you also said several times that you didn't build morale buildings. if you did then you could have raised your tax rate and had less money problems. and you are also wrong about SO, it is a weaksauce super ability - even you didn't get it to work.

iztok -

I'm not a n00b!!!!! just because I don't play on suicidal doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. if he is such a master, why are his scores so low compared to the top players?

If you had read more AARs you would know what I'm talking about. no one else plays like this. he did only win because he got lucky, if there had been more planets the other empires would have out colonized him and crushed him. thats what happened to me.

I play almost exclusively med iums, for lack of time and patience. I've always been a bit suspicious about some of the advice from people who play gigantic, huge, or even large. My settings are always random, so I do end up with quite a few games with just a couple or a few worlds for much of the game. I've found a balanced development approach to work quite well. However, your AAR really makes me think that an extreme strategy such as all tech or all manu could actually work with only a few worlds.

I'm a bit frightened to give it a try on my usual settings, though. Perhaps I'll force all abundant for my first such attempt.

Thanks for the great write-up, and I look forward to reading more if you happen to have to time to do another. Oh, and you need not worry about the faux-narrative aspect, as that was, to me at least, the least interesting part (through no fault of yours, but rather that I'm most interested in your strategies and couldn't care less what Xenarchia of Western Wisp was doing last Tuesday ).

His scores are quite impressive when you consider the smaller maps he plays. And besides, since when is not 12th out of thousands not good? Jealous?

Anyway, what in hell gives you the right to question him? Where are your scores? What score could you get given the same settings in the Metaverse?

Low tax rate = higher approval = higher score.

It seems to me you are plain jealous, put up or shut up. In the same time frame as Wyndstar, you post some Metaverse games with higher scores, if you can, i'll eat my words.

If you can't, SHUT THE HELL UP!!!!!



What! Your intention here is to purely flame. All those same players, and more, are better than you. This is a ironic argument for you, since your score is essentially 0. I was just thinking that you are a immature brat with no idea.

Thanks for making my point for me!

Dammit, where is Evil & Wheel, this is one for them!

Exactly my point. he doesn't have the balls for a larger map. if he tried, he would fail.



oh, I don't get the same scores as him. but I don't go around saying that I'm sharing my "super duper best empire strategy". "for free"! ass. he is the cocky one.

and my point still holds. the players who score better than him don't say to use these strategies. they may not work for novices, but they dont work on large maps and they dont work for the best. they are at best middle range.

its a free country.

pwned.

Thanks Wyndstar, I thoroughly enjoyed the read, and find your strategies very helpful. I think it is great that you are exploring different strategies to win the game, that is what makes the game fun. Thanks for taking the time to do this, you are a great asset to this community. I look forward to more!

Kharzul, please stop attacking Wyndstar! He has been nothing but helpful, and quite tolerant of your flaming. From what I have seen so far you have no basis for your arguments, so give it a rest.

Everyone - thanks for the feedback and support. Sounds like there is interest in me doing another one, so maybe I'll do that next week.

Kharzul - Man, did I kill your pet kitten accidentally? I don't know what got under your skin but this is the second thread you have tried to steal and turn into a flame war. I'm not going to get dragged into name calling if that is what you want. The players you listed are all very good, feel free to follow the advice they post. As for the size maps I play, I've explained my reasons before - so there is no point in providing my "excuses" again. Thanks for explaining the increased costs associated with lease buying. I was already aware of the tradeoff. I didn't mean to seem like I was "complaining" about money... but I did write what was on my mind at the time as part of my journal, and because it makes up part of my game analysis.

I'm sorry when you tried to use my strategy it didn't work for you. I have to adjust based on the conditions I find myself in. You will have to as well. I warned that it was an advanced strategy, and even gave advice on how to better practice and learn how to use it. At least, in my opinion it is advanced, feel free to disagree.

I am always open to dissenting opinions, a new perspective can often teach me something new. However, you seem to try and turn constructive conversations into a destructive flame war. This is a waste of people's time. If you try and do this again, I will start reporting your posts to Stardock, and let them take whatever action they deem appropriate.

Thanks for everyone's time. Now I need to decide what to play as next time...

If you feel like a challenge, what about giving the Iconians a go?

Sorry, which country are you talking about thats free? You happen to be on the intertubes, where admins and moderators can freely express their inner draconian despot with impunity.

Man. I don't know if I'm good enough to win with Iconians. Talk about upping the difficulty. I've never even once won on suicidal with them, and now that they are even worse in DA...

I'll think about it. I was leaning towards the Thalans because I think they are the best stock race. With one, I would cruise to victory. With the other, I might lose. Does anyone want to read an AAR of someone who lost? That isn't a rhetorical question, I'm curious...

As long as you lose in an interesting way!

I dunno, the Iconians could get off to a good start if you found enough hostile environments nearby. Granted, the super ability is still kinda weak given that the Korath get the Toxic atmosphere tech as well, and the Yor get Barren colonization, but it still could provide a leg up, even with the crappy race abilities... it's really one of those abilities that gives a kick start to your empire in the beginning instead of throughout the game. You have to hope that the appropriate environments are plentiful!

If it's written in the interesting and informative fashion that you wrote this one I'd like to read it. Bang up job btw   You did a great job of showing how alternative strategies are quite viable.

Hi!

I wrote two. If you'd check, I actually wrote the first one ever here. Where are yours?


And scoring better makes them better players? If you'd have a true understanding of the game, you'd know that scoring good and playing good are two somewhat different things.

Other posters are right about you: you're just trolling. I don't intend to feed the troll. PLONK!

No R, Iztok

For what its worth, since posting this I've already played a game with the Iconians. I lost at the beginning of year 4. I ran out of money and just bled out until someone finally got around to conquering me. I took out the Torians, but never managed an income. I played with tech trading off, got no anomalies, and just had no way to make money. I took about 6 screenshots, but the game doesn't feel worth a full AAR.

BTW, Iconians are absolutely the WORST race. Only 7 ability points? I got another map with no planets, so my SA was worth nothing. No ability points, no good bonuses, nothing. Just completely owned. If you really want, I took about 6 screenshots, if you want to watch me lose a game, I can write it up.


Aw, thanks!

Hi!

That's the reason you lost. The type of gameplay you presented is HIGHLY DEPENDANT of the money you collect with selling tech. If you can't get another source, you can't sustain that insane amount of research, and this strategy collapses. But to push it at extreme, you should use Humans as Super Diplomats for it.

BTW I wonder how you managed to collect all that money from AIs. Im my games they rarely have more than a few hundred BCs in a treasury at any given time. Lots of minors?

BR, Iztok

I really enjoyed reading this. Gave me some good insight, the flip strategy is something I've never really thought of doing but it looks like a pretty good plan. I've got a couple of questions:

When you switched over to factories, you said you focused all your worlds on research.... does this mean planets full of factories set to research, produce more overall (empire wide) total production than say having specialized planets (tech capital full o labs/manu capital full o factories) but splitting spending? (either 50/50 or going from 100% research to 100% prod and back again every few turns like I usually do)

Regarding leases: I generally never use leases except for sometimes the mind control center. But it looks like you could have never got so far ahead without them. I'm guessing you go with Mitrosoft for all your leases? do you ever rush buy stuff unleased or is it just better to go with a lease every time you rush buy and hope your economy can catch up later?

When setting up your economy worlds, how many factories did you build first, and also what % of your worlds had a starport?

Regarding lost games, I actually wouldn't mind reading one or two if they're good games, I wanted to write up one of my losses myself actually but I just don't have the time at the moment.

I think keep going with the Iconians, they're the worst race but it would feel good to win with them - perhaps a large/abundant set up would best suit them to take advantage of their extreme colonisations. When I've played them I usually make the toxic/aquatic worlds into economy planets and don't even bother researching the advanced colonisation techs.

Keep up the good work dude, and ignore the haters. One thing I've realised after 20+ years of gaming is that if you ever become great at any game you'll always get a bunch of people telling you their method is better, and another bunch of people accusing you of cheating/exploiting.

Three minors. A few things.
- Trading very early often the AI still has lots of its starting cash sitting around, and they seem to start with 10k each on suicidal. I went for communications and diplo tech very quickly.
- I made sure to trade all the economy tech I had as soon as I got it to every AI, this helps them make more money.
- I don't necessarily trade to all the AIs in the same turn, and just risk that they might trade one or two techs with each other. If I talk with an AI that has under say 250bc, then I won't get a good price for what I sell anyway, so no trade for them. I just trade with all the AIs that have money. This will become micormanagement intensive, because then every turn I stop and check to see who I can trade with and how much money they have. I've seen the AI go from under 100bc to over 600bc in one turn, so this strategy actually works pretty well.
- I always only sell one tech at a time. Putting multiple techs for sale in one package lowers the money you get.

Hope that helps.



Depends on the number of factories you have, but yes, you can often get more research by never building labs later in the game. Funding your factories to 100% and then diverting 25% of that to research can often produce more than haveing a few specialized labs funded 50% for instance. And the reverse holds true, having many 100% funded labs diverting 25% of their (higher) production to social or military can be much better than a mix of labs and factories.

The biggest difference is money. You are probably used to only needing an economy than can afford most of your empire running at half capacity. When you first start playing with one of these strategies, the money hit will be shocking. That is why I think it is an advanced strategy.

The problem with either strategy is what you do early game. If you go all labs, you can lease or rush buy to make up for lost production. If you go all factories, you probably want to invade lots of worlds early to make up for the tech hole you fall into, or have many many colonies. By midgame, though, these strategies are unstoppable.



Yeah, I go with the bottom option for leases. Generally, I only lease when I can't afford a straight rush buy. It depends on the cash. In this game, I probably full rush bought about 25%, and leased the other 75% of what I rush bought. If you notice, the first lab I bought on altaria for instance was a straight rush buy. So were most of the rest of the labs and research centers I started with.

In this game I was desperate. I had no resources. I really over leased, hoping I could blitz and make up the economy later by having more worlds. It worked, but it was touch and go at times. Between December 22, 2226 and March 2227 was when I really won this, because I played aggressive with my temporary military advantage and ended up with 10 worlds - which I was able to do because I had my Super Ability shield up, and because I had jumped to a slight lead by using leasing.



Depends on the situation. Sorry, I'm not trying to dodge the question. In this game, my straight economy worlds had no factories, but they did have a starport. Funding the home colony 100% does build low level farms and banks/stock markets at a decent speed. I also rush bought a few key things to keep it up. But, my economy didn't really turn around till turn 100. A few factories early might have helped. My mix 50% facotry 50% bank worlds were up and running much quicker, but they also needed to sustain my empire. The starports did mean that my economy worlds lost out on one stockmarket, but then I was able to actually use the production created by the home colony (mostly on constructors) once the upgrades were finished.



Trying to. Thanks for the advice.

Actually, let me put some numbers behind this to see what I'm talking about, and we will deal with a very simple example: two tiles.

Scenario 1: 1 industrial sector, 1 discovery sphere
Max production here is 12 factory and 18 research. If you run at 1%/49%/50% you get:
6 hammers/shields
9 beakers

Scenario 2: 2 discovery spheres.
Max production here is 36 research. If you run at 0%/0%/100% and focus manufacturing you get:
9 hammers/shields
27 beakers
(and wow, you are spending more than twice as much. Hence, advanced)

Scenario 3: 2 industrial sectors.
Max production here is 24 factory. If you run at 50%/50%/0% and focus research you get:
18 hammers/shields
6 beakers

Notice, with all factories you do get a little less research, but you are still spending more money, and you are building a war fleet that is much better than the enemy. The above is basically how I like to beat suicidal, because scenario 1 is how the AI plays. Even with 100% bonus to everything on suicidal, AI on average gets:
12 hammers/shields, 18 beakers per turn. I get
9 hammers/shields, 27 beakers per turn with all research buildings. So I'm building fewer ships, but I have the tech lead, so they are higher class.

Hope that helps.

Good write up Wyndstar and an impressive score for such a small map.

I think the advice you are giving here is very solid. Not everything will apply on a gig map, but most of the ideas cross all map/size boundaries. I use the all factories approach on gig maps, and you are right that adjusting for the increased spending is the single most difficult thing with it. I'm not sure the all research approach would work on the really large maps...Simply because you need all the industrial might you can harness for a mega colony rush. Also I think they adjust the RPs necessary for a tech to be researched, so you wouldn't be able to plow the tech tree from a single planet, but you were far more effective with it on a small map than I would have thought possible. There is one more advantage to never going down the all research path and always being all industrial. You have no need to research any research tech at all, and can simply cut them from your goals list.

I am really curious about one thing though...I have had almost no success getting the AI to agree to research treaties no matter what I offer. What were you offering the AI for these treaties? I'm hoping it's something that will work on large maps.

Whatever it took, but I had an advantage you might not. The AI values a treaty based on its own output. This is exploitable in two ways. First, if the AI hits an econ crash and their research production falls to nothing, you can get the research treaty very fast. Second, I was playing on a smaller map and I started trading early. I got all of those treaties in the first 10-16 turns. That's the only time I could have gotten them so cheap, because in that range the AI isn't researching a lot yet, so doesn't value its own treaties very highly. By managing to meet all the AIs early (mostly only possible on a small map) - and because every empire was limited to its home worlds, I leveraged a low AI research output into an advantage. The Korx and Arceans that were close to me in research demanded a lot for their treaties still.

My average "package" to get a treaty was Advanced Computing, Planetary Improvements, Basic Miniturization, Impulse Drive, Sensors and Basic Logistics.

The treaties though, were barely worth it. I say this becuase if you compare the extra research I recieved vs. the money those techs were worth, and so the extra turns of just running my empire at 100% I could have bought it I traded for cash, I only barely came out on top with the treaties. By my calculations by in the range of 50-100bc ahead is all. So barely worth it. But I'm pretty concerned about managing my resources to get the absolute most out of everything I do. But in a longer game, they can pay off, and I like the boost early anyway.

For instance, you might notice I didn't build any freighters, even though I had money problems. But when you are playing a tight game like this, every credit matters. How many turns would it have taken for the trade for a freighter to have even paid for the cost of the freighter itself? Answer - too long. They are just not a worthwhile investment in shorter games. I knew this would be a shorter game early, because of the lack of resources. If everyone had had 10 colonies, things would have been different.

Hope that helps.

Edit - and notice, I was on a medium map. When I refer to small maps here, I'm grouping tiny, small and medium vs. large, huge and gigantic. So this strategy at least works on maps as large as a medium. May fail completely on gigantics, I don't claim to have even tried a game at that size in many months.

Yeah I've never thought trade was really worth it in short games either, other than the first level for the econ capital and diplomacy bonus. On bigger maps I'll usually have one planet that I nominate as the trade planet, I'll usually put it next to my research world so it benefits from the econ starbases I have around there anyway and make it produce nothing but traders. Trade though, is actually more useful as a diplomacy tool than the money you get from it. You can often get ++ in the relations screen just from trading alone.

I'm curious as to why you got all the research treaties from the AIs but didn't get any of the economic ones. Surely economic treaties would have solved a lot of the economy problems you were having...

Also another random thing I've found with trading tech is that you can often get the AI to give up a massive amount of their stuff if you trade them a planet, one really good tactic is to select a planet in the middle of your empire and then remove all the population from it, then trade it for one of the civilizations on the other side of the map and it will flip back to you within a few turns anyway.

The AI won't trade the economic treaties before about the start of year three. Doesn't matter what you offer, they say "its too soon for us to get involved in treaties so soon". Research treaties can be leveraged right away. Similarly, if you try to sell your economic treaty in the first few years, you might get less than 20bc for it. You can often get a decent offer for your research treaty early, however. For some reason, they just locked econ treaties out of the early game. I dislike the decision, but have just learned to play with it. Under the first build of DA I ALWAYS picked up all the econ treaties early, because it was possible.



Hush. That is one of my all time favorite tactics as well. No point in tempting the gods with nerfing it. Another good way to use that trick I've found is if you don't have the orbital terraformer and aren't neutral. Queue up the improvements/terraforming you want built. The AI will never change your build queues, so it will dutifully spend its resources developing your planet for you. In fact, I probably use this tactic almost every game. Then, when it culture flips back, you can start to see the results without having had to waste the resources on development. Give the AI money sinks, why not?

I like the idea of giving away a planet like that. I wonder, though, whether it would be possible to use the tactic more offensively. Load the planet up with extremely high-maintenance buildings and then offer it as a trojan horse to your opponent. When it comes back to you, just give it away again to someone else. Granted, the opponent would benefit from the output of those buildings, but if it destroys their economy at the same time, that might be a reasonable tradeoff.

The other one I like is if you're at war with a weaker civ but who has some tech you want you can constantly give them worlds and then invade them back to steal all their tech, it works really well with spore ships.

Another good way of getting tech is if you're planning on wiping out a civ then trade your economic & research treaties to them beforehand for some tech of theirs, because when they're dead you'll get them back anyway.

Hi Wyndstar, thanks for your great post, it's always a pleasure to get insight into the strategies of the pros, gives me pointers how to improve my own game.
I have two questions concerning the giving-planet-flipping-back:
1) Doesn't it flip of the AI when you do that (alarming influence and such)?

2) Why do you remove the population before giving away the planet? Is it easier to flip an almost uninhabited planet or just to not give the AI additional tax payers?

I use this tactic every now and then, when I have a suitable planet for it. I used to do it with my second planet in my home system, but since DA they have just to much terraformable tiles and are just too good to give away...