Ha! This reply certainly has a familiarity to it, from our last encounter. This time though, there's no ambiguity, you do like to be very sure about stuff don't you - like "efficient" can absolutely only equal "quick conquering".
Unless I'm a lunatic as you put it, and my judgment simply cannot be trusted, then *efficient* in this context does not exclusively refer to "quick conquering", and is not what I had in mind either.
I mean efficient in terms of micromanagement. An easy, lazy type of play if you will, but still almost guaranteed win. I think the word *compact* should have hinted to my mindset here. A single star and planet, and about turn 100, when the AI begins to get pesky, you're basically unstoppable (all their attempts bounce off, and you're free to build your empire. Mostly).
And BTW, getting androids this early is part of what makes you unstoppable. It's an integral part of this particular setup, so your criticism does not apply. Not everyone plays that trans, telephatic, feudal style. It should go without saying.
You have to redefine "efficient", exactly. In terms of micromanagement too. Its very easy with benchmarks, actually. If races A and B utilizing one star and planet, in a way of easy, lazy type of play, but race A is perfectly unstoppable from turn 0 and already won with finishing screen under given settings from it by the time race B only supposedly become a "basically unstoppable" - race A is strictly better that B in terms of effectiveness. Because race A can research Androids in turn 120, and
finish game the same turn, but also
its can already finish game without them way prior. While race B only
can research Androids at that turn 120 and still
had to work all the way later. Problem is that race B is offer no advantages over A. The stuff about some player dont like to play it or so doest change it. See, you basically answering a question "whats the race you do like to play" instead, while actual question is about "best race". And its obvious derailing.
" And BTW, getting androids this early is part of what makes you unstoppable." - thats really disastrous. 1 - its not any early, as the proposed race is horrible (creative from prewarp, -BC; no production overall etc). 2. - preconstructed races are already unstoppable on this setting if played right, and they dont even have to get androids to reach it. To write something like that you had to skip all the reading bout this game that come in last 20 years. While there is nothing bad in it on its own, its weird you decided to drop that habit right now, and not only read some odd thread, but decided to "share knowledge" in it, thats what puzzle me.
"Not everyone plays that trans, telephatic, feudal style. It should go without saying." - its not about playing something or not. Its about pretty certain question of whats better
, not about what somebody personally like
The way you doing it now its:
suppose there is some thread bout skis, people discuss Rossignol and Madshus and why one's peculiarities should make its better than other. Than somebody
come and say "I just dont like skis, they are not fun, i can do the same distance by foot, its slower, but it work too. Not everyone use skis style. It should go without saying" .
Sure, but in this case there is little sence to drop into thread with that "breakthrough idea". People who use skis already know how to pass distance barefoot, its somebody
, who dont know about skis, not reversed. Its somebody
, who cannot contribute there.
I don't know what you mean by "negation", but you don't simply beeline Androids, as I've alluded to. You need the optimal order which will enable you to research a very high science tech very early. In short you get Labs first, then auto factory, farms, soil/cloning center - then you start towards supercomputer, and you stay on that division until Android Farmer/Scientist/Worker.
Of course you have to know to utilize the techs you get along the way, to further bolster your research and production output.
By negation i meant phrase like "In vanilla moo2 optimal research order is not
to beeline to androids". So it both utilize the needed words and the same time is true. Player dont need anything above nuclear missiles to win AI there. AI is that bad. If you planning to do androids just because you like it, while you know its not needed actually - its misleading to others to claim it as "good way". If you do not realize it, and thinks you need androids to win - you managed to skip even basic knowledge about production races yet. That doesnt mean that player cannot win AI the way with androids. Surely player can do, but its true roughly about any tech in game, and there is nothing particularly special in androids in this sense. And its true essentially due to AI being so bad, that one even can research androids from prewarp with horribly designed race that miss even basic knowledge about how to buld effective race, and still reliably win. As you dont actually need anything above preconstructed races and nukes to win AI.
"And BTW, getting androids this early" "
Im slightly miss the timeline there. First one should be about that odd turn 120 with androids and "This without even expanding yet
". Common prod races have many colonies already that turn with strong research already, and also
can research androids that time if it would been of any actual need in reality. So i dont get thats the novelty here is. That its a one planet strategy instead? And goal is "to get to androids playing from one planet as fast as possible from pre-warp"? Then its not even close to be a suited race for this goal. And dragging it to question of "Best race" is pure lunacy ofc. As its can be named "best" only if you decide not to use all the better ones.
" You need the optimal order which will enable you to research a very high science tech very early. "
What is "very high science very early here"? Its not turn 120 i think? And its even not an optimal way for a race you provided.
"Of course you have to know to utilize the techs you get along the way, to further bolster your research and production output."
Im really lost here. You mean that players (oh), actually have to build first a buildings they researched to get an output from them? That info doesnt really seems to be fresh even for 1996 then.
Its wrong to answer "this is race i like to play" on a question "whats best race setup". If that race is not best, its simply misleading. If it best - its still correct only accidentally, as you actually answering some other question nobody asked you about, so its misleading too.
Its also wrong to answer "this is race what is best under my own rules, as i ban all other more powerful races" on a question "whats best race setup". If that race is not best (overall), its simply misleading. If it best - its still correct only accidentally, as you actually answering some other question nobody asked you about, so its misleading too.
Seriously, you seems to even skip reading https://www.gog.com/forum/master_of_orion_series/moo2_ai_playing_stuff
yet, as it seems im already redundantly rewriting some parts of.