Downsides to evil?

from Stardock Forums
I just finished my first game playing as evil. As it stands, it's hard to see why you wouldn't always choose this approach. You get great bonuses when you colonize many of your planets, and you can still get all the "good" techs because someone else will research them and trade them.

Moreover, there's no clear reward for being good. You pass on all the great bonuses, and the evil empire next door picks up the good techs from someone else and builds the Trade Monument!

I think that alignment might be a more compelling feature if a demonic (that's how I was described on the stats page!) empire had more downsides. Not being able to trade for "good" techs would be a start. Perhaps some penalties to trade, or a higher probability that you'll be attacked? Loss of influence in the UP?

Am I missing something? Is there some hidden bonus that comes into play for a saintly empire?
460 views 23 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
AI Empires tend to be less agressive towards good empires, whereas evil empires probably "has it coming" hehe
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Plus the extra trade routes and faster ships that being good gets you... I usually play with 2 Good aliens and 2 Neutral aliens and only the Drengin as evil... more incentive to be good.
Elemental: Reforged
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
The biggest downside I find to "playing evil" is that the interface buttons are harder to see/read than for either neutral or good.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Good races tend to work together against evil races, whereas the evil races tend to battle with each other.
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
The other major downside for an evil empire is one truely obnoxious event that occurs in at least half the games I've played (happened twice in my last game... grumble).

I don't want to spoil the suprise of that wonderful event if you haven't seen it, but it is a very real danger for an evil empire.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, I haven't had the event that mindlar alludes to, so I'll eagerly await that in my next game!

But unless it's a horrible event, I'd still advocate for some of the changes above to better balance the good & evil alignments.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
I'd like to see you win a game with all AI set to Smart/Good and you only Evil civ (Genuis impossible). I tried it once and gave up.

I've noticed that the Good civs react differently to netural/good and netural/evil. Perhaps a better indicator is needed on stats screen.
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
well if the lead game designer says so, then all the "good" options are only there for suckers

Ted, it's very possible to win the game as Evil with genius AI. The key to success is early expansion, focusing on constructors in mid game, then focus on social production in late game. Even when everyone is at war with you, you don't need to have nearly as many ships as AI to keep your own. Just cause AI looks impressive on charts and numbers, doesn't actually mean it's winning.
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
Lame, I got a Gigantic Galaxy game saved before the 1st move is made. It's me (north center) and the Evil/Smart Dregins (middle center) with the other 4 AI grouped in the far SW cornor (bad map design). The first 2 times, I misplayed and the Dregins started conquering my worlds. Even with Love mushroom, my population growth, manufacturing and research lagged theirs. I think I had more planets but was unable to build Defenders & Axes faster than their corvettes could destroy them. Will try this map a 3rd time today.

Wyrenn, unless you can have more than 10 routes, being Good with the extra routes are wasted. Maybe 12 routes is better. SD?

Drank, Brad said Good is dumb. That could be fixed if:
1) Good refuses to trade Good-only Techs to Evil or Netural Civs
2) SD brings back the Good only defensive ship that Hyper-shields gave (1g, 50 HP, def=6, att=2) to replace the Defender
3) Add a social production improvement to offset the pain of being the Good Guys.

Side-note: are there plans to allow the players to remove obsolete ships from the military project list? The military Governor's screen could have a 2nd feature.
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
Kyle, your upgrade idea was first used in Civ 3. I dont think it would work here. Obsolete ships can be traded for techs, gold or goodwill.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
I have often wondered why there isn't a morale penalty for playing evil. After all, tyranny can not set well with one's own constituants.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
Well, that depends on the definition of evil.
To take a "Real-life" example, I personally would say Hitler was Evil (notice the capital E), but still an entire nation followed him and did what he wanted.

So, it all comes down to, what kind of civilisation you have, evil is probably defined by modern man's standards - "Popular" standards, that is.
So, an entire nation "could" be evil, seen by our perspective, but perhaps for them, it's a question of different set of moral codes, or perhaps a "means to an end".

I ramble and ramble, someone stop me :)
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Avitar Frogboy surmised;

"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb. "


Are you related to Dark Helmet by any chance ? ;)

Elrikk
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Razqon said "To take a "Real-life" example, I personally would say Hitler was Evil (notice the capital E), but still an entire nation followed him and did what he wanted."

I agree he was Evil. He was also very charismatic and knew how to milk a "scape goat". But my recollection of history doesn't show an "entire nation" following him. I recall historical reports of lots of underground movements to circumvent his actions. And this was what my point was about. There are always going to be beings that question the "rightness" of their government's action, at least in their own minds. The expression of that questioning has to be different in differing allignments, but there would have to be some expression of it, and I think general morale would have to be affected.

Perhaps the difference in our view points is that I tend to reject "group assesements" like "an entire nation". If I were to accept that George W. Bush spoke for all of us US citizens, then I guess I could agree with your arguements, but since I find many of Bush's arguements fundamentally flawed, I have to insist on being seen as an individual, not part of a mob. I think this "flaw" in my character is why I like your idea of a "second opinion" in the review you are planning.

Elrikk,

When Brad said "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb. " I think he was jesting, even though I have gotten the sense that he LOVES to play EVIL from some of the screen shots he has posted.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top

Lucky Jack,

I knew that (see the wink smiley).

I just made my comment to show him that he was not alone in remembering that quote. Dark Helmet says it in "Spaceballs" if my memory serves.

I'm getting a bit long in the tooth though, so I might be wrong. ;)

Elrikk
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
Jack,
I knew it as soon as I had posted it, Hitler is a bad example to use in this context. I know that although the general populace "seemed" to go along, there where grumblings. 'nough history lessen :-)

As for group assesments, well I think when we talk between races, humans and aliens, well then you CAN talk groups, more or less (there will probably always be dissidents), but the same would apply to "good" empires.
Imagine if you where at war with the Drengins, and your scientist stumbled upon something that could save your race, but you would need to sacrife 10 million to save the lives of 10 billion people. Of course you won't do it, because that would be "evil". Then there Would be dissidents in the good empire as well, saying you are a weak emperor and should be replaces I gather.

Oh, although I am danish, I heartily agree with your assesment of Mr.W.Bush juniour :sniff!:
Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top
Don't feel bad, Razqon. You weren't that far wrong. It's fashionable now to talk about underground resistance to Hitler's programs, but their numbers and effects are greatly exaggerated. The vast majority of the population went along with Hitler, some wholeheartedly, some in resignation, but still cooperating. Hitler wasn't brought down by some underground resistance network, he was brought down by the combined military might of the US, UK, and USSR, which the German's resisted way past the point at which anyone not blinded by nationalism would have recognized it was hopeless.

In GalCiv terms, the "entire nation" did follow him, or close enough for it not to make much practical difference. If I could ever get the kind of cooperation from my citizens in this game that Hitler got from his, I'd be thrilled.
Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top
Roger,

I think you have forgotten about the attempts from within Hitler's organization to bring him down, especially during his last year or two. His top people were plotting against him, and for real. It wasn't just paranoia on his part.
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
Jack,

If you're talking about things like the assassination plot, I wouldn't make too much of that. A bunch of hapless amateurs who fell apart as soon as they discovered the attempt had gone sour. The only "top" person connected with the plot was Rommel, and it's debatable how much support he actually had for the conspirators. Plus, once Hitler showed himself alive and well, opposition to him sank even lower. If anything, the July Plot solidified Hitler's position.

Anyway, the point is, the nation did follow him, even though it's a fairly widespread judgment now that he was "evil." Sure, once he was dead and the war was over, everybody claimed they hated him and opposed his policies and knew nothing about the camps and were only following orders. But while he was in the driver's seat, most everyone went along for the ride. Were there exceptions? Sure! Were they sufficient in numnbers and or influence to noticeably counter Hitler's aims. Nope. Hitler's biggest problem with public opinion had nothing to do with "good" or "evil," but with domestic prosperity. Trying to keep people happy on this issue delayed him from thoroughly converting the economy to war production until well into the thing. So long as the economy was fine and there was plenty to eat, the average citizen didn't care how "evil" Hitler was. So, Razqon's comment about the entire nation following him wasn't sufficiently far off to be called an error. We didn't go to war against the Nazi party, or aginst Hitler and his followers. We went to war against Germany, because enough of Germany was following Hitler's lead that there was no point in fine distinctions.

And I still wish I could get the same degree of cooperation from my citizens in the game!
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
Could Germany have still been considered a democracy? Maybe rather than a Moral drop what is required is a much greater control of the media and the political state.
Hence, I could play as Evil, but I would be limited to an Imperial or Federalist government type, where I could hide or at least limit the impact of my Evil deeds. Once I try to have a more open government then my Evil acts become far more clear and get discussed and highlighted in the media.

Paul.
Reply #23 from Stardock Forums Top
This brings up a point that is missing in GC. Internal propaganda, not on a planet scale, but on an empire scale. There is none. Would this be too much of a side issue to add to a later release of GC, or could it be built into something that would really add to the game.

Lets see. Positive propaganda (generated by me at an expense to my treasury) should have a positive affect on morale. Negative propaganda (generated by other political parties, once the senate is established) should have a negative affect on morale, but where would the other parties get the financing for it? External propaganda (generated by other races at a cost to their treasureis) would have an affect on my empire's morale in a positive or negative manner depending on whether the propaganda was positive or negative.

Some of this may already be part of the "destabilisation" in the game now, but the added dimension of local politics sounds intriguing to me.

I would be particularly interested in hearing from Brad about what his views on this are.