Are you sure it's not just the specific events you got? Different events affect your alignment by different amounts; it could be that the evil choices you made were really heavily alignment-affecting, and the good ones you made later were less important.

Is there anyplace that would tell me the values of each event? Shtuff like that should be in the wiki.

It's a lot harder to be good than evil and always has been in Gal Civ2. Theres really no point in being good pre and post ethics choice. The small benefits of being good are near worthless compared to neutral or evil.

Hopefully TA will change this, it's one of my biggest annoyances in Gal Civ2 that the ethics (esp post ethics tech choice) are no where near balanced.

Just curious ... how do you find it easier? I have played "good" mostly, but consider it a challenge, like playing at a higher difficulty level. I've been playing neutral and evil in the TA beta (since there is no good race in the mix yet), and have actually been a bit shocked by the level of advantages I'm getting as "evil," both pre-and post ethics tech. With the others, I wish that the alignments were balanced. I would think that they could be different without being so unbalanced.

I don't know about him, but I find that certain good tech can provide you with +35% defense bonus (+5% for 3 techs, +20% from a special good structure), and a +5% hitpoints. This useful if you are skilled at making ships with strong defenses.



I don't think we can expect any major changes. Ethics didn't seem to be on the list of priorities when I managed to get a responce from Frogboy. As such, I'm hoping that we get a no random ethnical events button, like we have no tech trading button, so the problems can simply be ignored.

Compare that to 100% eco bonus and mil prod bonus or free tiles, morale boost and neutral learning centres. Good bonuses are terrible in comparrison.

The only reason to go good currently is for rolepay purposes or perhaps if you were playing 4max opponents and they were all good alignment. There are likely very few other worthwhile reasons.



Ethics is a very influential part of the game so it being balanced should be a big priority.

I just find 4v2 easier than 2v4.

If you start off as good race you can always get away with mostly picking neutral and a few evil choices i ussually never pick a good choice unless it has zero consequence and the rest are too weak to be worth it.

I still think the rewards for the ethical choices should take into account where you are on the scale already. As it is now, choosing the good option is rarely (if ever) as beneficial as the neutral/evil choice. There would be 2 ways to look at it.

1. If you're good already, you should be penalized for deciding on an evil option since that would be out of character or against the ingrained thoughts of the people whereas you should be rewarded for maintaining your "good" standards. On the flip side, if you're evil, picking a good option should be penalized, but choosing evil would be "the norm".

-OR-

2. Since most of the ethical choices involve exploiting someone or something to your gain at the expense of your reputation, it should work both ways. Good races become more evil and get better "rewards" for the evil choices, but evil races would get better rewards for picking the "good" choices, but suffer by looking weak or a goody-goody to their comrades.

I'm sure that would require a lot of code and computer-ese language that is well beyond my peon's understanding of computer speak. But perhaps that would balance it a little more and add some depth to the game relating to the impact of ethical choices.

Try using Notepad to open the files.