But I really like cheese

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. I'm sure there's a point somewhere, I'm just not getting it.   

What are you talking about? Cheese-callers? Sounds like spam to me.  

Uhm what do you want us to use instead. I think pretty much people call it as it is.

Cheese, from the latin origin Cheesiusus Maximusius, meaning to use underhanded measures in order to gain an advantage against one's opponent at all costs, even though said 'underachiever' could have probably won without using such measures. Also found under Cheatius Asmuchus Asican, a longer and more specialized meaning, which seemed to be used only by the Peepeeouchwhenpeeing tribes located in the Nile Delta before the Great Pyramid descended from the heavens.

Melted cheese burns, and painfully subjective language blurs otherwise good game chats (I know, I've done it plenty myself).

i don't think it's the language that's subjective, but rather the perception. i'd say the term cheese has a clear enough meaning, as stormbringer describes above:

to use underhanded measures in order to gain an advantage against one's opponent at all costs

the first time i used this term was when i played magic: the gathering. a cheese deck was composed entirely of cheap, direct damage spells (most notably, lightning bolts). i don't think that in this specific instance, such decks were "underhanded" per se, but rather simply lacking imagination: it was cheese because the tactic was one of winning at all costs (the cost being your opponent's enjoyment of the game). i felt the major cheese tactic in Starcraft was the zergling rush.

i'd say that it is not the word that is subjective. indeed, lacking true agency, words cannot have subjectivity. it's not the word that is subjective, but the people using the word. what is cheesey to one person might seem like a perfectly reasonable tactic to another. personally, i don't think it is, or should be, as hot a debate when it comes to GalCiv2 because it's not a multiplayer game, and those who cry cheese might be taking their metaverse scores too seriously. but then, that's simply my subjective opinion.

the first time i used this term was when i played magic: the gathering. a cheese deck was composed entirely of cheap, direct damage spells

Yes, I hated this aspect of playing Magic. A deck like this totally took away from the enjoyability of just playing the game. Now I can understand if you're playing a tournament... then you would definitely want to score a win, especially if you are staking your deck as the prize.

especially if you are staking your deck as the prize

agreed, or playing with any kind of ante. it's no big deal to lose a lightning bolt. official tourney rules didn't do much to curb this kind of deck, either. of course, i had a penchant for counterspell decks, but those at least required a little more thought. i usually played green/black or green/red speed decks, though, and a few winter's orbs in my sidebar went a long way to shutting down a cheese deck like that.

a few winter's orbs in my sidebar went a long way

A very helpful artifact(I believe, it has been a few years)to have! I almost always made black/red decks but found an all blue deck to be almost too powerful if you have the right combo of cards and can get enough mana going early enough to utilize some of the awesome spells. But black was by far the best choice for me. I especially like the 'pumpable' cards that come with a black deck. However, green and those damn rowan treefolk creatures were always a pain in my ass. That and my wife's favorite white card, harsh justice. Can you say "ouch"?

i'd say that it is not the word that is subjective. indeed, lacking true agency, words cannot have subjectivity.

this is message board cheese if i ever saw it

i think i know which thread put G-dubya over the edge: a newbie was looking for some economy advice and got a 25-post derailment touching on time travel cheese, among other things.

this is message board cheese if i ever saw it

Axhead might not have meant it, but I now consider myself happily busted. I was mainly interested in "what the frak could I kick up if I griped about cheese griping?" And I got a real hoot of out the line Ax quoted, even though I'd keep fighting about it if this were a fight

If I had a "serious" intent, it was to carry on more about appreciating the fact that GCII can support players with pretty drastically different ideas of what makes "a good game." And I suppose I was unconsciously thinking like a voluneteer flame-fighter.

p.s. Re G-dubya: I still don't know why I felt so oddly formal when I set up my account here, but the nickname for the nickname is GDub. I'm Southrun and my kinfolk call me George Wade--it's like Billy Bob, only different. The "dubya" thing has some baggage that don't quite fit me, if'n you get my drift

this is message board cheese if i ever saw it

i should have known this wasn't the place for semiotics.

But black was by far the best choice for me. I especially like the 'pumpable' cards that come with a black deck. However, green and those damn rowan treefolk creatures were always a pain in my ass. That and my wife's favorite white card, harsh justice. Can you say "ouch"?

all the colors had their strengths. black could get going really fast. one of my favorite decks of all time was a black/green token deck based on the otherwise almost useless thrulls and thalids from fallen empires. i could bring out all the black demons that required regular sacrifices, and have enough left over to spare for bone catapults and whathaveyou.
with white, i always played a mass-pump deck with crusades, aviaries, and other cards that'd pump all white creatures. it'd turn white's abundance of cheap, 1/1 creatures into a rather powerful army.
damn... i kinda miss that game.

I had a friend who went total veggie (vegan?), and I asked him what he missed the most. I was thinking he'd say a nice big steak, or barbecue, or whatnot, and he said: "cheese".

It's very subjective, yeah. I consider spamming a planet with markets cheese. I mean, you gotta have factories, farmland, so on . . . it just blows the believability factor away for me and I don't enjoy the game. Has me worried, too, I've seen a lot of threads that suggest these tactics in order to survive the AI at Challenging or above. I hope not. I like to pretend I'm running a real space empire.

I consider spamming a planet with markets cheese. I mean, you gotta have factories, farmland, so on . . . it just blows the believability factor away for me and I don't enjoy the game

Getting economy going in this game is a big part of it, that's why I think you see a lot of mention of it. I use the same tactics myself, but prefer to look at my empire as a whole. Where some planets are production or research, some are primarily civilian pop type planets(money makers). Looking at it is as each planet being a division of a whole helps believability somewhat, but that is also subject to what each individual sees as believable.  

Since they are supposed to represent regional economies, I always thought of them as informational and financial trade centers, which is much more than just a stock exchange or trade center. Looking at our current world, all first world countries derive more than half their economies from this type of thing...Makes it not so hard to believe when put into a larger context.

But then back to the subject of one man's cheese is another's valid tactic...Oh, wait, I was already there!

It's very subjective, yeah. I consider spamming a planet with markets cheese. I mean, you gotta have factories, farmland, so on . . . it just blows the believability factor away for me and I don't enjoy the game.

Well, dammit, I only like popcorn about once every 1.15 years (when I *really* want some popcorn), but, dammit, dammit, this is *even more* the kind of thing I was hoping to see people kick up about the cheese thing because I hadn't even remotely considered the idea that specializing a planet might be so-called cheese, and by chance of personal play style, I've never put much effort into specialized planets despite having locked into playing a brained-up version of the Thalans.

I figure if the AI has the ability to do something then if a person does it it is not cheese. If they can't and the person does then it is.

I figure if the AI has the ability to do something then if a person does it it is not cheese. If they can't and the person does then it is

Pretty good rule-of-thumb. I believed this (and still do) at a gut level; to defeat a game or "win", for me, means beating it on its own terms, and not, for example, using cheat codes or game exploits. Some can't stand it unless they have all the cheats or know all the exploits. Whatever floats their boat, but that's game-killers for me. This is about cheese, though, I know.

I like cheese on my popcorn . . . but its hard to beat caramel.

Butter is the fundamental popcorn condiment. Cheese and caramel are basically complicated butter, one leaning sweet and the other savory.

That business aside, I wonder what FC and PA think about giving the GCII AI a bonus (playing over Tough diff level, AFAIK).

I think the AI does not know how to fight a war. I don't know a thing about writing code but I would think it would be almost impossible to write this code stuff so that it can fight a war effectively. There are too many varibles. So the AI has to get 'something' in order to make it a challange for us masters of the mouse. I love my long drawn out gigantic abundant suicidals because it gives the AI the best advantage to counter my Torian Horde.

Along these lines...

The changes to farms, morale, research, etc since beta do not seem to have hampered us as much as it has the AI. Sure some of the changes have caused them to build better ships, counteratack with some efficiency, pre-stage for war to a degree. The AI can not manage an economy though. An ingame example. Its March 2232 the Terran, Drengin, Arcean and Torian (me) are all that remain ot the nine that started my game. I am fighting the Drengin and winning easily. I am prestaged to take over the Arcean and the Terran are loosing 1-2 planets/turn to me from influence to me. I bribed the Arcean to war with the Drengin when I attacked. The Drengin see the Arcean as an easier foe so the Drengin are winning easily over the Arcean. End result will be that the Arcean will be much easier for me to conqueor in about 20 turns. Why though. there economy stinks. While I have the industrial and economic might to produce 25-30 ships/turn they can barely manage 5. Up through 1.31 the AI could do this but know only us people have adapted to the changes and the AI because of their coding can't. I know that this was not what Brad & Co intended. But it is what happened.

I haven't much to say about cheese, except it's good on about anything  . I just wanted say G.W. that you have a knack for creating threads which, at first look seem to be really off topic/borderline trolling, that develop into really interesting and usually intelligent discussions. I haven't actually been contributing much, because like Quixen said in your Grammar Nazi thread, the level of conversation at times can be a little over my head. I do find most of the comments quite interesting and whether I agree or not, they are well thought out and informative. Your threads are always a good alternative to the more basic game question and answer theads. They actually get people thinking, which is always a good thing.  

Deth, I lurked here for ages just looking for minimal chunks about things like my weak video card. I'm really suprised at both my own and others' interest in a good digression.

Re the florid prose problem, I try to keep that under control in direct talk about the game, but once I see "Off-Topic," well, most of the editing staff in my head toddles off to the pubs. Please feel free to slap me around when I let my love of language get in the way of being understood about practical matters.