Limitations of "factions" or "affinities"

[BlaneckW]

What I probably like most of Alpha Centauri would be related to strategic depth and the technology tree; the possibilities regarding how the game may be played. AC basically has four different branching paths on the tech tree, and you can approach things differently every time you play - even just with regards the beginning game there is strategic depth. Sometimes I only play the beginning.

Of course, just being able to do things differently all the time is not important to me by itself (choose a different "affinity"), that should just a byproduct of the strategic depth of the game.  Trying to create replayability by merging the factions/affinities (university/supremacy, gaians/harmony, militant/purity) function with the tech tree like in Beyond Earth does not immediately suggest strategy to me.  It doesn't suggest anything at all to me other than gimmick.  They use words like "play style", but that hasn't been expanded on.

(click to show/hide)

I do not think the other Civ's have as much strategy. For a Civ game, it would just be whether to take the time to research the dead-end cavalry tech for a temporary boost in military, go republic or monarchy, etc, but it hasn't much depth or importance in my opinion.

On AC I might be good enough to win regardless of circumstances (I doubt the AI can kill me), but regarding the strategic possibilities available on how to approach the game, it is possible that I may still not really know what I am doing. Based the possibilities alone, I could be doing things completely different, that might be more optimal.

For that reason, even if Kyrub hadn't just done an update of the AI, the game would not be dead to me. This game will never be dead for anyone who wants content and depth and not just something "new." If you approach it that way, I am not certain that the content of AC actually runs out. The expansion, which actually offered more "content", I do not play, because I think it harmed the strategy. That being said, I like the real-world parallels of the original's factions more than anything mods or the expansion might offer, even while i consider the factions feature over-rated.

I probobably don't care as much as other people whether a game has "more than one right way of doing things," which is just another way of saying that you want more shiny baubles. Other people like the number of factions and such, but these could just be turned into government choices if not for their attachment to the story. And we all know by now that the Chinese Legalist faction (Hive) is the strongest anyway, from play-throughs and tests. You can play another faction but it is just a handicap. Morgan and University can probably research about the same (you'll get their research after Vassalizing them); the game didn't flesh out the Gaian option enough, and the military factions are probably not the best option in the long run.

So I consider the Faction feature over-rated (in it's strategic depth) other than teaching me Chinese history. Beyond Earth will be expanding on the Gaian option, but I don't care about Beyond Earth, or it's affinities (factions) function which it has bizarrely integrated with the tech tree, unless it offers the depth of Alpha Centauri.

[Lord Avalon]

Er, not sure why spoilered?

I don't know why you think "more than one right way of doing things" just means "you want more shiny baubles." To me that says more options on how to play the game. It'd be boring if there's only one "right way."  Also factions, to me, are an important part of the story, and their squabbling makes for more interesting gameplay. Civ leaders not liking you because you chose different government types (or other civics) just doesn't have the same feel to me as Santiago accusing you of exploiting Planet for wealth, or Morgan disparaging your planned economy, etc. Also, the conflicts of the different faction philosophies meaning that eventually someone's going to declare vendetta for your social engineering choices feels different than playing against civs.

[BlaneckW]

Er, not sure why spoilered?

I don't want to scare people off with wall of text.

I don't know why you think "more than one right way of doing things" just means "you want more shiny baubles."

I imagine that it does for some people.  I tried playing Gaians, their mind-worm advantage peters out mid-game.  And then you are stuck with energy-efficient pacifists who will have a hell of a time winning the war.  So they sort of aren't an alternative to Yang - except as a handicap or a challenge, or because you are twelve and fascinated by mind worms. 

Unless they pay an extraordinary amount of attention to it in Beyond Earth, they're not going to get factions which are ultimately balanced there either.  And of course there are only three of them.  That is why I think it is more important to have interesting internals like the tech tree than it is to have a factions system (except for people's attachment to story), which is, gameplay wise, replaceable with a more interesting civics system.  But we have not seen evidence of a civics system in Beyond Earth.

The Alpha Centauri expansion would have been better served by developing an option to transform/develop your faction into an aquatic one as a strategic option, rather than just including a "pirate faction."  Similarly, Gaians might be a more plausible alternative to Yang if they could give up their pacifism (and if the game had expanded on psi/mind-worm options, which Beyond Earth does).

So when they talk about affinities, what that means to me is a restriction on strategic options in any one game.  Your options are narrowed down.  AC Social engineering certainly wasn't as expanded on as it should have been, but the concept is still there.  You can change and develop into different strategies across a single game, though they put artificial limits onto the factions, like Morgan can't decide to become a Planned economist after all.  Yang, on the other hand, can decide to use Free Market for awhile, increase his research.

[Yitzi]

I imagine that it does for some people.  I tried playing Gaians, their mind-worm advantage peters out mid-game.  And then you are stuck with energy-efficient pacifists who will have a hell of a time winning the war.

Yeah, Gaians don't have a substantial late-game military advantage.

However, as the game goes on, PLANET can (depending on modding) become very important due to ecodamage, EFFIC is of course more important as the game goes on, and fungus gets better as compared to other terraforming.

With ecodamage modding to make PLANET relevant, and a slight boost to fungus production, Gaians are probably strongest in the late-game.

Yang, on the other hand, can decide to use Free Market for awhile, increase his research.

He can, but it's probably not worth it because it doesn't do very much for him and comes with the same large downsides as for everyone else.

[BlaneckW]

He can, but it's probably not worth it because it doesn't do very much for him and comes with the same large downsides as for everyone else.

If you happen to want to run it, you just staple everyone before switching.  Then the drones don't matter.

[Yitzi]

He can, but it's probably not worth it because it doesn't do very much for him and comes with the same large downsides as for everyone else.

If you happen to want to run it, you just staple everyone before switching.  Then the drones don't matter.

Try playing with ecodamage mods, and I think you'll find that the PLANET penalty alone makes it not worth it.

Also, unless you're ICSing like crazy (which has its own issues for an energy-focused strategy) or at war with everyone, the loss of commerce from stapling will probably have a larger effect than the +1 energy per base from running Market as Yang.

[BlaneckW]

You're not supposed to trade with the other factions, you're supposed to eat them.

[Buster's Uncle]

Yang is all stringy.  Deirdre tastes of strange spices.  I could go on.