Re: Fundamentals and Gamey
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not training contributes a +40% difference, while not maxing racial traits contributes a +35% difference. So, really, they can both screw you just as well...

I think training and racial traits should matter, just not to the extent that they do.

Re: Fundamentals and Gamey
 

'Not training contributes a +40% difference, while not maxing racial traits contributes a +35% difference. So, really, they can both screw you just as well..."

Not exactly. Training gets you 40% to attack and defense -at the same time-

On the other hand, you don't have to max out Aggressiveness to max out defensiveness, and vice versa. More, training can be done in-game, and once you have the fairly cheap tech, it isn't difficult. Racial traits, on the other hand, take points that might be spent elsewhere.

Phoenix-D

Re: Fundamentals and Gamey
 

Do both then. Then they are really screwed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Fundamentals and Gamey
 

The problem, if there is one, is that the racial setup #'s make a much bigger difference than you'd think. ie +10% maintanence value makes you much more than %10 better than average. Also +25% agressive can make you much more that 25% better than average. Those that don't understand this (like me not so long ago) will be easy prey.

They other problem is that you very quickly get the max in all combat techs. (ie ECMIII, SensorsIII, PPB V, PD V) if there were say 10 levels of ECM it would give a big boost to a science race. This is the way I used to play MOO2. Your ships can't hit as well be you overcome that by them being technically more advanced. If you get this advantage in SE4 it is very short lived.

OF course the beauty of SE4 is all this stuff is moddable.

Re: Fundamentals and Gamey
 

What is clearly the advantage in my mind for the 125/125/berzerker is that it allows you to think more about other things with your research. It compensates for small deficencies in sensor tech, weapons and ship size. It allows you to not be completely dedicated to getting your ships trained to the limit right away.

While the race that is behind in these areas must be extremely diligent in making sure that they do not fall behind in anything or it will turn the battles that would be draws or grinding battles of attrition into outright routs.

It's kind of ironic because the race setup as the warlike one can relax and think about trade and politcs, while the race setup to be a trader must concentrate heavily on warlike R&D. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

But it's not unbalancing IMHO. Not gamey. Just part of the game. Part of the risk reward that you have to consider when setting up your empire.

Geoschmo

Re: Fundamentals and Gamey
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is unbalanced compared to most the other cultural choices. Warrior, Engineer, Merchant are arguably on equal footing, I think, but stuff like artists, traders, and (god forbid) renegades don't even compare. So in that context, yes, it is unbalanced. Does it break the game? No. Does it reduce your number of significant strategic choices? Yes.

[ February 05, 2003, 15:54: Message edited by: spoon ]