So far, enlightenment and infiltration seem good, equal choices for interacting with primitives: Infiltration takes a fixed amount of time whereas enlightenment is variable, infiltrated civilizations are automatically integrated but enlightened ones become protectorates that provide Influence bonuses (which I'm now wondering is still profitable once you take vassal integration into account, considering the 5 influence monthly cost for integration vs. the .5 monthly bonus for having a protectorate).
The same cannot be said for passive vs. aggressive observation.
I currently have 7 observation posts, 3 aggressive and 4 passive. On top of providing twice as many Society research points, the aggressive observation posts have also given me events, several of which go beyond flavor text and actually provide some practical benefits and interesting effects on the primitive pops. To date, I have received these events:
* A brilliant scientist among the primitives whom I could choose to abduct. It succeeded and I got a 5-star alien scientist.
* Malfunctioning brain implants/tracking devices that caused accidents. I resolved the event and got 250 Society points.
* Scientists screwing around and making crop circles as a prank, causing the pops to become fanatic spiritualists.
* It's been a while since it happened, but I also believe that a drunken scientist of mine decided to pretend to be a god or something. In any case a Great Pyramid was built in their name causing holy wars to erupt across the planet giving me some nice flavor text to describe the event as well as killing 1 primitive pop.
* People becoming fearful of abduction shuttles also causes them to become xenophobic.
* Primitives forming some sort of anti-alien task force or something.
So essentially, aggressive observation gives you more (and more interesting) events and more society research points whereas passive observation gives you...nothing, I guess. The ethics changes from events might be a turn-off to some players, but beyond role-playing purposes ("We must not interfere with the natural development of pre-FTL species!", etc.) I don't see why ethics changes would be a problem. I mean, I know ethics divergence is a problem, but chances are that the primitive pops have different ethics than you even if you don't interfere. Is there any practical, gameplay-centric reason to passively rather than aggressively observe?
On a side note, does the "X-Com Event" (as I call it) actually enhance the primitives against you, or is it just flavor text? I hear about some civilization with 4 industrial armies organizing against me and I'm like "Oh, that's cute." as I put the finishing paint job on my fiftieth battleship and get a notification that my production run of 30 clone armies is complete.
Also, on the topic of interacting with primitives with regards to invading primitive worlds, let me say that it's massively expensive to the point of not being worth it. No way am I going to spend 234 influence (maybe the cost is variable? That's a pretty awkward number.) per attempt at invading the planet. All I wanted was to have some fun with the "normal fish in a tiny pond" effect, seeing if a single unit of the starter assault army could conquer an entire primitive world, but they lost and I wasted half my influence.
The same cannot be said for passive vs. aggressive observation.
I currently have 7 observation posts, 3 aggressive and 4 passive. On top of providing twice as many Society research points, the aggressive observation posts have also given me events, several of which go beyond flavor text and actually provide some practical benefits and interesting effects on the primitive pops. To date, I have received these events:
* A brilliant scientist among the primitives whom I could choose to abduct. It succeeded and I got a 5-star alien scientist.
* Malfunctioning brain implants/tracking devices that caused accidents. I resolved the event and got 250 Society points.
* Scientists screwing around and making crop circles as a prank, causing the pops to become fanatic spiritualists.
* It's been a while since it happened, but I also believe that a drunken scientist of mine decided to pretend to be a god or something. In any case a Great Pyramid was built in their name causing holy wars to erupt across the planet giving me some nice flavor text to describe the event as well as killing 1 primitive pop.
* People becoming fearful of abduction shuttles also causes them to become xenophobic.
* Primitives forming some sort of anti-alien task force or something.
So essentially, aggressive observation gives you more (and more interesting) events and more society research points whereas passive observation gives you...nothing, I guess. The ethics changes from events might be a turn-off to some players, but beyond role-playing purposes ("We must not interfere with the natural development of pre-FTL species!", etc.) I don't see why ethics changes would be a problem. I mean, I know ethics divergence is a problem, but chances are that the primitive pops have different ethics than you even if you don't interfere. Is there any practical, gameplay-centric reason to passively rather than aggressively observe?
On a side note, does the "X-Com Event" (as I call it) actually enhance the primitives against you, or is it just flavor text? I hear about some civilization with 4 industrial armies organizing against me and I'm like "Oh, that's cute." as I put the finishing paint job on my fiftieth battleship and get a notification that my production run of 30 clone armies is complete.
Also, on the topic of interacting with primitives with regards to invading primitive worlds, let me say that it's massively expensive to the point of not being worth it. No way am I going to spend 234 influence (maybe the cost is variable? That's a pretty awkward number.) per attempt at invading the planet. All I wanted was to have some fun with the "normal fish in a tiny pond" effect, seeing if a single unit of the starter assault army could conquer an entire primitive world, but they lost and I wasted half my influence.
Last edited: