Philosophy / Play Style
 

Wondering if others would like to share their Philosophies on playing SE IV against the AI or Humans.

I play to have fun. I enjoy the surprise of the unexpected. I wonder what will happen next and can I both predict it and prepare for it. Winning and loosing are just a bunch of numbers to me. I wonder how common that is.

I play a very ethical game against humans or the AI. My word is my bond. Most of the time I play against the AI it is with one hand tied behind my back. What I mean is I don’t use a few of the resourses available to me such as Intel or Training facilities. I won’t trade with AI for Colony types. I do trade for Minerals but always give 5 to 10 percent more than I get. I will colonize a “Ruins Planet” inside a neutrals turf, (but I do gift it back on the next turn). Hmm, guess I’m not perfect.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

See the quote in my sig. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

I'd say, my game philosophy is much the same. I play for fun. To please the stories in my own head. Sometimes for other reasons. Any aggression I show in games is slow. I don't play a Borg or Rage race well.

With the AI, I like to decide before hand what weapons and style I'll use. I may use other weapons but always on a limited basis. Lots of times, I advance and grow slowly on purpose, so that in the mid game, there are several empires larger than me, and usually one that is super massive.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

It is always a good idea to play for fun. I noticed that phased polaron beams, researched rapidly, rain pain upon the AI. I stopped doing that, and learned the value of balanced tactics. Ditto for null space and WMG.

I tried to play as a pirate before SJ wrote his mod. I restricted the research of weapon techs. I thought a pirate should have good cargo storage, so I researched that -- now I always research cargo early, it's that useful.

There are so many options that no one cares about -- a fighters only race, a missiles only race. Yeah it's tough, but therein lies the game.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Well, I think everyone is playing for 'fun' in one sense or another. The question is what you consider to be 'fun' about the game. Frankly, I'm playing a 'SimCity' variant more than a 'wargame' and I actually like micromanagement. I would like it more if I could choose what to micromanage, of course, instead of having to micromanage everything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So, that's why I want lots more 'environmental' details like planet gravity/radiation/temperature, etc. SimCity is nice, but a game where NO conflict can occur just doesn't seem realistic. But a game devoted totally to conflict is not much fun either. Yet some people apparently like 'competition' more than anything else and play the game for the sake of 'winning the competition'.

[ August 24, 2002, 05:00: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

I almost always wait until the AI declares war on me which more or less leaves me no choice but to "take the action to them".

I feel a tournament is a different genre entirely...

Most of the participants are not exactly peaceful. If they were, the tournament would carry on forever...

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Baisically, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde.

As Dr. Jekyll,

Build up the infrastructure, build up strong border lines, help allies, give and trade tech, become number 1 in the economy sector and populations, persue partnership treaties with all others, do not declare wars.

As Mr. Hyde,

Bombard any threat colonies if necessary, destroy any enemy spacecraft that violates space even if it's a medical ship or a transport carrying ... 300 Million people, all or nothing, take no prisoners.

Yes, I'm one of those hypocrits.

Game Philosophy:

Quality before Quantity (Ie: A battlecruiser that can take down a lone dreadnought/battleship, 2 battlecruisers, 3 cruiser, 4 light cruiser and so on.)

[ August 24, 2002, 01:23: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

I follow Teedy Roosevelt's axiom: "Walk softly but carry a big stick."

I mind my own business but I build up my forces and strictly enforce my borders. I expand until I think I've gone far enough and then colonize everything in sight. Once I have my arsenal built up - I research Ice/Gas/O2 - colonization (whatever I need) to increase productivity to the max; some planets being almost all storage.

If an alien race attacks me - I never accept surrender.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

I play against AI empires and I usually play a friendly empire style: That means I accept almost all treaty propositions and keep them, try to make fair trades (I do trade colonization technology because I think the AI profits as much as I do) and try to capture colonies and not to destroy them.
I heavily invest in my infrastructure and colonize every planet I can and as soon as I have the technology use atmosphere converters. In the late game I like to build ring- and sphereworlds until the game get's so complex (I usually play in a quadrant with 250 systems) that my computer takes more than a hour for processing one turn.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Any game that doesn't end in a good war is dull dull dull. Does anyone really enjoy the game when they are surronded by allies and all their planets are full and they are sitting there watching their atmospheric converters being built? unmodded SE4 just doesn't have the depth or micromanagement level to make an totally peacfull game fun. (and that's they way it should be http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif )
As far as playing to win or just for fun. They are the same thing. Doesn't mean you have to win to enjoy the game but does anyone seriously play and not try to win?

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

"They are the same thing. Doesn't mean you have to win to enjoy the game but does anyone seriously play and not try to win?"

*raises hand* Several of the games I'm in now, my race due to it's nature (isolationist, not expansionist) doesn't have a snowball's chance of winning.

Phoenix-D

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

DavidG,
I susspect we all "try to win" or do the best we can. I put most of my "energy" into having fun.
For example:
Giving my ships names
Tracking the history of a more successful ship, (thanks to that suggestion by someone here)
I look forward to a chance to practice "Tactics of Mistake". I might loose but it will be fun.
I look forward to the day my fleets trade shots with GrowlTigga. Who will win? Both of us. I am sure it will be a "bLast".
So, yes you are correct. We all try to win / do the best we can.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

I think everyone plays to win, but a simcity mod sound kinda neat....

Personally, war with me starts the exact second my puny little escort was attacked for violating enemy territory in turn 5... I mean, the AI had no right to attack my escort while I was harrassing thier colony ships in this space while they were trying to start. The AI had no reason to start a war!

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

chatter box... The game is all about the shifting alliances... and conversation...

I am still learing... A natural sheller..... but learning to expand quickly now...

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

i play for the fact it stops boredom and helps me concentrate on tactics and strategies to try out when i think them up

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">D) Do whatever you feel like because ethics don't apply in a game against the AI only. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Now if it were 2 human players I would think you should break the treatie that you made Last. The player who made the second treaty should have know you already had an MA with the other and that you are bound by it.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not B, usually, that's too munchkin. That's my 0.02 kt minerals

Funny tho, B) is pretty much why the US joined up for WWI, hmmm.

Must try sometime to be a rich neutral civilization that aids combatants (trades ships for minerals, etc) and see if I can carve up the galaxy as I see fit by manipulating the AI without actually fighting an offensive war.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I would choose C, but because it's more fun to fight a fully developped AI empire than just a weak neutral one.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

"Historical Note:
I did meet the Neutral first
Option E:
Since the TDM must pass through "My" sytem to get to the Neutral
And since the TDM has co settled My sytem I could break of relations, blockade planets, and send ships to delete the ships attacking the Neutral.
What do you think? A "Limited War" with a specific objecttive?

Map:
*Neutral* -- *Empty* -- *Mine that TDM has Co Settled* -- *Empty* -- &gt; 8 sytem cluster

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Limited war against the AI is tough. Once declared they tend to not make peace. You almost have to beat them down to the point where they would surrender if asked before they will accept a peace treaty again.

Geoschmo

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now that can be fun too. Beat them down, make peace, and try to watch them grow back again. Sometimes they stay friendly, sometimes it's war again -- sooner or later.

Maybe a few gifted large planets of their atmosphere type, a robo-miner base (with no shipyard or destruct component, or their crazy ministers will get rid of it).

'Course, this all happens while you fight the real war against the AI that got itself together early on.

Problem with this peaceful stance, against the default AI is, one they design a shipsize, then only build that size. A few planets can't support even one dreadnought sized ship yard for example. The TDM Modpack AI's seem to use the smaller ship sizes late in the game, however.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Hypothetical Question:
In a 1 human vs AI game
You have Military alliance with a Neutral and a TDM
The TDM starts beattinug up on the Neutral, Ethicaly what should I do?
A) Nothing, it is not my problem
B) Help the TDM because I might as well get some of the spoils
C) Declare war on the TDM because it is the "Right Thing To Do"?

I'll email my decision (and the game), to anyone who would like to see.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Limited war isn't too tough--if you kick the AI out of the system and slap a hundred satellites, 10 bases, and a couple fleets on the warp point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Arkcon
Hmm, About Granting autonomy,
I guess it would be possible to have a friend run an AI for a turn or 2.
They could make the demand, I could comply.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK Here is one. You are at war with a race (human) and you have a TR treaty with his Partner (also human) Since they are partners you inform the race you have the TR treatie with not to send scouts into your territroy. He ignores these requests. What do you do?

[ August 27, 2002, 13:54: Message edited by: DavidG ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

RE: Granting Autonomy... That is not a feature currently avaialble. There is no option to request it in the game, or to accept it if requested. There is logic in the politics file that the AI uses to decide whether or not to accept it, but the request itself has been removed from the game. Not sure why though. It sounds like it would be a cool feature.

[ August 27, 2002, 13:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OK Here is one. You are at war with a race (human) and you have a TR treaty with his Partner (also human) Since they are partners you inform the race you have the TR treatie with not to send scouts into your territroy. He ignores these requests. What do you do?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh wait, against humans? Now all bets are off. I mean to say anything goes. Enter into a dialog and work out some non-game treaty. Like only frigate sized ships may enter. Or no more than 5 of their ships. Or they must earn their travel rights with any gift you imagine. Or declare war, nuke the offending ships, the ask for a treaty again, under whatever reparation terms can be imagined.

Any of these options can be the building of a deeper relationship, or a sore point in an empire's side building to an angry response where the war hawks demand that yuo earn back your honor.

Hey, role play this any way you want --
"Those are not our ships, some rogue empire has copied our design and signature"

"That ship's captain is insane, our government condems his actions, but our ships sovernity must be respected."

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If not, I'd cancel the treaty and destroy any ships in my space, citing them as a "security risk" (Well that's exactly what they are if his partner can see everything the other guy can see.)
Give him a few turns' warning if you can afford to, but you might have to act immediately.

Once his ships are destroyed, tell him that if he wants the treaty back he'll have to either promise to obey by the rules you've laid down AND pay you back any expenses/ damages incurred when you wasted his ships, OR go to war with your enemy.

Either that or cloak all your sensitive fleets=-)

[ August 27, 2002, 16:04: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Situation:
You are in a PBW game.
You have a Dilemma / Conflict of Loyalties / Obligations thar are "Out of Date"
Do you post it here and see what folks say?
Do you hope one of the antagonist tips their hand?

Edit: My keyboard can't spell.

[ August 27, 2002, 16:56: Message edited by: Gryphin ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Conclusion to my not so "Hypothetical" question.
Hmm, never should have used that word.

I waited too long. The TDM was on the verge of completing genocide.
To save the race I had to break the treaty and demand their surrender.
I ended up with
Two planets
Less than a total of 100,000 pop.
One Level 1 Space yard
47 TDM ships in the system.

I think I will try to rebuild the system with the native population

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

My play style is heavily dictated by the first 100 turns of the game. My philosophy is simple, play to win. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Anybody else have an "Ethical Dilema" playing against humans or AI?

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Atrocities
Yes you play to win. Still, isn't your major objectoive to have fun?

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

In your "ethical dilemna" I might well have declared on the TDM AI, but more likely I would have gifted loads and loads of tech, ships and resources to the neutral. Heheh...

Also I would have made sure that I had some of his population in my empire, so that even if the empire is lost his race isn't extinct.

In a vsHuman race I would try to support my friends, but seing as both paarties are my allies my decision would depend largely on how much territory/ political leverage/ spoils/ military advantage I can get out of it.

I try to play ethically (especially against those poor AIs), but until I get good against humans I can't afford the luxury of being nice=-)

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Something that would be cool was if you could, on you own initiative, grant autonomy to a planet that you have control over.

There is a demand for that in the diplomacy screen, but a third party has to demand it and you have to accept. Anyone know if that even works. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If not, I'd cancel the treaty and destroy any ships in my space, citing them as a "security risk" (Well that's exactly what they are if his partner can see everything the other guy can see.)
Give him a few turns' warning if you can afford to, but you might have to act immediately.

Once his ships are destroyed, tell him that if he wants the treaty back he'll have to either promise to obey by the rules ...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yup pretty much what I did. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif But still I was the bad guy according to him. hehe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

That is exactly what happened to me in a PBW game.
I had a cloaked scout Escort ship travelling thru another empire's system and he cancelled the treaty saying I was spying on him. The Ship was destroyed by a mine field in the same turn. I asked for recompense and he said that I was warned via email which he actually sent after the turn was processed.
We have since become friends, but it remains a sore point.
It did send a big example for other races and they have kept well out of his territory.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Gryh,

Given that you play for fun and the sorting out of neat situations, I would say you can post your dilemma here. Others who play more to win may choose not to post, as it may give away too much information. You probably saw from my post in the Galactic Bash thread that I was not for more information being shared (the score issue), but I truly see that as protection for the newer players. Of course, now I am curious if you are up to something in the Bash, but since we have not met, I can not ask you about it. Sigh.

I do like the one post on setting up a non-game treaty with so many different variables. That sort of thing makes things fun and the verification of what is going on is very much a real world treaty. Is Iraq building Scuds? Are the foul Tiggas sending cloaked ships into my empire? How do you tell? It is much more entertaining that the strict trade and research treaties.

My playing style is to have Fluffy Bunnies on all the planets in the Galaxy. It is a noble, if unusual goal.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

"Foul Tiggas?" As temporary commander in chief of the Growltigga Federation I suppose it falls upon me to take exception at that statement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geo

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Saxon,
"My playing style is to have Fluffy Bunnies on all the planets in the Galaxy. It is a noble, if unusual goal."
That's cool, send a transport to me when we meet, I'll be happy to assist as long as they breath the same atmosphere. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

As for "Up to Something"?
I am always up to something. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif My main strategy is to get inside an advesarys head.
Gordon Dickenson wrote, "Tactics of Mistake"
It is a great sci fi / war storys book including background of the Dorsai.
It is still available on the web. Read the book and apply the theory. It will change your play style.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Where on the web? A search in Google turned up nada.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Elowin,
Google search, "Tactics of Mistake"
The quotes are important. links to Amazon and others.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It also helps to spell the author's name right. It's Gordon R. Dickson.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

Mea Culpa

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

I play SE4 for fun, of course. But at least in my case, always have more fun if I'm the winner... then, always play for win.
But who want to be the winner of anything, without some kind of challenge? Then, a good SE4 game MUST be challenging, if not never will be interesting to me.

Playing against the AI:
1) I have no mercy.
2) Only sign a treaty, if I'm in a bad situation.
3) Never trade tech with the AI.
4) Never use Warp Openers/Closers.

Playing against humans:
1) Try to keep my word.
2) Most the time, exchange Population and Colonization early.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

It's taken me awhile to think about how to describe my play philosophy.

For me, the journey is more important than the destination. I try to play my best, but I can't afford to put too much value on winning, because I've never managed it against a human opponent in SE IV, and can't even guarantee it against the AI. The people who play on PBW because they don't find the AI challenging enough are simply out of my league.

Part of why I've never won a PBW game is that I tend to set up my empire to fit my roleplaying concept of the race more than to gain practical game advantages.

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hear, hear! EXACTLY my stance and position, sir!

Hmm.

Well, I don't have Gold yet, probably can order it in a week-ish ... but regardless, we should try and gt together for a game sometime, preferably with another half-dozen players of compatible style and intent. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Think that will depend of the game. Playing as "me", no.
I have played the Ferengi's role in a cool game, and as the Ferengi did things that never did before playing against humans (for example, try to create a war between 2 of my allies using the Comm Mimic, to get some profit taking a side later...).

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah, and the Romulans suffered from that attack. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
But, it was an RP game, so I wouldn't expect you to do it again, unless you were RPing Ferengi again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ August 31, 2002, 00:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: Philosophy / Play Style
 

You are in a game against humans. You see a chance in the Forums to post “Miss Informaiton” of any type be it “I don’t glass planets” or “I don’t use mines”.

1) You Post away hoping your opponent reads and belives

2) You look at the chance and make a mental note for “maybe later”

3) Sigh and pass up the chance because you feel, hmm what do you feel?

4) You don’t answer questions like this