Evil the best?

So as I play i seem to notice that teh only way to actually make it so that i can make large manoey and improve on everything is to be evil? Does being good help at all? Does it make your People like you?
19,009 views 40 replies
Reply #1 Top
I've never actually played good, but neutral has the moral bonus. Good has some extra defensive things, but I can't remember what it includes. Being evil is definately the way to go if your out for the best economy you can get.

Reply #2 Top
Basically Neutral and Evil are both allright, but good is gimpy
Reply #3 Top
Agreed

However playing the moral high ground each time as good is more difficult then hte others as the penalties for choosing good can far outweigh the other two! That said it can be fun too. Play them all   

D
Reply #4 Top
Good get a defense bonus, and since defenses have just become more useful... maybe it's time to re-evaluate the 'good is useless' mindset that a lot of people have.

They also have diplomacy bonuses, and both neutral and good races have a '+ Your ethical alignment' relationship modifier, making it easy to make friends.
Reply #5 Top
Neutral has the NLC and the 10% approval bonus. This is actually very powerful since it's a straight 10% increase to approval not just a 10% morale bonus that's depreciated by the base (population determined) morale.

I think overall the MCC bug/feature makes evil the 'best' choice. However the downside of the MCC is that no planets will flip to you from influence. It is admittedly a minor annoyance but having to actually conquer those PQ5's that have been sitting for years with the red skull and crossbones, takes time and effort that otherwise could be spent elsewhere.

Good really does get the shaft. In my opinion good needs some other significant global benefit to make it playable. Either that or the general realization that people that play the 'good' alignment are in reality playing a 'harder' game than those that don't.
Reply #6 Top
I think GOOD should have an ability that makes it easier to flip Evil planets and half of that bonus for neutral planets. Think about it - would people want to live under the crushing rule of say, the Yor, or the freedom of the Altarians?
Reply #7 Top
Neutral and Evil are really pretty close, depending on your map makeup.

With Neutral you get
- more trade routes;
- the best research buildings;
- all tiles automatically terraformed when you research improvement techs;
- a morale bonus;
- and a soldiering bonus when invading non neutrals.

With Evil you get
- +100% economy
- +50% military production
- Free invasion tactics
- Best "mid range" weapons
- Free starbase upgrades
- Other evil civs like you more

With evil it takes slightly longer to get the advantages, because most of them come from buildings from "Concepts of Malice", where as Neutral unlocks all of its potential after "Xeno Ethics". Generally speaking, I like evil on larger maps. The economy bonus is always good, but you need a lot of planets to make the free invasion tactics worth pursuing. Free starbase upgrades are pretty worthless given how useless starbases are generally, but a cluster of 16 military starbases can be a good way to pump your military score.

With Neutral I like them on smaller maps. On smaller maps, trade makes up a much large portion of your income, so the extra routes and resultant diplomacy matters more. The invasion and morale bonuses are automatic and take no further thought or management by the player. Mostly on smaller maps its the best research buildings though. With fewer planets, you don't have an endless number of tiles to make up for a researching shortfall. Depending on map settings, you might only have 10-50 tiles total devoted to research on a smaller map, and neutrality learning centers will really help you on these settings in taking the lead in research. The autoterraforming ability really only helps for soil enhancement and habitat improvement, because once you get to terraforming you can just build the orbital terraformer which has the same effect.


Good gets very little compared to all of the bonuses of the other two alignments. They get a diplomacy bonus, but only with other good races. They don't have to pay maintenance costs on their most populous five colonies, but you would have to playing on a really small map for that to make a difference in your income. They can get base defense boosts, but again, this requires researching to "Concepts" and building a building, and their other three defense boosts are one each to each of the three defensive trees, so you need to research through all three to get the full advantage (where as for evil you can stick to just one weapon branch and do OK, and for neutral the new research abilities come off of core branches). Good can get a building where you increase the chances that people surrender to you, but a) even when you build this it feels kind of hit or miss and b) you can turn surrenders off making this ability even more useless.

Its hard to point to an ability that good has that makes it worthwhile. MAYBE the extra def boost if your already playing Krynn and you really want 1.5k defense huge hulls. Pretty much, at this point, any game you see with a good alignment means the person decided to play on a higher difficulty level.

And all of this doesn't even take into account the effects of the random "ethical choices" that pop up as events or when colonizing planets. There, evil really does the best hands down.

Hope that helps.

Reply #8 Top
Good can get a building where you increase the chances that people surrender to you, but a) even when you build this it feels kind of hit or miss and b) you can turn surrenders off making this ability even more useless.

Doesn't that work out in the long run? If you attack and capture the capital of the enemy civ, they surrender immediately to someone. You can get alot of worlds real quick if you just take out the civ's capital, especially on a large or greater map.
Reply #9 Top
Doesn't that work out in the long run? If you attack and capture the capital of the enemy civ, they surrender immediately to someone. You can get alot of worlds real quick if you just take out the civ's capital, especially on a large or greater map.


Is this true for DA? I've played DL and when i take an enemy's capital, they just move the capital, no automatic surrender.

I've only played nuetral until now, I though the automatic use of all tiles was itself worth it. A LOT of time saved and some techs that don't ever have to be researched.

Question, is this still true for DA? I thought i saw somewhere that in DA with nuetral you have to research the techs to get the tiles but that they are still instant.
Reply #10 Top
Evils Psyonic weapons are great and have won many a battle for me.

Good should get a few more defensive bonuses to keep up.
Reply #11 Top
Evils Psyonic weapons are great and have won many a battle for me.


Amen to that one!
Hell, I didn't even know there were any other alignments in the game besides evil...
Reply #12 Top
Is this true for DA? I've played DL and when i take an enemy's capital, they just move the capital, no automatic surrender.


Automatic surrender when you take their capital does not happen in DA. However, when you take out their capital, you are cutting off their head and more-or-less rendering them irrelevant. Which is actually better: when you completely take out a race, whether a major or a minor, you take a diplomatic hit. You don't see it the first time you take somebody out, but after 2 or 3, you take a big hit.
Reply #13 Top
I think that in DA, neutral got even better. The reason, class 1 and 2 planets. They are ignored by the AI, but with Neutral and the frist 2 terraforming techs, you can colonize them at your leasure and instantly get a 10+ planet.
Reply #14 Top
I think that in DA, neutral got even better.


I disagree. In DA, neutral now actually needs to spend the research points to get the techs soil enhancement >> terraforming to use the ability. In DL it was automatic. If you need to get to terraforming ANYWAY, the ability can be duplicated by just building the orbital terraformer. IMO this advantage has been reduced to simply saving you the cost of an orbital terraformer. That is still several thousand bc, but this ability used to also give you a large research advantage, because neutral used to be able to ignore the terraforming line completely.
Reply #15 Top
I like Neutral as a nice rush alignment. If I'm playing a small map or just want a strong rush, I'll choose Neutral. The benefits are immediate, such as the morale bonus--which occurs right when you need it the most--cheap ship upgrades, and you can colony rush the class-1's and 2's. If I think I can win the game for all practical purposes on that, I'll pick Neutral.

If I'm going for a long haul (such as on a large map where you don't have any choice), I'll choose Evil. Neutral peters out after you get all those initial bonuses, whereas Evil later kicks in with 2x income and 2x military production.
Reply #16 Top
Oh, I agree they both have their place. That is what I was trying to lay out in my Reply#7. But in DA did Neutral get better than it was in DL? IMO that is a resounding no.
Reply #17 Top
I will echo the "Neutral for rush, Evil otherwise" sentiment. The MCC, Artificial Slave Center, Orbital Terraformer, etc. are all sufficiently expensive buildings that some games may be effectively over before you should get them, but once you have them Evil is far ahead of Neutral.

One terraforming quirk I noticed: "Habitat Improvement" squares only cost 30 production to terraform, while the other two types cost 50. It may be reasonable to aim to just "manually" terraform 30-cost tiles on fully developed planets and rely on the Orbital Terraformer for everything else when playing Evil.

Incidentally, I don't consider NLCs an argument for Neutral; by the time you can finish building enough of them to matter, you can finish all the buildings that make Evil awesome; and Invention Matrices/Discovery Spheres aren't much worse than NLCs while being far more cost-effective.
Reply #18 Top
Good should get one or two REALLY good techs/structures in the next patch imho

Good just ain't competitive atm.

Maybe a defensive system that can defend both against missiles and mass-drivers with a not too big size. Not for tinies but certainly for smalls.
Reply #19 Top
How about this for a good benefit -

The Defense Equalizer (build project): The military types have developed a new form defense structure. All defense now counts as on type defense.

Still not enough, but it would offer some serious help in keeping with the good alignment.

Reply #20 Top
hehehe silly, thats like saying why bother bombing Nazi germany when were just going to invade and have to rebuild it!


Actually, bombing Nazi Germany was arguably silly, too. The Allies never really disabled Germany's production capacity. What really stopped Germany was that all their pilots died trying to defend from the bombing raids. They didn't even run out of planes, really--they ran out of pilots.
Reply #21 Top
I will echo the "Neutral for rush, Evil otherwise" sentiment.


You know, the way I think it ought to be is, Evil should be the rush alignment, and Good the "in it for the long haul alignment". And neutral is somewhere in the middle but gets along diplomatically with everybody. That's the way it SHOULD be.

I think this should reflect in the ethical choices, too: Evil gets some immediate benefit i.e. cash, free tech, free ship, etc.. Good gets long-term benefits. So for example, the national park choice: "There's gold in them thar hills" may net you 800bc, but "Don't touch the national park" should be +16 morale.

As it is now, Evil is the long-term alignment, neutral is the rush, good is just crap, and the ethical choices just don't fit right and so Stardock just nerfed them in the latest patch (which I don't think is the answer).
Reply #22 Top
Or just giving good an immediate +% to defense in addition to the buildings and tech. That would help a lot. Give them influence bonuses. Give them universal diplomacy bonuses. Give them immediate hp bonuses. This is not an exhastive list, and I'm not trying to start a brainstorming session. The point is there are lots and lots of things which could be done that would still give each ethical alignment its "flavor" while making good more competitive. Or competitive at all. Currently, playing good is just upping the difficutly level.
Reply #23 Top
You know, the way I think it ought to be is, Evil should be the rush alignment, and Good the "in it for the long haul alignment". And neutral is somewhere in the middle but gets along diplomatically with everybody. That's the way it SHOULD be.


Agreed.

Neutral got Neutral Shipping too, with more Trade Routes available. Did it really need it?
Reply #24 Top
The Defence Equalizer idea was interesting!

Building that structure enables the DEQ-tech system for your ships, which gives you def 2 to beam/missile and mass per module. Size of each module could be armor-wise.
Reply #25 Top
Is the consensus that the 100% econ bonus for the mind control center is a bug or a feature?