Thanks for your responses, appreciated
'How much better ?' Mmmm, i like to have enough of an understanding that i could (if i ever had time) write a small guide on how-to-beat-suicidal-in-your-2nd-game and have that be clear, yet flexible
Apparently i'm ranked 48 presently, which seems amazingly high considering. I assume that means the community is smaller than some other games, but that should also make it friendlier, are these both so ? I would expect to find myself good, but not top level, with a very good technical understanding, but missing some of the artistic peculiarities of gameplay.
I would say anyone coming from, say a decent Civilization background, should be able to beat suicidal (small) on their 2nd game, with 1-2 days research on these boards before starting, the 1st game just sandboxing an understanding of the pecularities of actually playing in this game. It also seems i can do the early decision maths not in mil/soc/res/pop but in Turns*Worlds, which i find much easier to guestimate. I like the difficulty level actually, it's not unreasonably hard, but is also seems it could be unforgiving if you let it get to far ahead.
I finished my 4th game, 92,000 score (small) and started a 5th, probably my last small for the moment. As per your suggestion i might move up, but not to gigantic, maybe large first. I remember hitting the wall of micromanagement in gigantic and want to build up, rather than go to far to fast. Also i'm worried about how when i move up the 1st 5 turns will change from Buy to Build and if i remember correctly there was alot of maths to work out the optimal choices. I might get stuck unable to decide and flip-flopping rather than measuring, in order to avoid work. On a small universe you can play it by ear and just buy 2-4 colony ships and maybe a constructor as needed.
I enjoy how there is alot of inobvious detail that comes out only as you play. Pay #1 to make war on the alterians and get bonus wars for free. I noticed this playing the alterians, found out how useful that superability is and how useful wars that you're not a party to are. They taught me that taking advantage of other people's wars, jumping in late and gobbling the planets/resources as someone else clears the way is an important tactic, just as the previous post says. A game winning mid game tactic i've used to go from last place to top-5 in my games so far infact, followed up by large & psionics to finish the push. It's nice to have several such possible-but-not-quite-overpowered options. I hope they don't over-nerf too many in future
I would never have considered heavy diplomacy important without that inital game. Fit a constructor module onto a small or tiny hull rather than cargo and save money. There are some holes, but for the complexity of options available those are relatively minor and the complexity enables this wonderful series of discoveries.
I think from my last game i've discovered that scoring and winning may be different things and that starting a game with one objective will not automatically achieve the other. I think i may go down the play-to-win rather than play-to-score road for now. I think it's within my ability, play-to-score seems, well, much more technical and less open to interestingly playable strategies.
I should probably think about what empire at somepoint as well, rather than just an empire of 1
Thanks again,
Rexpen.
