GalCiv 2 on PSP?

Neither TBS and RTS have never traditonally done well on consoles, forget handhelds. You really need the mouse, and the keyboard's pretty important too.

There are a few exceptions, but those were generally designed specifically and originally for the consoles.

The one exception off the top of my head was an RTS, one of the Command&Conquers for PS. It did not sell very well and was problematic to play.

I could see myself playing this game on a PSP with a stylus.

If I recall, Dune: Battle for Arrakis on Sega Genesis did pretty well. I was hooked on it for hours. I think they had Civilization (one of them) for Playstation once. It did not do well at all. I just remember seeing an advert for it once. I think turn based strategy is a PC only genre.

Neither TBS and RTS have never traditonally done well on consoles,

Bull. You're just looking at it from a PC gaming perspective.

Games like Ogre Battle, Final Fantasy Tactics, etc all fall into the same general rubrick, and many of these games are long-running serieses. The only difference is that these are Japanese-influenced games, and thus have something that resembles an actual storyline.

And I'm pretty sure that the recently named Nintendo Wii could handle a number of PC-style RTS and TBS games just fine. Granted, not GalCiv2, which can't even fit in 2GB worth of memory, let alone the 88MB in the Wii. For console developers, memory leaks and memory fragmentation are a stop-shipment bugs, not "Oh, we'll release a patch sometime and fix it," bugs.

I could see myself playing this game on a PSP with a stylus.

You're mixing your consoles. The DS has a stylus; the PSP only has one in the fevered dreams of Sony executives.

The Advance Wars and Fire Emblem series are further counterexamples to the lack of TBS games on consoles; that said, the offerings are not as good as they are for the PC. RTS games are historically very weak on consoles, to the point of being nearly absent.

GalCiv2 would be fine with directional pad + 4 buttons after an interface change; it would be nearly immediate with the touchscreen of the DS. The only real problem is fitting the gobs of text. (I am assuming the sprite graphics that are around for when you're very zoomed out would be used.)

And I'm pretty sure that the recently named Nintendo Wii could handle a number of PC-style RTS and TBS games just fine. Granted, not GalCiv2, which can't even fit in 2GB worth of memory, let alone the 88MB in the Wii. For console developers, memory leaks and memory fragmentation are a stop-shipment bugs, not "Oh, we'll release a patch sometime and fix it," bugs.

Keep in mind that console developers only have one set of hardware to worry about, whereas stardock has an infinite number of configurations to code for. I'm pretty sure if they had encountered memory problems while testing they wouldn't have released 1.1 so early. Stardock has been the fastest and most responsive company I have bought software from as far as fixing bugs.

Well, it may work with the DS more than any of the other portables.
Playing turned based games on a portable has the advantage of allowing the player to play and not play as needed instead of worrying about dieing mid battle..etc due to something coming up.

Played FF Tactics and others of its style on my gameboy advanced and they are lots of fun for those times a computer is miles away.
Porting GalCiv2 onto a DS may be worthwhile once its fully completed (done tinkering to the point any additions become pointless) so that any bugs/enchancements can be rolled up into a cartridge.
From there, changes to the interface of the DS and memory usage - smaller maps maybe required to fit the limit of the DS.

I see no issues with tbs games on portables and it has advantages versus action based games.

Keep in mind that console developers only have one set of hardware to worry about, whereas stardock has an infinite number of configurations to code for. I'm pretty sure if they had encountered memory problems while testing they wouldn't have released 1.1 so early.

A common excuse, but it is hardly appropriate in this case. Memory leaks/fragmentation don't happen because of hardware; it's code problems that cause them. And console developers write code from day 1 that follows strict memory practices, typically starting from the data path and extending into all facets of the code.

Command&Conquers for PS

C&C Red Alert for the playstation was my first ever strategy game, and I loved it. Especially zapping every kind of hell out of NoD. But it played very differently to galciv2: Things were built pretty much instantly.

A common excuse, but it is hardly appropriate in this case. Memory leaks/fragmentation don't happen because of hardware; it's code problems that cause them. And console developers write code from day 1 that follows strict memory practices, typically starting from the data path and extending into all facets of the code.

You know the memory issue was accidentally introduced in a fix? If it was console hardware, that issue would never have happened. Nor the driver issue. Nor the overheating issue. And then it would have been basically smooth running, and never been updated. I'm extremely glad it's not on console, and really can't see the attraction of playing it on one.

"You're mixing your consoles. The DS has a stylus; the PSP only has one in the fevered dreams of Sony executives. "

Few things make me laugh out loud. This is one of them.

And btw, there was no NOD in red alert- well, except in a cinematic.

I can't imagine why anyone would want GalCiv2 on a handheld. Forgetting about the memory requirements that would simply make it almost impossible to do, this is the type of game that gameplay would seriously suffer without the mouse and larger screen .

IT wouldn't be the exact same thing. IT would be less taxing, probably simply top down using 2D graphics. And on the DS you have better then a mouse, a stylus. So don't even say you need a mouse. It could be WFC for a DS version of the Metaverse.

GC2 is already a pain in the butt to play in 1024x768 mode, anything smaller would require a complete rewrite of the interface.

Besides, calling most fo the quoted "TBS" console games mentioned by that genre name is about as realistic as the whole "RTS" genre - RTS is not even remotely about strategy, it is about tactics, and should be called "RTT". In the same way, most console "TBS" games cannot truly bear the name "TBS", and the few that can do not hold a candle to games like GC2 in scope or scale. Even games that are exclusively and specifically designed for consoles are stretching the definition as far as it will go.

I'm not saying that there isn't room for a GC-like game on consoles, but it would not be GC2, it would be something inherently different.

As for the difference in programming for consoles (fixed and comparatively very low screen res, fixed audio and video engines, fixed controllers, fixed everything) vs PCs (where practically the only thing that isn't variable is that you have a keyboard and a mouse), the very argument that they can be reasonably compared from a coding perspective is inherently flawed and ignorant. They have virtually nothing in common.