Absolutely not recommended. Seriously. You will regret reading this. If you think this is sarcasm, you are wrong.
Back when mom bought our first real computer (it ran Windows 3.1 but did not have a CD-ROM or a sound card), I played "Master of Orion," a 1993 game described as "4X": explore, expand, exploit, exterminate. It is a space strategy game where you build an empire of star systems, build a fleet, interact with other races, create alliances, go to war, research technology, etc. etc. You win by earning 2/3 votes of the population (which is made far easier if your empire constitutes 2/3 of the vote) or by destroying your competition.
I start playing this again after I stumbled upon a community of people that still play and have taken it to the extreme, so to speak. They've played this game so many times, they can usually beat this game on the "Impossible" setting, they know certain exploits (and some refuse to use them even when others think their use is fair game), and they keep playing not necessarily to win but to see how the computer's AI works with each race of aliens. There are a handful that are creating an unofficial patch that will correct some of the computer's AI issues.
So, like a fool, I thought it would be fun to play again. I have no interest in joining this little community--one video game addiction at a time, if I can help it--but I found it all fascinating and wanted to reminisce by playing the game.
Here is where this post takes a turn for the worse. Non-gamers, avert your eyes.
I started small, literally: I played in a Small galaxy on the lowest difficulty setting against four opponents. I played as the Psilons, who research technology at a much faster rate than any other race, and are largely considered to be the best if not overpowered alien race. This game ended quickly with a win.
My second game was a Large galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents, still as Psilons. I learned from the few posts I read on this website that early expansion is the biggest key to survival, let alone winning. I encountered a few races with larger empires but much lower technology. They chose to go to war with me, I usually got the better of them and my empire expanded. That was a win also, but the large galaxy took much longer to conquer--not just because of the amount of systems necessary to take over, but because the game still moves slower when you have such a big galaxy (you have to run this game in a DOS emulator; if there is a way to speed the game up, I haven't figured it out yet).
Next, I tried a Small galaxy, average difficulty, five opponents. Because space is limited here, this presents a different kind of challenge: get out there fast, fortify what you've got, because at least one race if not several are wanting to expand right away. I played as the Meklars, a cyborg/gecko race known for increased factory controls (more production). The Klackons, an ant-like race with their own form of increased production, quickly stole my third system without even a declaration of war (and bringing their total to six). Knowing I misplayed my opening, I admitted defeat and started a new game.
...I played as the Klackons. Fleets were built, wars were waged; in the end, I owned seven systems to my next closest opponents six. A total conquest victory was not in sight when voting time came; of the 19 total votes available, 6 were cast for my opponent and 5 for me before accounting for my 8 votes (two other empires disliked the Silicoids more than they disliked me). With a race built for more production, I expected a bloody ending. Not so, it seemed--the game ended in 2474, or 174 turns.
With this in mind, my next game was the same except I played as Humans. Their advantage is in treaties and trading--I fully expected a peaceful "council" end (council means a winner by vote). And I played to the Human strengths: I expanded to three systems to make contact with other races. I entered into trade agreements with four other races, and our relations were slowly getting better. Things were very even: each race was close in size, population, fleet strength, technology, etc. At one point, I had four systems, the Darloks (a spy-like race whose advantage is, you guessed it, sabotage and espionage) had four systems, and everyone else had three except for the lizard-like Sakkra, isolated to one planet (and whom I did not even have contact with, our systems were so distant). I was friends with everyone and expected a diplomatic victory very soon.
The problem was, everyone else was friends with everyone, also. No one was at war, which was fine while everything was balanced. However, the balance soon teetered when 1) the Darloks came within a vote of winning the game by council vote, and 2) the Darloks researched or stole the technology for building colonies on radiated planets, three of which were available. They quickly expanded from four to six systems with a seventh in sight when I knew I had to take action or risk losing at the next vote.
I implored two other alien races to declare war on the Darloks. The Psilons with their advanced technology were eager to do so. The Meklars agreed only after I gave them some new technology for their ground troops.
The three empires--my Humans, the Psilons and Meklars--began to tear apart the Darlok empire. War inspires war, it seems; soon the Psilons and Meklars were at war with each other. Then the Meklars wanted to war with me. I destroyed the newest Darlok colonies (that I couldn't take over without their technology) and finally their homeworld, leaving them with a handful of underdeveloped colonies. At some point, they were down to one colony when the other races laid off and let them be. As I found out (and then reloaded my game at an earlier point), finishing off an alien race--genocide--is a major faux paux in intergalactic war.
So far, this "peaceful" game was far bloodier than the last. What started out as a sure victory by vote was turning into a race to conquer systems. My empire far outstripped the others at the next vote, but the other empires feared my power and voted against me (except for my lone Psilon allies).
The Mrrshans--the cat-like race of superior gunners--tried to make a system grab then pretend everything was OK. I responded by taking two of their three systems while occupying their third, preventing them from doing anything else but not landing a killing blow. Out of desperation, it seems, the Mrrshans invaded the last Darlok system, committing the dreaded genocide. But now that the Mrrshans had two planets, I could take the one I already occupied without committing genocide and alienating the other empires.
Not so. My allies, the Psilons, attacked their new planet on the same turn. Apparently their attack went through first, so when I took over the planet I was already at, it was their last and I was the one "guilty" of committing genocide. The Psilons ended our alliance and tensions rose.
Four empires left: my Humans, the Psilons, and finally the Meklars and Sakkras, each with one planet and each at war with me. Since everything was a complete and utter mess diplomatically, I turned my sights to destroying the Meklars and Sakkras (more importantly, their votes) so my empire would by itself have the required 2/3 vote necessary to win. A cosmic space crystal destroyed the Meklars last planet, though it appears as though the game will not let an empire die this way, so I when I sent some ships to merely occupy the planet, the colony was destroyed and I got credit for another genocide. Next turn, the vote came and I elected myself the new Galactic Emperor of this tiny galaxy, winning the game in 2674--374 turns, or more than twice as long as my Klackon victory.
...How did all of this happen? How do the militaristic Klackons get enough support from other empires to get an early diplomatic win, while the diplomatic Humans had to slug it out, committing two accidental genocides and forcing a third (the Mrrshans ending the Darloks)? How was this story created--either in the game or in my mind--from actions and reactions from five computer AIs attempting to act in their own best interest?
But is that really how it happened? In the Klackon game, I merely responded to provocation and only attacked when others declared war against me. In the Human game, I urged others to destroy my main competitor when it appeared I would lose at the next diplomatic juncture. I created war where there was none, because I wanted to win.
Does this say something about me in general (I hope not)? Does it say something about the way I play games (my wife would say yes, definitely yes)? Does this mean anything at all? Probably not. It's just a game, two different playthroughs of the game (so a small sample size) and there are a lot of other variables to consider.
Still, it's fascinating (to some, maybe just me) and it's why I get sucked into this and other games. But it doesn't seem like it would make a lot of sense to most people, which is a large part of why this article is absolutely not recommended. It's bad enough I think of all this stuff with this ancient computer game; it's worse that I was compelled to sit down three different times (because I didn't have enough consecutive minutes available to write this all at once) and write a stupid post about it.
