Yeah, Hissho are kinda like Cravers in that they're luck-dependant. If they have some early successes, they can be nigh-impossible to kill.

Human-played: obviously Cravers.

With the current balance, more systems == more win. Cravers are the best at expansionism among the standard races. Having no trade and no agreements become immaterial after you crush your first two enemies and take their systems.



AI-played: Hissho and Amoeba.



PS: Pilgrims are really weak. There should be a buff incoming.

My vote goes to the Horatio.



My reasoning is as follows: Regardless of whether you are playing on smaller maps or on larger maps, regardless of whether you are playing in SP or in MP, regardless of whether the game setup encourages trading or immediate warfare, the Horatio's combination of:

• TRAIT: Crowded Planets for more people on tiny, small, and medium
• TRAIT: Cloning, for +1 food per pop
• AFFINITY: Hero cloning, ensuring that if you have any one good hero for whatever strategy you are pursuing, you can have as many more with the same abilities as want up to your hero academy cap.
• AFFINITY: Game Theory as T4 tech rather than T7, allowing 5 heroes and reducing the time between new heroes show up much earlier in the game than anybody else. The first is great no matter what, the second is great in case you didn't start with optimal heroes for your playstyle.
• AFFINITY: Perfect Forecasting at T11 gives you three extra clones over and above what it gives everybody else should the game drag on this long, allowing for three more instant super-administrators, corporate sharks, fleet admirals, or what have you.

works wonders and it is a powerful combination from the very start. The only downside is starting on a T2 world rather than T1, but at least it is arid, which means easy money those first 30 turns while other systems boast outposts at most, and it makes it pretty easy for Horatio to load up on three heroes in short order.



While other default empires are certainly better at specialized strategies (military/scientific/trading/whatnot), none others have affinity/trait setups that are as generally all-round powerful in any and all situations and useful for early expansion as the Horatio's combined set is.

Igncom1 wrote:
Isn't it about planning with everyone?

Aye. As for crushing them early, that doesn't work if you come up against UE, Sheryden, Hissho or even Cravers early game, they'll murder you seven ways from Sunday.

Isn't it about planning with everyone?

Romeo wrote:
Hell, I meant even playing as them. Their Affinity is easily surpassed by aggressive Hossho or Cravers players, both of whom can easily "out-science" the Sophon. And their traits are below average. I can win without a challenge as Amoeba, Hissho or Sheredyn. Sophon takes quite a bit of effort, and more than a little luck to eke out a win with though.

That's the thing you meet the Hissho or the Cravers regardless of who you play as,you're going to be fighting them at sometime. With the Sophons scouting and finding people early and crushing them when they are weak if need be is important, it's all about the planning with them.

If you can play the UE well you can be the mostly beastly force on the map, with beef cake ships and more dust then a book.

Hell, I meant even playing as them. Their Affinity is easily surpassed by aggressive Hossho or Cravers players, both of whom can easily "out-science" the Sophon. And their traits are below average. I can win without a challenge as Amoeba, Hissho or Sheredyn. Sophon takes quite a bit of effort, and more than a little luck to eke out a win with though.

Romeo wrote:
Really? 'Cause in singleplayer they're distinctly average.

That's more to do with the AI than than them being bad. It's different from the Sowers who issues stem from the way their abilities work. Not knocking it or whatever AI is hard as hell to program.

Really? 'Cause in singleplayer they're distinctly average.

In multiplayer, sophons are by far the strongest.

just_dont_do_it wrote:
Human-played: obviously Cravers.

With the current balance, more systems == more win. Cravers are the best at expansionism among the standard races. Having no trade and no agreements become immaterial after you crush your first two enemies and take their systems.



AI-played: Hissho and Amoeba.



PS: Pilgrims are really weak. There should be a buff incoming.

Pilgrims perform well against weaker races like Sophons and Sower, and especially in maps containing lots of asteroids and wormholes. They aren't completely useless like the Sowers.



Cravers are rad, as are Hissho. Personally disagree about Amoeba though, I find they do better in human hands, not AI.

Once they get the tech.



Hissho and cravers are able to steam roll from turn 1.



Especially if the Hissho are lucky enough to start winning.

Tank7 wrote:
Someone said Sophons are mediocre... They are not! It is a bit rough to expand early on with them, so it is hard to pull a "tech cheese", but if you do it... your ships just stomp. Non-stop stomping. You might even say Endless Stomping. And ofcourse the Scientific Victory is always there for them especially if they have territorial/FIDS parity otherwise.

This is why they need a combat and diplo penalty right now they just steamroll it's crazy.

Sophons are over hyped.



And are personally my lest favored race, a beginner race. (Controversy! )

Someone said Sophons are mediocre... They are not! It is a bit rough to expand early on with them, so it is hard to pull a "tech cheese", but if you do it... your ships just stomp. Non-stop stomping. You might even say Endless Stomping. And ofcourse the Scientific Victory is always there for them especially if they have territorial/FIDS parity otherwise.

Mr.Spartan126 wrote:
When you say which faction is the strongest, do you mean as far as combat, expansion, economy, diplomatic, or wonder. Or is this for all of the above, like how good is the faction at everything?

I believe it means in terms of everything. Amoeba are useless at combat, for example, but still REALLY powerful in the hands of a player.

As many comments have said, I think this could do with splitting in two... or four.



Players and AI get different results from the different races and exploit the affinities to varying success depending on the race. This goes both for what could be considered the strongest and the weakest races under the control of either party.



There are ofc other factors to consider, some slight tweaking of galaxy set up and some races do a lot better than others (as you're able to offset or completely negate some penalties that races suffer). Yet going the other way certain game set ups and removing some victory conditions will leave some races very weak.

I think the strongest faction is a lot more debatable than the poll suggests (a clear lead for Amoeba and Hissho).



I also think a better question is which faction is underpowered. I think in that regard, the poll lines up neatly with reality. Pilgrims need something 'else', some oomph to their playstyle. A shame really because their aesthetic, the design of their ships and their heroes, are more most visually appealing in my opinion. But they are whipped hard by a lot of other races. Pray you don't spawn next to Cravers or Hissho, because you'll simply crumble under withering attacks.

I really enjoy playing as Pilgrims. Their affinity gives you huge bonus in the early game, their outposts are strong, their trade routes always keep your dpt and science flowing. Also, Factories of the faithful is the best unique SSI.