You're entitled to your opinion, and thanks for not mocking mine. You'll get nothing but courteous debate from me.

I too would like a lot of new features, but that's always the case with a game that I really love... like a good book, I don't want it to end.

Plus, GCII/DA offers two things that I haven't seen before with ANY title. First, no pain in the ass copy protection so that I can play without a CD, and second excellent customer support that's unmatched in my experience.

OK. But I don't think the ctrl-N issue is a "problem." Some of us like starting randomly and dealing with what we get. However, I can understand wanting a feature that would do something like space opponents as evenly as possible, or atleast somewhat evenly. I wouldn't use it, but I could see the desire for it.

Apparently it was enough to shut you up.



Yep, you gave new meaning to it. Thank you for that.

The fact is, you have no arguments, and no idea of what you're saying. Let's see.
You say scoring is relative, and is scaled to the best there currently is. So if tomorrow someone releases a much better expansion, how does your 10 for DA get rescaled? I mean, does it? Because you can't go back on scores and reviews... but it's not a 10 anymore is it? Is there any logic in this? You conveniently chose not to reply to this.
You presented false results as to a "poll" you made in this thread, and when I confronted you with it, you conveniently went silent.
Also, you conveniently disregard what is being said in other threads, as if this is the only thread in the forums. You also disregard what I said in other threads about this game and SEV. It could be sumed up as, GC is a good (not great, and I'm not the only one to think so, as much as you'd like it to be) game but feels very incomplete and unrealistic, and has too many bugs and cheese *to be called* perfect. SEV is a very complete game with everything you may want in a space combat game, but is buggy as hell. But you don't want to read other threads and know my *real* opinions, as it is not convenient. But I already said this here too, and to no effect. You continually twist what I say because otherwise you'd have to admit you have been being a clown.
You try to sound confident by saying things like "the nail in your coffin" and "pick your fights carefully", and end up swallowing them. Kid's stuff.
You don't know what an orbit is apparently, and try to make me look bad with it - that's was "unfortunate" too.
You have to resort to language abuse because you have nothing to go on, and again this is kid's stuff.
You don't know what 4X is, and call it a mental block when confronted with it.
You constantly change the focus of the argument from GC being perfect and a 10 in a non-sensical scale to what reviews and "I love it" polls mean (or what you think they mean). You also fail to provide a zero expansion pack, and conveniently forget about that.
You say you'll reply to my post later, and when I remind you of that, you dodge it with some lame excuse. Way to go Alzheimer.
You call me a liar with nothing to back that up, which reveals how desperate you are. You make "mistakes" and think that by acknowledging them you somehow are left off the hook, and then try to imply that you're somehow better than me because I haven't - you haven't shown me where I'm wrong though.
You are baffled because I expect a game to be bug-free and cheese-free, and this tells a lot about this whole discussion.

Yep, you're pathetic.

Did you see me say well below anywhere? The OP gave it a 7.8. Some people agreed. This thread doesn't even have a big # of posters, so how do you get to what the "norm" is? Oh, I know, reviewrs and "polls".   




I already said what I'd call a perfect expansion. Before posting this, don't you think you should have read the whole thing? Because that's how misunderstandings happen...
As for being top of the heap, that's not really the issue. But top of the heap *currently* doesn't mean 10, and that's the point. But that's been thoroughly explained here too. Scales cannot be "moldable" to what currently exists. It could have been made better, *even* with what it features. Am I wrong on this? Well documented bugs and cheese are still present - if that was the result of a rush release for marketing purposes, that's not really an excuse. I'm not attacking the game, I'm defending my view on this.

A good rule of thumb when posting is to post your ideas, comment on other ideas and say why you agree or disagree. Commenting on the character or intellect of someone else does not add to the discussion and denigrates your own comments.

Well well, here's my two cents worth of comment concerning DA and some people's comments.

Most of the new features and improvements in DA make it worth the investment, especially for future (B5) modding.
BUT I also have to agree heavily on the lack of depth in the UP and espionage.
As big a fiasko as MoO3 was, it implemented these features MUCH better than DL/DA.
However, I will give the dev team the benefit of the doubt concerning whether or not they considered it to be as important to gameplay as WE do, when they developed DL in the first place. So it would probably prove next to impossible to improve it as much as we'd like them to, coz the original game engine doesn't provide the means.

ONE thing many of you complain about however I can not quite understand. And that's ground combat. I mean: What do you expect? That the game turns into some sort of first person shooter once ground combat is initiated?
If so, why not also turn it into a space combat simulation ala Wing Commmander once SPACE combat takes place?
Sorry, but cut the guys some slack, will you?
Or at least do care to elaborate as to HOW you would improve it. So far I just read stuff like "Oh it's SOOO crappy..."

Wrong again, dummy.



Ouch, you cut, I bleed. At least you're polite, which is a considerable achievement for one of your mental faculties.



Yes, there is logic to it. A 10 from 5 years ago is not as good as a 10 today. Everybody knows that... everybody but you, that is. Moron.



No I didn't... you're just too slow to realize it. More people in this thread think that DA is a great game than don't. It's very simple.



That's right, I don't read every thread you're in... and I'm better off for it, I'm sure. I've never twisted a word you've said, it's all you baby. Oh, and by the way you idiot, I never said that DA is perfect.



No I don't, it's all true. Your argument was buried back on page one. You're just too half-witted to realize that. It's kind of funny.



Oh, I know what orbit is. Too bad you don't know what a "star base" is you monkey.



Oh yeah, you would never do that. Calling someone "pathetic" isn't abusive language. It's sweet.



I know exactly what it is... but you don't know what a star base is.



I've never said it was perfect. You are the only one who has claimed that, as you continually do. You're a liar. Oh, and dummy, look at your post. You said, and I quote

"Now, will someone seeing that rating think that the expansion features *absolutely* nothing? Only if they're stupid, right? But have you ever seen a rating of zero for any game or expansion?"

Notice how you said "game or expansion?" See that? Retard.



I did reply, and everyone can see it. You're lying again.



I keep calling you a liar because you're constantly lying. You continue to say that I've claimed this is a perfect game. I've never, ever said that. Not once. That makes you a liar.



You're right for once, it does tell a lot. You think that games can be released in a bug-free state with every possible abuse prevented, and anyone who knows anything about the game industry knows that's impossible. But of course you wouldn't realize that.



Thanks again, Titan of Stupid.

This one is easy, most of the people simply want more complex land combat. Dont you find the current system atleast bit hilarious? Throwing billions of citizens into transports with laser guns and off you go!

During DA development devs talked about "legions" or some sort of land combat troops that would be added. Clearly they did not make it into the game, but imagine if they did. This rather simple addition would bring a new fresh twist on the whole game. No longer conquering worlds was just about sending transports with people on them, you would have to recruit and send military troops. This is something even MoO games had, it cant be that hard to implement?

Maybe, MAYBE, someday you'll get there. While you try really hard to become a decent human being, why don't you start reading the dictionary? Learn a few new words and stuff. Might do you some good. Broaden your horizons and all.



ROTFLMAO. You are funny. Really funny. You should try comedy. Or a circus.
I like it how you always talk of "everybody" like you have some omniscient knowledge... oops, too hard a word for you I guess.



Well, until you break down the poll into names... and back to the same recurrent silly argument. Heh. Maybe it's so simple that you can't really process it conveniently.



Yes, I'm sure you are. Ignorance is a bliss. Of course, credibility is zero, but then again, you are probably used to it.
10/10 is a perfect score. You gave DA a 10. Is this assuming? Maybe. And how many things did *you* assume based on this thread alone? I know, I know. Limitations are hell.



See, this is why you're pathetic. Where does this bury anything?

This is in response to those who think my (and Gamespy's) 10/10 review is absurd.

Why don't you post YOUR idea of a 10/10 expansion so that I can rip it to shreds?

You may subjectively state that DA sucks, and that's your opinion, but realize that your views are aberrant. To say that this content should have been included with the original game is absurd, especially considering the universally high reviews and awards that GCII received. I would think that someone in the videogame industry would agree with you if you knew what you were talking about, but alas, Gamespy, IGN, Gamespot, Computer Gaming World, etc. all disagree with your viewpoint. How unfortunate for your argument.

Using your logic, CIV should have included the Great Wall of China, etc. and Warlords sucks. Dawn of War should have included the Imperial Guard and the extra units to begin with, so Winter Assault sucks, not to mention Dawn of War should have included a strategic map to begin with (after all, like you say it's already in so many other games), so Dark Crusade sucks. I could go on, but the coffin lid of your argument has already been nailed shut.

Calling other people's opinions aberrant? You talk like your word is law, and reviews are a treaty on how the game really plays. It's ridiculuos. You don't read much do you?



Apparently you don't, else you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself. As for a *star* base, stars exist in *star* systems, not in the vacuum between stars. But that's too much of a logic leap for your little brain (here I go, assuming things again...).



You started using pathetic arguments. You then procedeed to abusive language because you couldn't really use logic. So you became pathetic. But why am I using logic with you?



Heh. Repeat, repeat, repeat. A weak man's defense. Also, see above, apparently, like with 4X, it's *you* who doesn't know what a starbase is... don't you get tired of looking like a child?!



I'd say the retard would be the person that claimed there was a zero *whatever* but failed to provide such evidence. Like I said, 4% isn't zero. I know math is hell for some people, but isn't this pushing it?!



Sure I am, heh. Show this retard what your answer was please, give me a quote since you like it so much. Shouldn't be too hard even for you. I'm assuming we're talking scales here, don't want you to drift off.



Constantly? That's nice. Besides having "said" you claim DA to be perfect (see above), what other lies have you heard from me? It's got to be a huge list, since I'm always lying...



I don' think they can (are you lying here?), but a 10/10 *would* be such a game. If there ever was one. But then there's 9.9, 9.8, etc. That's a scale, if you know what that means.
Just for the sake of validating your opinions, have you ever had any experience in the game industry? You wouldn't just be mimic'ing what you hear, now would you?



You're welcome. Stop by anytime you need s reality check.
Oh, and I see you can be somewhat smart when need to.   

I think Improvement is good for any game . I started on freelancer when I got interested in pc games then upgraded my ole presario with new graphics and memory to play galciv2 and dark avatar. As time goes on more ideas can be shared about the game and following expansions will get better. I played on the ps2 which I hardly touch now cause i play mostly pc now.

Probably, yes. But to be honest, I don't really care about ground combat in this game. For me the interest lies in other parts. Ground combat is just a by-product.

This game's design has a LOT on the table. As it was, my first tough huge galaxy resulted in a five day long game (about 20 hours). Throwing in more detailed ground attacking would stretch that to 40-50 hours without breaking a sweat.

Yes, this would have been a very welcome change to the game. Make the artificial slave center more 'functional' so to speak... or add builds that will make/train a standing invasion force. It might add some micromanagement, but it would definitely change the game for the better. Like a lot of people have said, I wouldn't want to draw my invasion force from a bunch of average citizens and what's more, how do you relate the soldiering bonuses into the civilian population? I mean, unless you're an Israeli citizen who HAS to serve in the military, there is really no other real life example to explain away the lack of a standing military, whether for invasion or planetary defense.

I'm not gonna touch the rest of this debate, but I'll note that the box version of (ironically) Space Empires V lets you play without the CD. ("Excellent customer service that's unmatched" would be a different story, though.)

I have to strongly disagree with that. Ground combat is pretty much your ONLY method to win the game if you are going for a conquest victory, isn't it? I mean, to say that ground combat is a by-product of something bigger, well, that's just insane. Maybe you meant from a 'graphics' standpoint?
Besides, I doubt you could play an entire game through without invading a single planet, could you? I know I can't, regardless of the victory conditions... it's just too tempting!

Oh wow, other posts again.

Yes, planetary invasion leaves much to be desired. The idea of plucking out a % of your current population and then having the survivers of the ground combat become the new populace of the new planet is really really really weird.

Now I can understand why the 'culture and races' of other people are completely ignored. You essentially wipe them all out during the invasion. The new population of the planet are the survivors of the invasion...that is just...wrong.

If they have the mind to horribly create a tedious micromanagement of spying, I think we can have a decent management of our space marines.

It can open windows to subjugating planets...which in turn can lead to senate votes to liberate said subjugated planets. Recently subjugated planets will now take time to reach 100%, since you know...they are subjugated. Takes time to integrate. This also can open up new and more events!

*LOL* Sorry, for the confusion I may have caused. Of course I meant the graphical aspect of ground invasion.
In e.g. in MoO3 there was no graphics to it at all. You just saw a grid, were able to choose from a variety of tactics and all that happened then was that you heard the sound of battle and saw yours and the opponent's numbers dwindling along with a note at the end about whether you were able to gain or lose ground or you conquered the planet or not. Still, I found it more appealing.
Although the idea of e.g. trying to convert enemy citizens to your side in Galciv is a very nice idea too IMO.

Hell I think by just adding a feature to train a certain percent of civilians for each planet to become the military would be a great improvement. Say add a scroll bar similar to the espionage bar that allocates a certain amount of funds to “soldiering”. But then you’ll need to do something about the graphics, the method they fight an invasion, and what to do about defenses. I think it was Alpha Centauri that had a defensive system you could build to enhance the defense of the town, that might be nice. As it is right now, soldiering really doesn’t do much, considering you can send endless amount of transports to take over a single planet. And as long as you've got a good fleet around your planet its invulnerable to attack

I wouldn't mind the graphics being scrapped in place of a better set up of planetary combat.

Hell, I pretty much skip the battles now. Infact I skip the space battles too, since they are ultimately eye candy. The visuals aren't giving me any specific feedback I can react to.

It’s nice to see that Titan of Steel took some time off of his busy weekend social schedule to reply. Kind of sad, though... one would think he could have found something better to do on the weekend. We’ll just leave that alone for now.



Why don’t you break down the poll into names to prove your point? Oh, yeah. If you did that, you’d prove yourself wrong. Don’t want that, now do we?



Hey, moron, 4% is the AVERAGE. It got multiple reviews of ZERO. Since I provided such evidence, and you still don’t understand it, that makes you a pinhead.

Okay, as to the “perfection” of DA...









Here are 4 quotes from you, all indicating that you are arguing against my opinion that DA is perfect.

Each time you made this FALSE claim, I responded with my assertion that DA is not perfect, but simply the best.

Since that perfection was never claimed (and repeatedly denied), you are a liar.

This is what makes you a liar... these 4 claims from you, each claim made after explicit denial of said perfection.

The best part?



Why should I have to come up with even more lies, when this example is such a perfect illustration of your use of deception to get out of a lost argument?

Admit that you lied, and that you were wrong.

Oh, I should stop busting your chops... after all, you're the one with enough spare time on the weekend to argue with me.

If I couldn't come up with anything better to do on a Saturday than post a page of arguments in a game forum I'd hang myself.

Heh, glad to see you back and sinking deeper with each reply. Still no good arguments, huh? What is it that you're doing replying to me, again? Nothing else to do?



You know what this says? You lied, and you're afraid to post your lies. You brought it up, don't you think you should post your results? You have nothing to hide, now do you?



Again, links? Evidence, your word?! Hah! That's a joke, right?
Oh, BTW, you are *never* going to make me step down to your level, as hard as you may try, so you might as well drop the attitude, doesn't favor you in any way   



Does any of them say explicitly that you said it's perfect?    What you did was find sentences that I wrote with the word perfect, regardless of what it actually says. Pretty basic. But then I expected nothing else from you.
I'm also assuming you read the part about 10/10 being a perfect score, and that one you didn't quote... I wonder why.



Oh yeah, and with reviews - which incidently don't all give DA a 10, even though they *should*, since it's the best expansion ever, and scales are relative to what's best at the time. Right? So why don't all reviewers agree with you?! They must be morons... or is it not them who are morons?!



So it's only that now... so I'm not *always* lying. So who's the liar here again? Or do you need a quote?



Thank you for making my point. You simply can't. And one could think you'd be talking about yourself, reading this...



Didn't you forget to say please?    Oh, BTW, I didn't see you admit being wrong about starbases and orbits... maybe you just admit being wrong when it's not to me? It'd be too humiliating, right?   
Grow up.



Heh. I admit, I was wrong. You're not pathetic. You're way past that. You're desperate.    I'm sure there's plenty of people hanging themselves right now. Heh. Lame.

DA is definitely a great expansion, no doubt, probably the best expansion for a TBS game I've seen. I think there are some RTS and RP expansions out there that blow it out of the water. My favourite expansion of all time would still be Neverwinter nights: HOTU, the campaign was almost as large as the original game and there was so much added content for both modders and players.

Nevertheless I would say that the addition of the super abilities and the other features in DA, combined with the other improvements that have been made in patches since release of DL have transformed Galactic Civ from a great game into the best space TBS of all time. I mention super abilities specifically because they give GC what MOO2 had, completely unique races that all require a different strategy to win with.

Cut out the personal attacks.  If you can't keep the argument from getting personal, it's time to maybe step away from the thread.

hiddenranbir:

In terms of mass, the galaxy is much more empty than the game portrays it to be. Of course, the game also portrays starships the size of planets, so I suppose we aren't talking about the same thing. More galactic terrain would be nice, as we'd already agreed upon.

Asteroids are, IMO, essential to the new balance of the game. On the one hand, you might want to make colony ships, but maxxing out your asteroids first also is a viable option. Reassigning Asteroid production is also key during various wartime activities. In this sense, it's much more than just a simple building.

As for wormholes, giving access to them, even with technology, unfairly favors the ones who are near said wormholes. One way unpredictable destination wormholes already exist as part of the exploration scheme. I suppose that random wormholes could occur throughout the game, but I know that I, for one, would simply get annoyed with such a "feature."

ToS Iceman:



It doesn't matter when it was released. MOO2 has not had any game approach its dominance until the appearance of GalCiv2 and that means that it bears relevance, regardless of when it was released. For my part, I rather think that most of the new games today put too much emphasis on graphic content and not enough on the actual gameplay.

Making simple games more complex is not necessarily a good way to make the game better. MOO3 went exactly this route and it was an utter disaster. Civ2 was, in some ways, a more complex game than Civ3, although I like Civ3 better.

Simple games are often the best. There were many more complex strategy games than GalCiv2 and MOO2 right from the start, and there have always been games of world conquest so complex it went right down to realistic portrayals of real units. The success of the Civ series is not in complexity, but in playability and accessibility. Chess is not a great game because it's complex. It's a great game because it's both simple AND complex.

All great games aspire to this standard.

I think that your disastisfaction with the game has less to do with its simplicity and more to do with personal taste, which cannot be argued, of course.



It's not easier. It's harder. Civ3, for instance, has a very tied-together tech tree, which means that there's only a very few ways you can manage it. Eventually, you have to go through tech bottlenecks to advance, and that means that tech acquisition proceeds more or less the same few ways, every time.

MOO2 also has this problem. You can't research the trees independently because researching just one tree and neglecting even one other means that you have important key weaknesses. Eventually, by trading or by stealing, or by researching, you MUST acquire the same few key techs each game or you will lose. Weapon or defense, it doesn't matter. Variation is less.

Linear tech trees with mutually successful management schemes despite completely ignoring entire lines means a different game with each combination. You can run with the diplomacy line or you could run with the weapon lines. The game plays differently depending on that choice. You can choose diplo/influence, diplo/terraforming, diplo/weapons, or whatever dual tech strategy you prefer.

Spin Control Center, for instance, is a great building if you're Diplo intensive, because it allows you to fake off wars, but still allows you to trade for important weapons tech when you need it. You typically have a few ships you upgrade and no more. If you're more army intensive, it isn't worth as much, and all the diplomacy in the world won't help you acquire weapons tech. You'll have to research those yourself. It's a fundamentally different situation.



Everyone does it that way because it works. Blizzard, by blowing away its competition, has definitetively shown this to be the winning paradigm.

Games are always released unfinished because we now expect all games to have excellent and continuing tech support. Experience has shown that an evolving game with great support is better than an OK relatively bug-free game with minimal to no support.

What's "correct" or not is irrelevant. This mode of software development is superior to the "complete game/no support" paradigm, and this can easily be shown to be true through several examples.

What "everyone does" is also irrelevant. I bought the game on the supposition of continuing patch updates because that's what I want. If I thought that the game had fundamental problems, I would simply wait for the right patch to be released and play it then. Patch performance is the most important determinant. Post-patch games must play, play better and better, and be time-sensitive.



My brother is a software developer. I have it on good authority that games as graphically complex as GalCiv2 and WoW and Warcraft are extremely difficult to test for bugs, especially the CTD type ones which are absolutely not tolerated.

WoW had a worldwide beta test for months and months. So did Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. Regardless of how efficient the testing is, the sheer brute numbers of this kind of testing has not been beaten, and the Frozen Throne STILL shipped with several CTD bugs.

DA IS mostly bug-free. I've played it quite extensively, and apart from a few CTDs (which I've also experienced on the Civ games), it's okay.



"Almost bug-free" is itself an opinion. Even just one bug will kill your fun dead if it happens to YOU. You beta-tested for the game, so you're naturally biased for it. The final release will, of a certainty, feel significantly better than your beta-test exerience, but even you concede that it is absolutely not bug-free. You would probably feel the same if you beta-tested for DA.

"None that would spoil the game for you," is a valued, opinion-based, arrogant statement. How can you possibly know what would or would not spoil the game for me? Conversely, if you think that some bugs are reasonable, and your claim is reasonable, wouldn't the generally good reviews of DA also point to "mostly okay" bugs? Like other objections of yours, it boils down simply to a statement of taste and nothing more (or nothing less).



It's a fictional game with fictional support. Installations which cannot be built on-planet are largely unknown because almost all real installations ARE planet-based. The game allows for the conceit that planet tiles are used for both orbital and planetside construction. Orbital Terraformer and Orbital Fleet Manager are examples of orbital installations which occupy planetary tiles.

As I said, if the installation is orbital, then it wouldn't be a Starbase, would it? It would be an orbital platform of some sort.

I don't know of logistics and support for deep space installations because I don't know of anyone who does anything related to that. Neither do you, because such things do not exist. In some sci-fi universes, deep space installations are harder to supply, in some universes, they're easier. It's just a matter of which model you prefer.



I have never seen fighters and carriers done to my satisfaction, ever. It's just as well for me that DA and GalCiv2 don't even attempt it. Fighters are essentially guided multiple ordinance - little more than manned missile platforms, if you will. I don't see the point in complicating the game for a marginal complexity that isn't strategically significant.

Carriers are essentially battleships with bigger and longer-range "guns." What's the big deal?



It's a game concerned with starships and plasma weapons, dear. "Realistic" gets checked at the door.

Dan Greene:



I disagree with your opinion. Particularly in the case of Psilon and Klackon, your tech opportunities were severely limited - no choice whatsoever. No matter how your play Psilon, you always ended with the same techs - everything.

MOO2 tech management tended to several very circumscribed lines. I know because I've beaten that game at Impossible with every race and with a custom race at -10 ability just to milk the score.

You could dither around with unoptimized tech management, but if you really wanted to win, there were only a very few select tech strategy lines you went for.

With DA, I feel that each game is technologically different, because the map and situations in each game makes each tech matter less or more. Of course, we all beeline Ion Drive and Universal Translator ASAP, but there have been some games in which I delayed that because I needed ship production a bit more early game (and my race was pathetic at ship construction).

I've had games in which I entered a war with winning tech because everyone else's been locked into an arms race with only two weapons technology. That almost never happens in MOO2. You have superior weapons, or superior defense, but utterly strange new weapons no one's ever heard of? It just doesn't happen. Neither with the Civs.



Depth isn't always good. It doesn't make sense to make each planetary invasion take more than a couple seconds to code in when you could have 50 planets to conquer, and maybe fight over, conquering them twice over. You could play every combat in Civ3 like it was Shogun: Total War or even as an RTS minigame, but it would hopelessly bog down the real game and it would be a royal pain. As you know, the Civ series doesn't allow you to manage your combat, either.

Even in MOO2 you only took over ship controls if the game's AI was too stupid to use your ships effectively. Many people didn't bother even creating many hyper-effective ship designs because it entailed having them control each combat tactically.

Having 3 or 4 factors to control that essentially gives you 5 or 6 effective options to code for is no different than the 3++ options the game already gives you for invasion options, except that entering your choice precoded is easier and less time consuming.

Tweaking your 8-10 variables to the same 2-5 optimized options each time is not different from just offering you those 2-5 options as buttons, right from the get-go.

That's a matter of opinion really. For example, in my opinion, GC2 is good (that was never in dispute), but it's not great. Too many "details" prevent it from reaching such status. I'm not saying other games in the genre are better or have no flaws, nope. But that's not the point.



"Not necessarily" being the key to this comment. Personal preference, no doubt about that. Everyone here gave their opinion, and an opinion is just that. Complex may mean a lot of things, but for me (and others) it's the immersion factor that is mostly lacking - for a space game.



Depends on what you mean by simple. Simple to play, I could agree - notice that it depends heavily on how much time you can dedicate to the game. Simple mechanics, I could actually disagree. There will never be a consensus on this, we all know that. That's why these are opinions.



I'd say both. And I wouldn't call it disatisfaction as it makes it look like I don't like the game. I just think it's sort of a "jack of all trades" game. Broad in spectrum, somewhat shallow in its components.



I meant it's easier to deal with. And of course, again it's a matter of opinion.
The problem is we can discuss these things ad eternum, but it'll always boil down to opinions.



I've already commented about the techtree somewhere else, don't want to go there again.



And what would you need tech support for if the game was released "finished"? Apart technical problems of course.



Again, that's an opinion. Some people still value what's correct. I don't think this is something you can argue, right?



So exactly what have you gained? You had to wait nonetheless.



Not sure what you mean by this. And notice I was talking about documented bugs in DL that were not fixed.



It's a generalized opinion, yes.    No bugs were reported after the last patch.



I *did* test the very last beta, which was the gold version, and the release version. I cannot of course say it has no bugs, but I can say that none were reported after the last patch. If no one reported any bugs, most likely (not surely notice) no one had their game experience spoiled for them. And most of the bug fixes in the patches were ones *I* spotted, BTW, still testing after release, not the general player base. But these are details of course.



That "you" was a general one, not you. See above. It's not arrogant, it's drawing conclusions. They may be wrong, sure, but you saying it's arrogant without thinking I might have a reason to say it, well.



I'm reading the forums, not the reviews.



Not sure I follow. You mean real in the game, or really real?
And that "almost" there isn't all too helpful.



Yep, like a Starbase.    Orbital platform is a generic designation. As starbase, space station, whatever.



Sure, but I do have a brain. I can think of the difficulties.



That's an opinion. And the key is *your* satisfaction. Are fighters in GC done to your satisfaction? And is not having them at all actually better than having a decent implementation? And do you doubt that sooner or later they'll make it to GC?   



But you're not the only person playing it, are you? Maybe there are actually other people that would like to see them implemented, and you can't really deny that. This opinion could be consider selfish.



With starships? Strongly disagree here. And unfortunately yes, it does get checked at the door, and that's mainly what makes it what it is.