Destabilization and Espionage almost useless?

I poored money into destabalizing a system of a minor race that already had a skull and crossbones on it, they eventually defected, but to the Torians, who had 2 systems in the quadrant.

I am not sure how half the stuff in this game works! I read about it on this forum at least twice as much as playing..... work work work

Good Luck!

Espionage can help prevent certain negative random events.

Destabilization, so far, does seem completely useless to me. Perhaps I just haven't figured out how to use it properly yet.

Destabalization is Far from useless. I managed to destabalize the drengin so badly, that they were unable to build a fleet after their war failed them...


~SDC~

Destabilization is cummulative. The longer you do it, the more it hurts them.

Ah, thanks for the tip Frogboy. I only did it for about 7 turns with tons of money and expected immediate results, maybe I should have waited a bit longer though I still think the effects of Espionage should do more than give you morale and treasury info, or is there more to that as well?

Doesn't espionage also let you see ships around their planets?

Is that attached to espionage?? I've never known that as I *always* invest in it from the moment of first contact.

Nice to know more about the destabilization thingy... bwahahaa.... doomed are the Drengin, foomed I tell thee!

~SDC~

Two questions:

1.Does +espionage ability also help destabilization?

2.Could someone PLEASE say something concrete about how much of an effect destablization has? If you max your spending and keep in maxed the whole game, will you be able to mess up a civ completely at some point?

Espionage is incredibly valuable against a difficult opponent. It helps you size up your opponent and tells you things like what level of tech they are at, where they are getting their money from, how much money they are spending on production/research/military. It helps you find their weak spot.

It's never a bad idea to invest even the minimum amount in espionage in each race.

In addition to being able to keep tabs on them, you also get messages when they get something powerful or become a super race, or wake up a precursor.

~SDC~

My experience is that destabilization was much more effective before the morale/growth cutoff point was nerfed upward from 50%, to 58% I believe. If planets tend towards 50% morale it's easy to destablilize them into the 40's or even worse. With morale leveling off naturally in the mid-high 50's it's much harder for destabilization to have a noticeable effect.
I realize that there was a number of complainers about morale issues, but I really feel that the morale nerf was too strong, if not completely unnecessary. In addition to destabilization being greatly diminished as a tool, it's very difficult to lose an election now, that aspect of empire management has been completely trivialized as well.
But then again, what do I know? :notsure:

Destabilization is extremely useful in trying for cultural victories; anything that gets citizens of other civilizations disenchanted with their own government has a shot at bringing them over to my side.

Also, I think the word "foomed" as used by Dearmad (I know, I know, it was a typo) should be given a meaning and used every day in conversation. It's just fun to say.

Foomed, foomed, foomed.


RR

Foomed --means to be F*****g doomed

LOL.

I agree with Mr. Lucky on the new morale level being a little high. I've not been able to overthrow their governments anymore and help cause an election loss since. Maybe circumstances haven't been right yet, however.

~SDC~

Dearmad
Do you ever lose your *own* elections anymore? I used to have to manage my morale pretty closely to make sure I didn't, now I just ignore it. It's simply not a factor anymore (against 'Bright' A.I.). Destabilization might push me down to 45%-47% on a couple planets but my overall morale is always above 55% without paying it any attention.
Kind of a bummer in my opinion, the taking away of that strategic depth. By the way, did I just make up that 58% figure or did I actually read it somewhere?

I think we have to remember that the AI will lower its tax and spending rates to maintain morale. While it may appear that destabilization is not affecting the AI's morale, you need to look deeper and check on their spending rates to get the full picture too. In my experience, destabilization is a very useful tool to employ if you want to capitilize on an economic advantage over your opponents.

I would like to see diplomatic options to request destabilisation and to share espionage knowledge. The latter should perhaps be automatic if you enter a full alliance with another race.

Lucky,

No, I don't even come close. It's sad. I LOVED that aprt of the game. And I remember reading that 58% or 55% somewhere...

~SDC~

Za H,
Point well taken about the A.I. counter-strategies to destabilization. However what both Dearmad and I mentioned were reduced frequency of a final result: lost elections, not an intermediate result: reduced morale. The frequency of lost elections, by the A.I. or the player, has been reduced by the morale nerf. I'm fairly certain that's fact, not just perception. Yes, there are counters to destabilization, just as there were before the morale cutoff changed. But now they are much less necessary and much more effective.
As I stated, I can pretty much ignore morale, at least on 'Bright', and I'm pretty sure the A.I. can too. The destabilization effects just aren't strong enough to hurt an empire with 58% 'default' morale. Maybe the A.I. uses destabilization even more at higher A.I. levels and morale management becomes a strategic concern again, but 'Bright' isn't meant to be a beginner level with features disabled. And the fact remains that if it is a factor on higher levels, it won't be nearly as much of a factor as it was, and for that I remain bummed.

Dearmad
Sad indeed. Anyone else think that the morale nerf was an ill-advised attempt to satisfy a few whiners who didn't really understand the game mechanics? I apologize for the bitterness, but I too *loved* having to win election through maintaining morale and how powerful economic warfare was using destabilization. I also love the way Frogboy is so ready to respond to user suggestions--just not *that* one. Oh well, maybe he'll adjust it again. :notsure:

I do. But I'm already in the choir on this, huh? Way too many whankies wanting to win on day one. The first time I lost an election and had to really *think* to rally support for my party next election (taxes at 0% wasn't enough!) was just AWSOME!!!!!!!!!

~SDC~

Oh, one more thing I've noticed. I lsot an election once with 60% morale overall. I also think that theelection is more in our favor now at lower morales- I win at 50% or so now every time too.

~SDC~

Dearmad, Mr. Lucky: Although morale is kinda messed up now, all one had to do to pretty much ensure re-election prior to the nerf was dramatically drop the tax rate in the turn just befroe the election. Then you could crank it back up to its formally cruel and unusually punishing rates. I think I'd like to see a return to the pre-nerf morale rules (or at least a switch one could set in game setup) plus some sort of a population memory. They'd remember longer and longer your "gamey" exploits to win their hearts and minds through tax cuts and eventually fail to respond to them at all.

Bob Mercer

Dearmad - just saw your suggestion for the same population "memory" feature in the suggestions thread. Disregard my post.

Bob

MadMerse
While I never tried that technique personally, I do seem to remember a post in which Frogboy said morale could be damaged by jacking around your tax rate. Pretty much exactly your suggestion, too frequent tax adjustments resulted in lower morale for any given tax rate. Did you use this technique often and with success? I could swear I read that somewhere, but maybe I'm mistaken or maybe it wasn't working right.