Influence of tech-speed on the all-x approach and something else ...

Big maps are easier?

I always found on small maps it was very easy to take out a civ really early and then you start the game essentially with two homeworlds against everyone else's one.

Bigger maps with adundant everything involves more, and thus more opportunities to score points as you go.

But bigger maps handicap the AI more, because it has to handle exponentally growing more options, the matrizes get bigger and thus the AI tends to make more errors the bigger maps get. It has more or less the same computing power at hand (maybe linearly growing computing power since you take your time, too) but the problem grows nonlinear.

I remember one big-shot stating that he could not adapt to tiny maps and that they were much more difficult than smaller maps. (And I never managed to conquer a homeworld early on on tough difficulty. I am always a little bit behind military-wise.)

Until Brad says something concerning the map size and the AI computing time consumption, I am eagerly awaiting input on question #1 and #2.

1. Fast tech is preferred for an all factory approach because even though the AI can get even MORE techs, there are some techs that are just vital you need as soon as possible. How long does it take to research planetary invasion on very slow tech with an all factories approach? Answer: too long to ever let you be a threat 90% of the time. A good colony rush CAN overcome this disadvantage, but is really only available on the largest maps typically.

2. Yes, after I have won the game, to increase my score. However, going that high is not usually the most competitive approach because the increased cost doesn't offer enough increased performance in a min/maxed empire. However, many approaches can work - and if going higher up the manufacturing tech tree works for you, go for it.

3. You do get higher scores for playing with more planets. The most planets available are on gigantic/abundant maps. Because the metaverse penalizes you for every game submission, the best way to get a high score easily is with a few high scoring games. Personally I don't have the time or attention span to enjoy those very large games, so I stick with mostly smaller maps. My scores have suffered as a result - and that is a trade off you need to consider. Personally, I think fun is more important than score.

Also, I find the game to be more difficult on the smaller maps because with fewer resources if you make a mistake the consequences are magnified and harder to overcome. I like to make the game more difficult because it is the continuing challenge that keeps me coming back. Perhaps others find smaller maps easier, it just isn't my experience. If you can play an easier game with more potential for higher score AND avoid metaverse penalties... well that is pretty much the reasons the top players play this sort of setup.

Not, mind you, that the top players couldn't also rock the smaller maps. But, they wouldn't BE the top players if they played smaller maps because of how the metaverse works. It's kind of recursive that way.


Hope that helps,
- Wyndstar

A question to all you really good players with 50-100 metaverse wins. Do you always use either an all labs or all factory approach because of the way the game is economy works? Is it better to go all factories or all labs?

Personally I don't always use an "all x" approach because I like variety and inventing new challenges for myself. That being said, even when I build a mix of buildings my sliders are almost always x/x/0 or 0/0/x... its just when I use a mix of buildings I "turn off" a lot of the tiles in my empire at any one time. I do indeed play this way as a function of the way the CURRENT economy works.

Looking at some of the "New Tech Tree" ideas and buildings the SD team has let us see I think they are doing a good job of mixing up "all-x" in the next expansion. Having buildings that can produce both tech and manufacturing points, for instance. It almost appears to me as if the new Thalans ALWAYS use an all-x strategy because of their buildings. Personally, I love that change, the Thalans have been my favorite race for a very long time.

If they change around the buildings and tech trees, all that has been written on these strategies is probably going to become mostly obsolete. That's a good thing - now you will need different strategies with different races - how fun!!!! (Lots of blathering love for how SD is changing the game here.... deleted for concission) Will the Iconians still suck? Will some races have such an industry advantage that all factories is the strategy you always use with them? Will some races (Torians) have an actual use for moral buildings?

The options are amazing. I can't wait to see if the changes live up to my minds eye of how all of this will effect meta-strategy. I have high hopes given SDs high quality track record. Good test playing will also help us give them good feedback on balancing.

Also - on my first post - I don't mean to suggest that top players don't also have fun on large maps. I don't have as much fun on large maps. To each their own. If you enjoy large maps more, play on large maps. If you enjoy smaller maps more, play them. Or put the generator on random. My overall point is I think playing for fun is better than playing for score. IF you want to play for score - Gig/all abundant/vf tech/suicidal games is the way to go.

- Wyndstar

Wyndstar, thank you very much for your detailed answers. They were a great help for me.

Concerning the next expansion ... you really made me look forward to the release. Maybe, in a weak moment, I will pre-order and partake in the beta-testing.

Again, thanks.

I have always thought that even though it is very inefficient to have half factories and half research because of the broken economy, that just means you have more money in your treasurey because you aren't producing as much. Also, even though very inefficient, half labs and half factories on your planets does make you more flexible. I have tried the all labs approach and it can be very difficult to get up and running since you can never be above 25% in production. I am somewhat interested in the all factories approach and was wondering which strategy is more effective.

I like the all-factory approach. Concerning research, I just think of it as R&D-departments in the companies. And I like the fast construction of social stuff. That really is a crucial factor, sometimes (especially with trade goods and wonders).

An all-X-strategy does not do any wonders and you still need the economy to sustain it. The downside is lost flexibility, but on the positive side, you save quite a number of tiles because a smaller number can now produce enough stuff so that all your taxes can be spent. And you save some micro-managing, because there is no need to reflect on the question wether you need additional research or additional factory power. Yet, you sometimes do not need a lot of factory output and would be glad for some additional research, or the other way round. That is when you will miss the flexibility.
But I guess, that does not apply to really good players, because really good players play in a way that they are not faced with a homegrown situation they do not like.

If GalCiv2 would be a perfect game, this missing flexibility would be punished in the game, because in real life, the ineptitude to adapt is always the harbinger of your end. But GalCiv2 is not a perfect game, only the best game existing.

I'm not sure I follow how it works??

I have read on the wiki that at 33/33/33 then Labs are used only to a third of their potential. And factories only to 2/3rds if they are also building a ship. BUT, if you have a project underway and then you build a ship the project suddenly requires more time. So some of the output must have been redirected anyway?

And if I set my sliders to say x/x/0 I get zero research. But if I then focus my planet on research I get nice high research from the labs. But I though focus was supposed to convert social/military output to research. Clearly I am missing something. I am trying search for a good explanation, but if anyone knows where one is I would be grateful.

The other reason for using very fast tech is that scores are not normalized for the affects this has on your empire (the research score effectively is normalized, since I think you are just getting points for RPs spent) so it can be a huge boost pointwise. This is especially true because you can earn many more points in the first three years of the game than you can the rest of the years.

I was the one having troubles on a tiny, suicidal map. I'm used to 900 planets, not ~15 with 9 AIs, and I hadn't played anything smaller than large in more than a year. It was enough change that the AI got too far ahead of me on tech and started making ships I couldn't destroy, despite taking down one AI almost immediately. This is a good way to change the game around and make it fresh. I think I probably still prefer the large map size, for fun, over all other sizes though.

dantubb, that focused research isn't coming from your labs, it's coming from your factories. If you save your game (so you can reload), and destroy your labs, you should see the same research numbers.

Hmm... I havn't had this problem. If I devote one tile to economy on each world, I can run at 100% the whole game and still make a pretty penny.

I've also found that focusing on production, I get nearly the same build speed as when I used a 50/50 approach. I'm usually just a turn or half turn behind my usual.

No shame in that. I find tiny maps with max opponents to be the most challenging game myself. One mistake and the AI can blitz you, out tech you, or worst of all - decide to gang up on you and take you out in just a few turns. Problems with "escorting" troop ships hurt the AI less because their transports are only in space for about a turn with everything cramped together. Maybe some people find this setup as easier than a gigantic map, but that has never been my experience. Is it more fun? Well, its harder and I'm sadomasachistic, so for me its more fun




It's more wasteful (of tiles and upkeep) than a pure all X approach, but retains flexibility and is more of a traditional approach. Say I have a planet with 5 tiles dedicated to production. I might build:
3 Industrial Sectors
2 Discovery Spheres

(I rarely use the top buildings, but I choose these just for example purposes).

If I split my sliders 33/33/33 I get:
24 manufacturing points, 12 technology points.

If instead when I want to produce things I go x/x/0 I get:
36 manufacturing points (with up to 9 tech points on non producing worlds)

Or, when I want to research I go 0/0/100 and get:
36 technology points (with up to 9 factory points on non research worlds - rare)

So I focus turn by turn to get the most out of what I need at any point. This system is NOT as good as all-x by a long shot, and it wastes both tiles and upkeep. However, my point is that even when I build mix buildings I still always focus my sliders on a given turn depending on what my empire needs. I don't trickle research, I get what I need when I need it, and otherwise focus on getting my empire up and running through production. At any point close to half of my producing buildings are "off". This strategy almost always eventually turns into all factories, because eventually I finish all of the tech tree that I will want for a game, and then I plow down all of my labs.

Its just my play style, not some super secret strategy. Hope that explains a little better.

- Wyndstar

Oh yeah, I was getting the gang up on me and blitz thing by the top two AI empires....And I had no depth to retreat into. With just one, I could have gone the swapping a planet back and forth route, but two was just too much! The whole thing has a much more tactical feel; and it plays out as like a completely different game. I felt the suicidal bonuses where magnified even more, giving the AI more advantage than they do on the really large maps. I think the tiny VS gigantic map difficulty comparison might be significantly modified by the difficulty level. It might just be what I am used to though.

On a larger map, I would have just started swapping the border planets back and forth, slowly catching up techwise with planetary invasions. It was definitely a change, as I can pretty much knock down the AI on the larger maps at my leisure, but many of my optimizations don't work on a tiny map.

I should also say that I think very fast tech is much harder than very slow tech games. When I first went to gig games I was playing slow tech and worked it up incrementally to very fast. Wyndstar might be able to comment on whether he thinks this is true for small maps, having a lot more experience with them...

BTW I should add that it was fun to have the AI actually beat me.

So the all X approach is to literally build only factories and focus some planets to research? That actually works?

Yup. It works because of an I believe unintended flaw of the galciv2 economy and the focus mechanic.

So the word is in that larger galaxies are easier than smaller galaxies!!

I beleive what our number 1 metaverse player says!!

Also, with the way approval and population growth works, you would be a fool to keep your average approval rate at anything but 100%, 41%, or 21% depending on if you want your population to grow fast, grow at a normal rate, or not grow. Either adjust the tax rate to make not much money but grow twice as fast, make a crap load of money and grow at an average amount, or make even more money and cease population growth.


As great as this game is, there is plenty of room for improvement. Perhaps in galciv 3 we can get all of the factory and research out of our buildings at all times!!! What a concept!!!

For all factories, you actually don't build factories that much. You just build a starport, have 50% military bonus and industrialist and churn out ships. You only build factories on the planet with the most bonus tiles to churn out needed trade goods faster.

Very slow works better with all factories because with all factories you pretty much rely on the tech you start with.

Very fast works better with all labs because on larger galaxies you're trading techs for planets and the faster you get tech the faster you can trade for the planets. On smaller galaxies very slow tech works better for all labs because you have more time to establish trade routes and buy peace before the war machine comes in. However, with slow tech and small galaxies you might be building labs too fast for you to research the next lab tech before you're done building labs for the two or so planets you have so average or so is probably the best.

With all labs most of the time you don't actually build anything, you trade for it. With all factories you mostly don't do a lot of research, you rely on the techs you start the game with(You start with a custom race that has sensors and Super Adapter, and spam colony ships and a lotta survey ships).

I agree that larger is easier than smaller but it's by no means linear. By that I mean it's nowhere near that twice as big is twice as easy, it's far more subtle than that.

I think it's as much that larger is different from smaller and that ways of doing things in large games don't work as well in smaller games. This also works in the other direction as well, those that play small maps may find that it's not necessarily trivial to play a larger map.

However with this said I do think smaller is a bit harder than larger but nothing that's insurmountable. If you are a good player in large galaxies then you will be a good player in smaller galaxies (and vice versa) even though it may take a bit of time to get used to. I actually think it's more difficult to play good instead of evil than it is to play small over large.

What about governments like Star Democracy? Wouldnt being at 41% cripple you?

Why all you do is pay attention to election week and raise your approval just for that one week!!!Apparently, if taxes are really low for one week, the citizens will forget the other weeks of the year of super high taxes!

The game's economy, espionage, influence, and morale systems all need some improvement.

Ah! I knew i forgot something. Thx for reminding me.
That really needs to be fixed much to easy to abuse.

I don't know that I agree with that. I think there is more than one way to crack this egg. I actually build quite a few factories with the all factories approach and run very fast tech. My goal here is to skip through techs to grab enough innate bonuses to float my economy. Basically running to the other extreme.



I think that is a really important point. What do you think is the effect of tech speed on difficulty? And do you think that it needs to be considered in the context of galaxy size as well, as I suspect?

I do suspect playing a tiny, sparse DA galaxy with 9 AI opponents on suicidal with very fast tech as a good, non-Altarian race is the hardest possible setting (assuming you disallow tech treaties/tech whoring, as Wyndstar has shown that, with all labs, is very effective!). Largely because there are very limited options for dealing with multiple AIs coming after you when you only have one or two planets...Of course, having said this, there may be some very narrow approaches (targeting specific techs, etc.) that turn this into a much easier game.

LOL. If only that meant:

1) That I actually was the best player...I'm pretty sure I'm not.
2) That I could never be wrong!

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go

To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar
To try when your arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far

To fight for the right
Without question or pause
To be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star

The Impossible Dream (includes MP3)

Usually on my planets I build a couple of factories to build projects faster. Then with those taken care of I build moral projects (so I can later raise taxes) (I usually have 100% on all of my planets) and banks. That way I make a lot of money so I can afford to buy projects and ships quickly and rapidly expand. With the remaining spaces I build labs.

I'm not all that good, but this strategy has worked on the levels I've played. Just thought I'd put in my comment is all...you don't have to listen to me.