![]() ![]() The other three are pretty much depending on what kind of game I'm playing. Third and fourth picks are always the two path-specific ones (Engineered Evolution + Evolutionary Mastery, Mind over Matter + Transcendence, or The Flesh is Weak + Synthetic Age).ĭepending on how far into the game I now am, I'll either get Defender of the Galaxy as #5 or #6. For my second pick I get one of One Vision, Consecrated Worlds, or Mastery of Nature, depending on my empire. On easier difficulties / crisis strengths, it's certainly not necessary, though.Īs a general rule of thumb, I pretty much always get Technological Ascendancy as the first pick. Depending on your crisis strength settings, the endgame crisis fleets will have a fleet strength of 1million+, and there is just no possible way for your fleets to compete with that, without Defender of the Galaxy. ![]() (5 worlds at x0.5, 10 worlds at x1.0, 20 worlds at x2.0 and so on, rounding up so that x0.If you're playing on a harder difficulty, like Grand Admiral, then the "Defender of the Galaxy" ascension perk is an absolute must, no question whatsoever. scaling with the habitable worlds multiplier. ![]() The 10+ worlds requirement for AI empires takes these settings into account by I see two alternative solutions, one conservative and one radical. I am very inclined to attribute this to the 10-world rule not taking the habitable worlds settings into account. I play almost exclusively with x0.25 and 0 guaranteed habitable worlds, for game performance and micromanagement reasons, and I cannot recall ever having seen an AI empire ascend psionically, genetically or mechanically. If you reduce the setting from 2 to 0, the AI will at the same time go from needing 7 new worlds to needing 9.Ī direct consequence of the second and third points is that AI ascension empires become much, much rarer in game settings with low habitable worlds multipliers and few or no guaranteed habitable worlds. The number of guaranteed habitable worlds setting also has no such self-balancing effect.Similarly, if the habitable worlds multiplier is raised to a high number, AI ascension empires should become much more common. If the habitable worlds multiplier goes down, so does the chances of reaching 10 worlds - for every AI empire in the game (barring Void Dwellers). The habitable worlds multiplier setting has no such self-balancing effect.This gives a certain stability to the prevalence of ascension empires in the game - if you reduce the number of chances at ascension, the size of each chance goes up at the same time. When the number of empires goes down, the expected number of worlds per empire goes up - and so does the share of ascension empires. The latter may actually be in line with the intended design.I suspect this is the intended design and unlikely to change, even if I disagree with it.Ī secondary effect, however, is that the 10+ worlds requirement directly ties the frequency of AI ascension empires to the habitable worlds multiplier setting and the number of guaranteed habitable worlds setting, as well as to the number of empires (relative to the galaxy size) and the number of guaranteed habitable worlds. Considering how strong the ascension path perks are, the 10+ worlds requirement is an artificial dulling of the AI. In other words, this limits the frequency of AI ascension empires (on top of AI empires being less likely than human empires to pick an ascension path due to the AI's random selection of ascension perks). The primary effect is that AI empires are prevented from picking an ascension path before they have grown big enough, even if they meet the other requirements and are ethically inclined towards them. ![]() AI empires are currently scripted to not pick the psionic, genetic or mechanical ascension path perks unless they possess 10+ worlds. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |