Why so Evil?

from GalCiv2 Forums
I realise im still new and have heaps to learn but why is evil such a popular choice?

When I started reading the forums a few months ago I remember new players being advised that Evil will always triumph because Good is dumb. Suffering the penalties for good choices with no tangible reward sucked when all the goodies were in the evil basket.

Well I'm 'that guy' when it comes to being told something sucks :) I've worked hard on building on what Good provides and I'm here to say that I think Good is incredibly powerful.

However to make the most of it I find having a friend is really important. Some other race that shares the ethical viewpoint. One of the biggest strengths in my mind is the almost certain alliance with the other Good race. Having a friend like this is very beneficial as you can trade all manner of things without fear of it being used against you. The economic bonuses of trading with a fellow Good empire is substantial.

I do however gift them xeno ethics asap cause I've been bitten in the arse by the alignment shift event more than once :)

Aside from the economic and technological benefits I've found a healthy focus on the defensive aspect of good is a pathway to invincibility in battle. For example:

In my last game a Thalan fleet of 2 battleships and 10+ supporting craft 'ambushed' one of my cruisers on its way to a rally point. I remember my heart sinking at making the mistake, but knowing I had a strong defenses I thought they might be able to take some of the bastards with them.

Then I watched my little cruiser (medium hull) destroy the entire Thalan fleet one by one. Every single shot fired upon them bounced off the Arnorian Battle Armour and Subspace Rebounder. By the end of the battle I wanted to give every crew member of the Strike Cruiser Summer Rain a medal. Even that annoying technician in enviromental.

I've had my fleets wipe out other fleets without taking a scratch before but this was something all together again special. It was not over quickly, but this ship just killed every last tin can that ambushed it with an almost callous disregard for the return fire. I've come to appreciate the firepower multiplier that strong defences can provide.

I select the defence and hit point choices to enhance this aspect. Ships that survive gain xp which provides more hp and defences which is further multiplied by bonuses. Its almost obscene.

Being able to brazenly litter evil empires with influence starbases is so much fun because when they get jack of it and declare war half the galaxy honours the alliance and gangbangs them. And I maintain the moral highground as I 'liberate' the planets. In the name of freedom of course.

Other Evil empires don't help out cause they are evil. Infact more often than not they declare war as well because they smell blood in the water and want a slice of the pie. This makes it a simple task of dividing and conquering the misguided one by one.

You don't know the power of the light side... your destiny lies in free trade and friendship. Vader knew this to be true.
29,814 views 26 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've played all the alignments quite a bit, even good. I mostly play evil for military conquest. However, other alignments can be just as fun. Good is great for diplomatic strategies and neutral is great for influence or tech strategies.

I don't really know why some people are so hooked on evil. It *is* great for military conquest, but other alignments are fun to play for other strategies.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I normally run Neutral, for the research bonuses it supplies, or good. Of coarse, I take every evil choice up till Xeno Ethics, then switch over.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Evil gets the MCC and that is arguably the single best structure in the game, the other evil-only structures are good too (no pun intended). With 100% to overall economy... well you can imagine. Evil does get the biggest benefit out of the morale choices that we see when we colonize a planet. Good gets penalized. So i can see why many would say evil is a sure win.

However, when playing as good, i too have discovered the great benefits of the super defences. You get some nice bonuses without building anything. And i have experienced the euphoria of seeing my single ship take no damage as it defeats and enemy fleet.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Thanks for the responses guys :)

I do agree the MCC is the best structure in the game. However much like in Star Wars, something I was alluding to in my last line, the dark side is quicker, easier and more seductive.

I see the MCC as the Evil version of ethical economic advantage. Good has trade bonuses and several other minor economic advantages that Evil does not. Neutral has the morale bonus (taxes), purchase discount and the automatic terraform.

All these things add up to economic advantage at the end of the day and I think the degree of economic advantage you gain from your alignment choice has a lot to do with how well you apply your ethical background to your strategy.

I find tech trading to be a fantastic source of income. Especially with minor races. Those guys tend to have large stockpiles of cash and a hunger to keep up with the big boys technologically. As a result I leave minor races in peace as they are far more profitable as a seperate power than just another colony. I've even started to go so far as intercede on their behalf in settling disputes or going to war to protect them if all else fails.

So is the dark side stronger? No I think its more easily accessible. Build the MCC -> Profit. With the light side you have to work a bit harder but the rewards can be just as great and personally speaking a lot more satisfying to achieve.

Attempting to play Good with Evil strategies will not work well. I think thats a really awesome thing to see in the game. I think thats the heart of the misconception of Good being weaker than Evil.

As a minor sidenote - anybody know why I keep getting Out of Memory errors since I patched to 1.80g? I have a dual core Athlon 64 and 4 gig of memory so I find this difficult to believe.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
loved the comment about the annoying technician in Environmental. You need to do an AAR/Short Story.
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
As an evil person I must ask you:

WHY SO SERIOUS?

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
@Silphius: I've had the OOM happen to me also since going to 1.80g but only on gigantic abundant, and later game when there's tons of ships floating around. Since I almost always play exclusively in Strategic Mode, I've just turned off the textures I don't need (like planets) and haven't had an issue since.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why evil? Because in large maps it simply is more powerful. The Mind Control Center provides a greater advantage than the sum of all the advantages either Good or Neutral provide. Just look at how many race pick points +100 econ would be worth. It takes 4 picks for +30 econ, so the MCC is equivilent to 13.3 race picks. However, econ is commonly considered to be the most powerful starting attribute, so it's actually more valuable than a raw 13.3 race picks. The artificial slave center increase your military production, including any bonuses to military production (which will invariably be at least +30 from space militarization, galactic warfare and planetary improvements) by 50%. Again, this is massive. Psionic beams are invincible early in the game. And the No Mercy Invasion Center drastically cuts the cost of using mini-soldiers or information warfare each time you invade, which saves a lot on transports. The no cost to upgrade starbase bonus is useful for building military starbase arrays.

It's not that other alignments do not have advantages, and in a few narrow applications they can even be competitive, but for large galaxies going with an alignment other than evil is handicapping yourself. You might be able to win with nearly comparable ease with skilled use of diplomacy and good alignment, but your score is not going to be comparable and the game will most likely take longer.

That said, I enjoy playing good even if I know I'm not playing optimally.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
See ideally you are a Good Race that has traded Xeno Ethics and Good&Evil to the other races of the galaxy, and hope that they research Concepts of Balance/Malice respectively. And that they build the MCC and No Mercy Invasion Center. And that you, being Good and Righteous, must Liberate these worlds from their evil overlords and rechristen these once evil centers into vehicles of Good. And let your Divine Power rain down upon the races that would dare stand in your way with fire and brimstone. Ah yes, nothing better than Righteous Warfare ;p
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
OOOhhh, actually I never thought of that. Is the MCC stackable like econ/tech capitals? If you gift Concepts of Malice to the AI and you both start building it, then you capture the planet they are building it on, do you get the benefit twice? Or is it more like a trade good, once it built somewhere the others have to stop?
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
its like a trade good
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Trade goods can be traded, though. Isn't the MCC a galactic achievment, or what they're called?
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I just meant could it be BUILT twice, or is it a 1 time thing, like diplo translators. I know you can't trade the MCC. I was curious if you could capture one "in progress" and actually build 2.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
No there can be only one.

Has anyone ever seen the AI build one? I woukld love to be able to be good and then capture the MCC. I have just never seen the AI build any alignment specific structures other than the neutrality learning cnter.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why evil? Because of the satisfying crunch of the prey's bones in your jaws, the intoxicating scent of it's blood in your nostrils, and the sound of it's dying breaths in your ears...

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ive seen the AI build the No Mercy Invasion Center before
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Good and Evil doesnt have to come down to religion :)

Just think of it as dicks, not dicks and dicks when they think nobody is watching :P Or you could go with the whole Team America model.

I do think raising the point of economy being an important starting attribute is interesting. I say this because of where Xeno Ethics is situated in the tech tree. Playing to strengths the good aligned race is going to have earlier access to their ethical economy boost.

Though I would be interested to hear how evil players prioritise Xeno Ethics, my impression from observing the AI is an early focus on weapons, industry and the planetary invasion line.

Something I've been thinking about recently is the aspect of time on relative value. 100 BC in the first 10 turns is a great deal more valuable than 100 BC 60 turns in. The thought first occured when I read people dismissing trade as weak as much larger sums can be gained through direct economics to the point of making trade income seem irrelevant.

The advantage I see in trade is how quickly you can set it up and produce a cash flow at a critical time in the game where you are counting every BC and balancing a tight budget. Not to mention the diplomatic advantage...

My roundabout point here is while undoubtedly the MCC is very powerful when looked at in a vacuum (no pun intended) I think there are surrounding elements that should be considered as well. Its kind of like comparing a longbow to an assault rifle. They roughly do the same thing but the time period should be taken into consideration before making a direct comparison.

KzintiPatriarch why do I get the feeling you are paraphrasing a book. Not sure what that book may be though. Just got that nagging feeling I should recognise it.

Please keep the commentary coming :)

Edit: Oh yeah in my most recent game the Iconians beat me to the Hall of Empathy. I was annoyed until the Torians surrendered to the Korx "in the hope they will show mercy"

I laughed at the Torians as instead of surrendering to the Iconians with the Hall of Empathy or myself as the Good Terrans who were allied with them they chose to entrust the future of their people to a race that most likely handed them back to the Drengin with a pink bow.

Then I laughed at the Iconians missing out on the surrender which usually happens to me so it was nice to see somebody else invest all that time and effort for nothing :) The AI does build the ethic structures it just does not appear to as it makes Good and Evil and Concepts of 'x' a pretty low priority to research.
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
KzintiPatriarch why do I get the feeling you are paraphrasing a book. Not sure what that book may be though. Just got that nagging feeling I should recognise it. Please keep the commentary coming
End of quote


I did have in mind this soliloquy of the character Tiger from "Anansi Boys" by Neil Gaiman:

"You must teach the children to fear, teach them to to tremble. Teach them to be cruel. Hide in the shadows, then pounce or spring or leap or drop, and always kill. You know what the meaning of life is? The meaning of life is the hot blood of your prey on your tounge, the meat that rends beneath your teeth, the corpse of your enemy left in the sun for the carrion-eaters to finish. That is what life is. I am Tiger, and I am stronger than Anansi ever was, bigger more dangerous, more powerful, crueller, wiser..."

Kzinti empire2.JPG Sentient species taste better...
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually I came back to the thread because I recalled the book I thought you were referring to.

The Wyverns Spur by R.A. Salvatore and the nightmares Giogi Wyvernspur has about his ability to turn into a Wyvern and the spirit of the Wyvern speaking so disturbingly lovingly how how nice it is to feel "the satisfying crunch of the prey's bones in your jaws, the intoxicating scent of it's blood in your nostrils, and the sound of it's dying breaths in your ears" or very similiarly written words :)

If I knew where my copy has gotten to I'd write it out :)

I do like Neil Gaiman but I have not read Anasi Boys. I'll go write out that I must read it 100 times on the blackboard.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
How did I not notice this post???

Anyways, glad to hear that there is more players out there that play as good. I hope you too will help bring righteous judgement to a very corrupt galaxy.
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Probably because it had evil in the title and you were naturally repelled.

I kid evil players I kid. We can all get along right?

*whispers into his wrist* Inform the fleet to power up weapons and to set condition orange.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Silphius, there is merit to what you are saying theoretically, but in actual practice you can get the MCC built significantly earlier than turn 60, and Good simply can't compete, even if it's economic bonus comes 10-15 turns faster (which is a generous estimate). If you are playing very slow research it may make a differnce I suppose. One exception is if you are going for very rapid conquest or tech victory and are counting on your initial treasury to finance your expenses, going evil if you are leaning good or neutral (and the Altarians are arguably the best for quick tech victory) will zero out your treasury and so is not worth it. In this situation, good is actually a smart call pratically.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well this is probably where my lack of experience with the game is most telling and the fact that most of what I've put forward is theory and only limited practice.

Still it boggles my mind that with the evidence of the ethusiasm and dedication the development team has put into GC2 that there would be such a massive rift in balance on ethics after all this time. To the point where players frequently advise newcomers 'don't attempt to play anything but evil seriously' and that branching out into neutral or good is at best a niche choice or an experimental hobby and at worst a mistake.

That said i'm a stubborn bastard and i'll stick to my guns but it is a bit disheartening to discover what I thought was a challenge to overcome is just a balance issue.

As a refugee from many games that had to be abandoned when balance problems ground down the fun factor and overcame the love of the essence of the game, something akin to fear grips me at such a realisation. I've observed that there is a bit of discussion on the gaming industry taking place in these forums so if anybody cares to discuss it I think there could be productive discourse on the way balance is handled.

I find myself becoming increasingly cynical about the patch driven approach to game balance as hopes of the one true patch to rule them all(tm) turns instead into an increasingly desperate and furtive tale until one can only gnaw off attachment to the game and cast it and hopes of the one true patch into the fires of Mt Doom or fully succumb to its evil.

At this point really large birds appear with the next big thing in their claws.

I don't think theres any degree of malice involved on the part of the developers. I do think theres malice on the part of the companies that hold their purse strings and place pressure on developers to release games as soon as possible. An understandable malice of economic realities.

Because balance issues can be resolved in patches this promotes the release of incomplete games. However this is a business and given that after the game has been purchased any further work on the title in essentially unpaid the patching process is often sabotaged. The developers always have finite resources, resources which need to be working on the next title not 'wasted' fine tuning the last one.

Im not laying this at the feet of Stardock, i'm just explaining why such a a large balance issue this long after release makes me cringe and reconsider further development of an emotional attachment to the game. Perhaps the scars from the last brutal seperation from an otherwise much loved and played game are still too fresh.

Nor am I saying GC2 has been released 'incomplete', that was an observation on a much larger scale. I do have high hopes for the upcoming release of TA but I am afraid to ask if the ethical disparity remains.
Reply #24 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I unno, there's actually a lot more balance than people give the other ethical choices credit for. Best example: Neutral's instant terraforming. The sheer cost of savings from NOT having to terraform those tiles on your own definitely rivals the MCC, if not bests it. But it is an INDIRECT savings, and not one easily seen by the player, even though the sheer economic value of it is immense. Generally speaking, each planet has at least 3 tiles that can be upgraded, at the rough cost of 50BC each, in a Gigantic Abundant map with 900+ planets you are looking at an economic value of over 135,000BC. You are also saving on time that would normally be lost to building these improvements, a commodity not so easily quantified.

There are also ways to use the abilities gained from going Good to achieve massive military superiority. Good Races get strong defensive bonuses (+15 from techs alone) and another very powerful 20% with the Empathic Tactical Center. Using a race like the Krynn, that start with a +50 defense ability, and selecting defense and War Party, a starting defense ability of 90 you can reach a level of 126 WITHOUT a single military resource (and with a standard rate of 5 mil. resources per gigantic map you can see rates hit well above 200). Since Dark Avatar's battle system is configured differently than DL, a strong defense makes for an nearly indestructible fleet.

Finally, Evil is only a powerful alignment if YOU get the buildings, it has very few benefits from the alignment itself. To me that makes that alignment intrinsically weaker as it depends on the defense of worlds/improvements to be beneficial to you. I would actually like to see a higher priority given to the AI to research ethics and its later techs and buildings as this is a component currently lacking in DL and DA (generally, only late game or if you gift the techs to the AI will they proceed).

So, I don't question the power of the Evil Alignment, I use it A LOT myself, just for ease of use but that's not to say that the other choices aren't powerful in their own right, it just takes a certain intelligence and strategy to using them to their potential.
Reply #25 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I unno, there's actually a lot more balance than people give the other ethical choices credit for. Best example: Neutral's instant terraforming. The sheer cost of savings from NOT having to terraform those tiles on your own definitely rivals the MCC, if not bests it. But it is an INDIRECT savings, and not one easily seen by the player, even though the sheer economic value of it is immense. Generally speaking, each planet has at least 3 tiles that can be upgraded, at the rough cost of 50BC each, in a Gigantic Abundant map with 900+ planets you are looking at an economic value of over 135,000BC. You are also saving on time that would normally be lost to building these improvements, a commodity not so easily quantified.
End of quote


That's the main reason I go Neutral if I'm pursuing an aggressive, early expansion strategy. The economic boost and the time-saving of having those extra tiles immediately available is huge for that strategy... especially if you can also manage to get Weather Control for an extra two tiles. It's especially helpful with the more economically-challenged races in TA.

Neutral also has the most flexible diplomacy/manipulation options. I like timing wars on my schedule and not anyone else's, and Neutral (plus trade to boost relations) is the best way to do that. It's also the sneakiest way to role-play "Evil" instead of the more obvious, open alignment choice of Evil. You can stab friendly civs in the back, so they don't see it coming... heh, heh.