| -AI builds structures on bonus tiles that don't take advantage of the bonus (such as factories on fertile soil)|
I saw a lot more of this before Beta 4... the AI ultilzation of bonus tiles has improved and seems pretty decent now. My biggest gripe with regards to AI building choices is the computer fondness for mostly useless planetary defense structures. Also, the AIs seem to struggle with picking good numbers of farms and morale buildings. In my latest two games, the population graph showed the AI population peaking much earlier than mine because they built very few farms.
Do you have a screenshot of a 1.1 game that exhibits what you consider poor AI building? Sometimes, for example, a factory on fertile soil is a good choice, as I'm sure you know.
|-No 'fog of war' viewing mode. We get to see ownership on the minimap, we get to see ship range on the minimap yet we don't get to see fog of war on the minimap|
I don't have much of an opinion on this one as I don't really use the minimap... I just zoom all the way out on the main map.
|-Secret police center useless - it's essentially a very, very expensive multimedia center that yields less morale bonus than aforementioned structure. Major oversight.|
-Galactic Guide Book useless - by the time you can construct this all anomalies will be long since gone.
Yeah. There're a handful rough patches in the planetary improvements that could sure use some polish. Some things, like the secret police center, are innocuously useless. Some things, like the Eyes of the Universe, have significant negative effects on the gameplay.
|-Ai gives you more for your money if you sell techs one by one rather than all at once|
Oh yeah. Don't get me started on tech trading or the diplomacy AI. Tech trading off is the only viable choice at this point, imho.
It's a hard problem to solve. If they get it right, it'd be crazy impressive. Maybe in a later patch they'll accomplish this, but I'm not holding my breath... I've thought about the problem, and I think it would take a significant change in the mechanics of tech trading (specifically, something non-instantaneous), and I haven't seen Frogboy/Draginol or others express any intention of doing this in the future. But hey, the beta 4 patches (I haven't played a game in 1.1 yet) were a bigger improvement than I had expected, so they're doing something right, and tech trading off works for now.
|-No 'sleep' command. I want to be able to tell a ship to stay where it is regardless of enemies coming into range.|
Oh yeah. This is one of those things where it's just kinda hard to comprehend why they didn't put it in. And what's up with Sentry and Guard?
|-Galaxy setup: If number of planets etc is set to random it should stay at random next time galaxy setup screen is loaded|
-Abilities setup: You still have to click the reset button twice for it to reset properly.
-Abilities setup: You can still shoot yourself in the foot by overwriting innate abilities (humans, for example, can overwrite their 25% diplomacy bonus with a 5% bonus and pay a point for doing so)
-Customization points: Studying the RaceConfig.xml file it appears some races are supposed to get less than 10 customization points yet all get 10.
-Of course the game still crashes frequently - especially when alt-tabbing - but to me that is more acceptable than the gameplay-related bugs.
These seem like reasonable points but I haven't noticed them myself. Well, with the exception of the Abilities setup. Some aspects of how it's done now (like the overwriting innate bonuses you mention, or the under-the-hood, undocumented Yor diplomacy penalty, or the "balance" of the races) strike me as dubious design choices. But I'm not a game designer, so what do I know. At the end of the day, if they fix obvious glitches (like overwriting innate bonuses) and the gameplay is good, well, that's enough for me.
|it is still riddled with bugs and evident signs of an unfinished game. |
I've been pretty surprised by how defensive some people get when users call this game "unfinished." Is it necessary to say, "We're releasing a new patch, but it's not because the game was unfinished or anything, just look at these awards." Just say, "Here's a new patch, enjoy!" I mean, it clearly shipped unfinished. Almost all games do, and GalCiv2 seems about average in this regard--not more or less polished than one would expect a typical game to be. Well, maybe a little less polished than average in 1.0X, but the commitment to ongoing patches more than makes up for this... with 1.1 (well, beta 4 is the most recent I've played) I think it's safe to say that they've brought to overall polish up to a little above what the average game ships at, and it will just keep getting better. It's just... well, if you're a developer, why not embrace the idea that the game is unfinished? Reject the idea that "finished" is good and "unfinished" is bad; instead, consider that "finished" is static and "unfinished" can be improved. They've made good game that can be great, and they've sold it with the pitch that they'll keep releasing patches, and they're doing a good (with some qualifications) job of living up to this. Maybe the problem is that we're all using subtly different definitions of "unfinished." But I digress.
Going back to the original post and the above quote, I think that "bug" might be the wrong word to use. An aspect of the game that needs some polish isn't necessarily a bug. There are some bugs left, and the game is riddled with things that can be improved, but "riddled with bugs," well, that might be too strong of a statement with 1.1. But I wholeheartedly agress with the overall gist, that there is still a lot of work to be done before GalCiv2 gets close to its (awesome) potential.