I want to try out the heavy defenses of Good, but ...

Morale boost + Neutrality Learning Centers + FREE AND INSTANT upgradable tiles ...

Well, it's just too good to pass up.

Crazael, nice try, but yr 3 points r shot down in flames.

i really don't care what you choose, being evil fits my style of play better, and i usually get the Terraforming tech before i research Good or Evil.

aphrodesiac is actually one of the good trade goods/ galactic achievements that the AI build. Another one is xanium hull plating. They also like to build diplomactic translators....

Yea, I completely agree with this, been playing the highest level for sometime now and can not remember the last time I got one of those specials. All 3 r nice to have but the aphrodesiac is crucial, let an AI have it and they become very, very powerful. Try to conquer the planet it is on at some point.

i really don't care what you choose, being evil fits my style of play better, and i usually get the Terraforming tech before i research Good or Evil.

Good for u. As long as yr having fun, great. I was only pointing out some weaknesses in yr argument.

Another early trade good that they like to build is micro repair bots, but that's not quite as critical.

always do a quicksave just before you turn to an alignment. Then you can at least go back and see what would have happened if.. scenarios..

In every game I've played (about four completion, each playing as one iteration of the Terran Alliance or another) I've always gone neutral. It's the best of both worlds, and the economic bonuses are rather nice. Plus, as it points out in one research update "nobodoy likes Good because they're too high-and-mighty and preachy, and no one like evil because, well, they're evil!" I find that neutral lets you play both sides against the middle as well - sorry Drengin players, but it's just so much fun to watch the evil Yor and the good Altarians fighting over their scraps after the Drengin Empire tries invading your space.

Good can be, well.... a good choice, I mean with the new beta, defences do matter now and it could even be better for a tech victory, and defanantly better for a diplo victory. You get a + with neutral and good civs for your ethical alignment. That added diplo can also keep those neutral and good civs off your back when going for tech victory, so all you have to worry about is how to pick apart the Yor Collective. Stupid robots.

With the forthcoming 1.2 on its way the 'Good' pick will now become even more appealing. Seen as how tactical combat now, to a degree, requires shielding etc because all ships get to fire, you are going to need some defences to withstand the return barrage and a few extra hull points could easily make a big difference between winning the confrontation and coming out as scrap metal

I always play as good. At first it was to make the game more difficult, but now I've grown quite fond of the diplo bonuses so just love playing as good.

As I increase the difficulty of the games I play, I've found that the good bonuses aren't so good once diplomacy fails, but with the new combat system coming soon in 1.2, this should be just the balancing needed to make the 'good' choice (pardon the pun).

I wouldn't pick good just for the extra defenses. You can get the same (or better) bonuses by fully mining 1 or 2 military resources.

That's just a silly argument. 2 military resources are a massive bonus in any game.

And just think, you'd get double the bonus if you got the military resources AND the good defenses.

You could use the same argument against getting the evil weapons, or against the NLCs (obviously with resource mining instead of military mining).

You really ought to make sure you know what you're talking about before saying something is "silly". The same argument can't be used for your two examples.

Evil gives you very powerful weapons pretty early on. It also gives you a building that doubles the economy, another that boosts military production about 50% and another that lets you invade without being charged $$. Plus you can upgrade starbases for free.

Neutral gives you the NLC, free planet upgrades, more trade income and a morale boost.

Good gives you three techs that give slight increases in defenses, another that gives a slight increase in hit points, plus a galactic wonder that gives you a 20% defense increase. And that's about it. And you take several penalties during colonization just to get there.

Those defense boosts aren't important enough to choose "good" over the other two when they're the only real advantage to doing so. If you want boosted defenses that badly, play as Drath (50% defense bonus without having to research anything) and then choose whatever alignment you like.

Good gives you three techs that give slight increases in defenses, another that gives a slight increase in hit points, plus a galactic wonder that gives you a 20% defense increase. And that's about it. And you take several penalties during colonization just to get there.

Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about either.

Firstly, good also has the (alleged) higher chance of surrender. Races get on better with you, its an easier life. I've never been ganked as good. The defences are FAR better than the evil weapons. Expensive, irritating, worthless weapons which tend to get outdated quickly during an arms race. And since when do you need to take good choices to be good? It's what xeno ethics is for. If you can't afford 10k you NEED to look at your economy.

Neutral gets research, all tiles, and some trade routes. No zomg wtf amazing buildings no-one else can get. Just trade routes and research. It's very useful still, arguably the best, just I don't ever need anything it offers, apart from maybe the free morale boost.

Evil is awful. Free stuff yes, but I don't need money. I've already said how useless the weapons turn out in a full fledged supremacy race. And it'll need to be a supremacy race, because you won't have many friends. Why? It practically forces you to be militaristic for survival, and you're still likely to end up at war with too many people.

Boosted defenses simply aren't important enough to be the sole reason to choose a good alignment. It's been proven by experience and by number crunching that defense-heavy fleets don't do as well as firepower-heavy fleets. The advantages of the other two alignments are much better and just about everybody seems to agree on that.

Like I said, if someone wants the defense boost bad enough that they pick good for that reason alone, they should play as Drath instead. Their natural ability gives them more of a defense boost than anything you'd get by choosing good.

No zomg wtf amazing buildings no-one else can get.">

Neutrality Learning Centers. 22 tp research/turn as opposed to the 16 tp research/turn of a Discovery Sphere.

Tell me that this is not a "zomg wtf amazing building".

Hi!
@ Marcathonas

Wow, you really don't know what you're talking about either.

Looking at your metaverse score and your writing, I'd say you're very close to that statement either. Let me prove that.

Neutral gets research, all tiles, and some trade routes.

Those 3 more tiles mean one more factory, research installation and a bank for every planet - or ~20% boost in every paticular branch in just those few turns one needs to build them. Not to mention NLC - almost 90% boost to research over the existing buildings of the time one researches them. And there's also no need to put money in researching two tech branches anymore. Those factors cobined give a huge boost not only to research, but an empire as a whole, as it soon becomes able to build much more advanced ships and much more deadly troops than their opponents. What better ships and troops could be used for I probably don't need to explain.

Statements as "you really don't know what you're talking about " IMO do not belong to a civilized disccussion, even if spoken by an expert. And you for certainly are not one.

BR, Iztok

Boosted defenses simply aren't important enough to be the sole reason to choose a good alignment. It's been proven by experience and by number crunching that defense-heavy fleets don't do as well as firepower-heavy fleets

Um, try the 1.2 beta....you'll see. Defenses MATTER.

Why do people have to be rude? I however would like to thank all of you for your suggestions, input, data, and errata.


Time to bounce.

I enjoy playing all 3 alignments. I've probably played 5 games as Good, 10 as Evil and 20 as Neutral. If the game is about role play then I think you should stick with the one that suits what you're race is about. However if you are min-maxing for me (based on suicidal/no tech trading/conquest only/random map sizes) there is only one winner.

My observations are:


Evil
On tiny maps there is a tendency for quick conquest, in which case Evil bonuses are better than on large maps.
Evil's bonus are good at spending money. They have weapons that need a lot of mp's but a building that creates mps.
You just need a good economy to support evil's strategy. In general if you are going to win as Evil you probably need to win quick... or at least get into an unassailable position quick. I tend to go for invading homeworlds in the first couple of years if I can. The AI has a tendency to stick most of its development into its homeworld in the early years, so if you capture that you've completely neutered their development. Evil with its bonuses is great at going for that early rush.


Good
I only play conquest with no tech trading and so Good bonuses are nerfed. I can imagine if I was going to an Alliance win I might think very differently. On my settings the Good techs are uber expensive to put to use on ships but as the research also adds to all defence you can generate very high def numbers (especially if you play the Drath). There is another big thread about the whole defence vs attack debate. I personally think it is weaker than the other two alignments. The other bonuses often mentioned is "Good races attack you less". With a conquest strategy this can lead to you being able to focus on getting rid of the Dregnim, Korx and Yor early on then being able to pick off the others at your leisure. The problem I have with this is if I can conquer 3 races I'm generally over the hump in any case. All this is doing is buying me time from the other Goodies. However a strong military and the Spin Control centre has the same effect but for all races. So as I said I find Good the hardest (and sometimes therefore the most enjoyable) to play on my settings.


Neutral
For me the Neutral bonuses are huge.
I don't need to go anywhere near one brach of the tech tree. (Terraforming)
I don't need to lose the time building terraforming squares.
I am almost certain to be ahead in research due to NLC.
If I'm ahead on Tech I can get to the important wonders/trade goods first which in turn puts me further ahead.
I can get on OK with both Good and Evil civs which again buys me time to pick off opponents one by one.


If I'm truly min-maxing I would go for Drath... Choose all the evil planatary options I could (up to going Neutral)... Then choose Xeno Ethics with no cost. This seems to me to be the best race/options/alignment path by some distance.
However it is probably not the most fun to play

I think Neutral's bonuses are the most universal and easy to use. Morale, research, more planet tiles; these things will help (alot) no matter how you're playing. You can almost never go wrong by choosing Neutral.

The other two alignments require specific strategies to really take advantage of them. Good can be worth it just for the diplomacy bonus. If you're struggling in the galaxy, it can keep you out war or get you some easy allies for protection, and it really helps in an allieance victory.

I think the best feature of Evil is the free upgrades to starbases. Military starbases are extremely expensive for everyone but Evil. But Evil can freely use them for defense and offense. Military starbases + tiny fighters is almost unstoppable. Or you could go the other way and upgrade tons of influence bases for cheap.

Um, try the 1.2 beta....you'll see. Defenses MATTER.

Yes, but they dont matter as much as everybody feared. Certainly not enough to align as Good for that one reason. Firepower and logistics still matter more than defenses.

Tried the 3 alignments. I did conquer with good and i was whipped with neutral. It really depends on the situation in the galaxy.

Personally, good is not fun for me. I like the quotes for the evil alignment so much! Neutral is a little too powerfull in the long run. What i don't understand is that the neutral AI races never do anything but sit there and wait to be destroyed. They are quite boring...

How do you think you will most likely win?

Alliance Victory --> Good
Technology --> Neutral
Conquest --> Evil

I usually end up going neutral (I like big worlds), but I think all three are well balanced. Good has really great defenses (components, global bonuses, and diplomacy), neutral has the economy and research (PQ, NLC, Neutral Trade) and Evil has POWER (free upgrades, mean projects, and uberguns).

The ethical decisions are really irrelevant... just pick what you want (EVIL). When it comes time to pick alignment, just take the debt. The terms are usually pretty lenient, and would only strain the weakest of economies. If your evil choices will make you unpopular, just try to get to xeno ethics that much faster, and buy your pennance.

Speaking of debt, has anybody actually run NPV (Net Present Value.....compounding interest) on the debt terms offered for a rush-build? I've seen some 15% loans, and most seem to fluctuate between 4% and 8%, but I've seen loans with negative interest rates, That's right, down payment + (payments * number of payments) < Cash now. The game will in some cases charge you less to finance. If only I could find a ____ dealer with that philosophy.

The better relations from being good are a big (if less tangible) bonus. They allow you to develop your military very, very late and get alliances without even having to interact with the race at all (I don't bother trading and have tech trading turned off, yet still make alliances very easily).

The main annoyance to me is that the "special" defences are WOEFULLY understrength compared to the evil weapons because defences in general are cheaper. Looking at arnorian battle armour, for example, you need about 6000 research points to get up to equivalent tech along the armour tree. Meanwhile, to match the psionic shredder, you'll have to spend 24000! The 10% defence bonus and 5% hit point bonus is not enough to make up for this, especially as attack has the advantage over defence in the first place in the later game. 30-50% defence bonus would be more like it! That said, if you play on very slow research like I do, then the special defences can give you a rather wide window where your ships are practically unkillable. With careful management, you can shepherd these ships throughout the whole game so that they REMAIN unkillable thanks to massive numbers of hitpoints, in conjunction with defence.