything about factories or quality affecting politics? Did I miss something! |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Genious on Jan 27, 2015 11:25:01 GMT -5
@starfixer did.
I'm pushing my way into Hard and I want to try Brutal. I would love o hear what kinds of strategies you guys do. Currently I have Houses as my preferred side, and while Thulun and Steel Song handle all the fighting, Javat does almost all the mining, and each gets a fair distribution of systems (at least, by number).
|
|
|
|
Post by space evader on Jan 27, 2015 16:54:33 GMT -5
That's not an option in the first year, and that's usually when I get hit with the leading edge of doom. Either political or population. It takes a while to really get ful blown game over, but its so early I truly can't see how to prevent it. Edit 1: Just checked, colony 2 is another 400 rp past hab 2. Given I usually get crippled faster than I can research hab 2, this is definitely not an option. Edit 2: steelsong are another possibility as they begin all colonies with a hab 1 in the form of their fort. But I find them so dreadfully underpowered that using them I end up doing worse the more worlds I give them. Again, I've beaten 3 different levels on impossible. Prehaps you'd be better off staying with hard or crazy. Different difficulties work for different people. Impossible isn't literally impossible, but it can be a challenge early on if you aren't experienced and don't use the right strategies. |
|
|
|
Post by khamya9 on Jan 27, 2015 16:55:26 GMT -5
Okay, so from what I've gathered, it seems that there are A LOT that can influence politics, which may or may not include any of the following: - mines, factories, EP and other statistics of power/progress equal for every faction - factories, mines, exchanges etc somewhat equally distributed not only throughout every faction, but throughout every planet- total TP - TP distribution - treaties in progress - current conflicts and alliances in place - conflicts with the xeno - equal number of colonies and ships for every faction - number of colonies the player owns overall - total EP? - game time/turns played - morale I don't know how many of these factors have to do with political outcomes, but my guess is that plenty of them do and that there are other factors not mentioned that also play a role. We won't know for sure all the factors until Cory Trese adds them to the help. With so many factors influencing political outcomes, you really have to be very careful that everything is perfect (morale, equality between factions, equality between colonies, right credit distribution towards upgrades, sufficient wealth before expanding, investment to exchanges and palaces, sufficient treasury to subsidize and immediately end incoming conflicts). It also would make sense why it would seem to some that its all RNG, when its really a number of other stuff that they haven't even considered! Per Cory, number of worlds, number of ships and keeping worlds of each faction clumped not mixed together all matter. He has also said you need trade points in treaties to build positivity between the factions. |
|
|
|
Post by space evader on Jan 27, 2015 17:00:46 GMT -5
I beat the garden on impossible stardate 15:22 rather anticlimatic not even an achievement award
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 17:45:40 GMT -5
Population growth is random, so factories contributing to the political climate increases the randomness of the system. Distributing upgrades across the planets is also based on random factors. How do you make Quality 5 and Quality 20 planets equal? You don't, that's how. There is no way to dump a colony to independent status (I have gave up after about 200 turns at 1 morale) so planetary upgrades not being equal is another random factor affecting the political climate. Politics is not random. And I didn't mean perfectly equal, I meant that you aren't investing all of your credits into the primes and not into the newer planets. You just want to make sure that there's wealth going around every planet, even if there's more wealth (income) going around one planet than another. Making sure stats of factions are about equal, such as about equal mines and factories (not one faction having 8 more mines and 5 more factories than another), is also not random and totally in your control. Increasing TP via exchanges is also completely in your control. Population growth is beyond your control, but fortunately population differences is not the only thing that determines faction hostility toward one another. Yes there is. You intentionally restrain from investing more in mines on a colony who's faction already has a lot more mines than the other factions. Politics is advanced on impossible. That's why impossible is a difficulty only for the most experienced players. It requires players to be aware of so much more, like faction power equality and faction proximity with one another via colony locations. Have you tried playing hard on the garden? It's pretty much equivalent in difficulty to tutorial on impossible, but politics aren't that complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by roman566 on Jan 28, 2015 5:47:14 GMT -5
You CAN'T invest much in a quality 5 planet. If you are unlucky enough to get two or three planets like that for a single faction then you have a problem. If there was a way to dump a world to independents then ok, you just scrap those planets and colonize more, but there isn't. In my last game one faction had two planets with 10 quality, not enough to build many mines in the early game, the other faction had planets with 15+ quality. It was obvious I will build my mines there. There is no way to make that equal as quality and minerals are random. If I wanted to make it 'equal' I would have to NOT build any mines. Period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Jan 28, 2015 9:12:36 GMT -5
You CAN'T invest much in a quality 5 planet. If you are unlucky enough to get two or three planets like that for a single faction then you have a problem. If there was a way to dump a world to independents then ok, you just scrap those planets and colonize more, but there isn't. In my last game one faction had two planets with 10 quality, not enough to build many mines in the early game, the other faction had planets with 15+ quality. It was obvious I will build my mines there. There is no way to make that equal as quality and minerals are random. If I wanted to make it 'equal' I would have to NOT build any mines. Period Use Orbitals and Terraforming to build up those worlds. I find that they make good mining bases or military outposts or even trade worlds. |
|
|
|
Post by roman566 on Jan 28, 2015 9:36:24 GMT -5
Yeah... if I am developed enough to get terraformers and waste them on quality 5 planet I am developed enough to not care much about politics. The problem is GETTING to that technology level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 11:50:47 GMT -5
You CAN'T invest much in a quality 5 planet. If you are unlucky enough to get two or three planets like that for a single faction then you have a problem. If there was a way to dump a world to independents then ok, you just scrap those planets and colonize more, but there isn't. In my last game one faction had two planets with 10 quality, not enough to build many mines in the early game, the other faction had planets with 15+ quality. It was obvious I will build my mines there. There is no way to make that equal as quality and minerals are random. If I wanted to make it 'equal' I would have to NOT build any mines. Period. You can't assure total quality is perfectly even between factions, but you can partially prevent one faction from having much higher quality than other factions by making sure you don't colonize planets with low rolls with one faction and planets with high rolls with another. Such an inequality where one faction has all 5 quality planets is very unlikely, unless you're colonizing all low-roll planets with one faction. As to the scenario with one faction having more 10 quality planets and another having more 15 quality planets, it's still possible to invest plenty of mines in the 10 quality planets. You just might have to hold off on building mines on the faction with 15 quality planets for a while, and use the next colony ship from the low quality faction to colonize one with high rolls (increasing the chance that quality will be more than 10). Also, mines, factories etc don't have to be perfectly even, just about even. A difference of 4 mines and 3 factories, for example, won't cause too much hostility. There are some things that cannot be controlled. However, the majority of factors influencing politics can be tweaked. Your argument that politics is all random and RNG is not valid. It's simply not the case. |
|
|
|
Post by roman566 on Jan 28, 2015 13:27:43 GMT -5
Due to how population growth is organized building mines on quality 10 and less planets is only possible in mid and late game. As I said, at that point I can simply not care. Enough EP, mines, planets and cash to simply shrug off poor policies.
Rolls are RANDOM. I rolled 12 on 11-25 planet and 19 on a 2-20 one. You CAN'T predict what planet you will get. AND there is a limited amount of planets available, you can't just say 'oh well, just colonize high rolls next' when there are NO high roll planets around because you have already colonized them.
The point is that the mayor factors on which political decision are based, is based on the RNG, namely - the planet rolls. So even if the final calculation is deterministic rather than random, they way you get there is random making the entire system random. Being able to decrease the effects of random rolls does not make the political system into a non-random one.
|
|
