"You may think that your 250-pound hairy hermaphrodite half cousin is the prettiest girl at the prom, but that doesn't make it so."

Seriously is speech like this ever necessary on any topic?

"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."

More honest then the devs for it is clear this is what they had in mind too.

It's not that I'm sinking, it's just that you have nothing better to do on the weekend, and that amuses me.



It only says that if you don't understand it. Why should I follow directions from you? It's your idea... let's see you put it into practice. Since you're so confident of the result...



You need me to provide you a link to Wikipedia? How funny that you don't know about that yet... you really could use the knowledge.



What I did is find sentences where you responded as if I thought the game was perfect to strengthen your position. It's all right there. Will you now admit that your assertion was incorrect, and I never held the position that the game was perfect?



You were told by myself and others repeatedly that a 10/10 score does not indicate a perfect game, just as a zero score does not equate to a game with zero gameplay. You're wondering about things because you don't comprehend them... a familiar problem for you.



Some of the reviewers agree with me and gave a 10/10 score. Using the average review score as a baseline (95%), your views are not shared by the vast majority.

I did read that SEV is buggy and horrible... your favorite game, the very game you claim is better.



Arguing semantics, are we? How droll. You are a liar, and everyone that has read this thread knows it.



You're point wasn't made, and the fact that you think it was indicates your lack of processing ability. It proves my point, and no additional evidence is necessary.



I didn't forget anything... will you admit that I never said the game was perfect, and a multitude of your posts were responding to a position I never even held?



What? You were the one who couldn't understand why star bases aren't in orbit around a planet (your quote "SBs should be built in orbit of your own planets, not in the middle of nowhere"). You suffer from chronic projection.



How mature.



I just felt kind of sorry for you. Here I am on Saturday going out and having a good time, and what are you up to? Typing away an argument on a message board of a game that you think is buggy and incomplete.

Kind of funny in a sad way.

I look forward to a clever retort from you, filled with such gems as "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."

That's comedy.

Hey Rox.

On the wormholes:

A feature which can easily be optional, like mega-events, super abilities, anomalies, minor races etc...

The game is always striving to give the player 'choice'. More choices, more ways to play the game, better the game can be. It may not agree with some people but that's what choice is about.

It's no more unfair than a civ that happens to have ended up closest to the most resources, or high quality planets. It happens. Not everything is equally distributed anyway.

It should go back to choice. Some are complaining about the mega-events. Some are saying it's brilliant. The key is, it's optional. Which satisfies two different breeds of GC gamers. Choice is a good thing. The more people satisfied through choice, the better it can only get.

I see you have toned down your attitude    Good. Still, after abuse come personal attacks. How predictable. Have nothing else to go on, huh? Anyways, like me apparently lots of people around here have nothing to do on their weekends, I guess they're all pathetic. You are not, of course. But what is 10 minutes on a saturday morning if it helps educating you?   



And it goes round, and round, and round. I think it's pretty clear though.



You mean the same Wikipedia where you looked up the word starbase?   
Apparently contrary to you, I don't need the Wikipedia. If you need it, well, what can I say? If I used 3 or 4 times, that was a lot - including the time I looked that game up, and it didn't say more than what you posted. Maybe that's all you did too? Which makes it a great argument...





So what does 10/10 mean exactly? You that do comprehend it can explain it to me. But thn again, you have been (very) wrong (too) often.



Oh so the average is 95%, wich incidently is < 100% (in case you haven't noticed). So is DA the best expansion ever or not?! I'm confused. Or cold that be just a matter of opinion? Or could your interpretation of what a scale is be wrong?



You're not assuming things (again), are you? And not lying (gain), are you? Because I don't remember saying SEV is my favorite game. You know what consistency is, BTW?



Oops, didn't think I'd be making it too difficult for you, with all the talk. And the "everyone" talk again, how lame. You really don't get it, do you?



Nor until you say please   



Again, your precious Wiki.



Hehe. Someone needs to tell you. Why not me?



You know, the fact that you *need* to bring this up tells me a lot. But that belongs to a specialized office, not a game forum.



I see you can't come up with your own lines. Sad indeed.    But to be expected. Artificially prolonging this is no good for anyone, but hey, as long as you feel important. It's therapy.

Knock off the personal insults, all of you. If you can't discuss like civil adults, just drop it.

After playing through the campaign I would have to say that my views are slightly less favourable to DA than before - while DA is an excellent expansion it's by no means the "best expansion ever" like people are saying in this thread.

I could think of many things in the campaign that could have been improved, which other games have. Things like cutscenes, scripted/triggered events during missions and an involving storyline with actual characters would have gone a long way to making this expansion the better than it currently is.

DA is nowhere near in the same league as some of the Blizzard expansions but it is pretty solid though.

ToS Iceman:



I think that it's largely a matter of taste at this point. You mentioned this also:



The game is played with starships and plasma weapons, or some analog of the same. All galactic games of the sci-fi genre are of this sort. All of it is absolutely fantastic and completely fictional. Each is tailored to a specific sentiment or general intellectual persuasion that makes each "believeable" depending on your particular viewpoint about the future of space travel. A game, then, becomes "realistic" to you depending on whether it agrees with your particular sensibility. There's no objectivity there and any claim of "lack of realism" is really more accurately said as "I just don't like it."

Or perhaps both statements should be mentioned.

Immersion is largely a matter of taste. Some elements are largely unrealistic in the extreme. Star Wars, for instance, makes almost no effort at realism whatsoever. It focuses instead on what is cinematically exciting. Thus, successful Star Wars games focus on the cinematic rather than on the "realistic."

For the most part, any genre that deals in space travel and colonization is fundamentally unrealistic because we have absolutely no idea what works for interstellar travel, or that it's even possible. The very conceit of the Hyperdrive is utter fantasy.

At that point, it becomes a debate on what magic is more probable, Harry Potter or Charmed. Both are utterly fantastic and neither can make a claim that it is more "realistic." One can only make the claim that one likes a particular "take" better. (I like Earthsea magic best, but that's me.)

Thus:



Referring to the "unrealistic" nature of starbases in the game is simply conceit, if you'll forgive the unflattering connotations. All Starbases are fundamentally unrealisitc, and for every difficulty you can give by placing them in deep space, I can counter with advantages. I believe that Gundam Seed, for instance, postulates that deep space colonies are industrially more powerful than the Earthbound parent colony because of inherent difficulties in planetside production of space-age materials.

What's even the point of making planetary colonies to begin with? Space is limitless and gravity can be simulated. Why burden yourself with corrosion and quakes and all sundry worries when you can just build colonies in deep space and simply create supply bases on planets for raw material needs? It's conceivable that colonization ought to be easier by mining asteroids than by building things on a hostile planet.

Even so, I can take the conceit of planetary colonization because I know that it's dramatic and familiar.

Likewise for carriers. In every film or action space-opera I've ever watched, space combat involving fighters largely involved them essentially functioning like late WW2 fighters on late WW2 carriers. Would this even work in space? Heck, MODERN REAL carrier/fighter combats aren't like that at all. You see the enemy on the radar, you lock on, then you fire the missile. The cannons on fighters are largely backup weapons.

Conceivably, then, Fighter combat in space should be nothing like what we see. However, it persists as an element of the sci-fi genre because it looks cool and it's exciting. For the same reason, Darth Vader et al fight with hand-to-hand primitive weaponry when they should be shooting each other with Force-manipulated projectiles or energy bursts.

This is then likewise merely a factor of taste with no objectivity whatsoever.

For me, the immersion was good because I can immerse myself in a lot of very improbable stories. Harry Turtledove's world is not the same at all as Isaac Asimov's world and both take increbidle, even impossible conceits to exist, but I appreciate them both as "realistic" and I can immerse myself in them, no problem.



This is not an opinion. I always can tell you when what I'm saying is opinion, but this is largely not. Master of Orion's and Civ's tech models are intertwined with a lot of "must-have" technologies in order to proceed with technological progress. Also, the range of interpretation is rather shallow. You can't, for instance, jump directly to Infantry without first knowing how to make Musketmen.

This means that in spite of all the pretty graphics and semi-factual doodads, MOO2 and Civ3 technological variation is very circumscribed. A Civ at the same level of technological sophistication will more or less have the same troops and be largely the same civ, technologicall speaking. Variation is built into these games based on terrain, strongly polarized Civ traits and so on.

Speaking in terms of tech dedication, GalCiv2 provides more variation. You COULD find a Civ that's technogically backwards in one or several key techs because in GalCiv2, such a condition is not only survivable but necessary. You could have a Civ that's absolutely no match at all for any other Civ in the game in terms of military (the equivalent of Warriors vs. Infantry) but holds its own with a combination of diplomatic ties, trade, and simple misinformation.

To put it simply, by virtue of interconnecting links to "must-have" technology, a Civ-type of tech tree is largely one long branch with a variety of dead-end subbranches and some choices about the ordering of research with limited range on that one branch.

GalCiv2's techs are obviously and completely independent and thus allow for more permutations and combinations.

I know you don't want to go there again, but if you like we can discuss this tech tree mode on another thread. Many people may be interested to hear my take on it (which seems to be in the distinct minority).



Game balance. It's not possible to beta-test a good game exhaustively enough to compete with millions of players devoting hundreds of millions of person-hours into playing it. Beyond a certain level of complexity, it's just impossible.

I recall the Starcraft series of games being tweaked and retweaked continually through long years of patching until the game balance was just right. A matter of a 5% difference in cost for some branch tech buildings made worlds of difference.

Such incredibly small and sensitive adjustments can only be made based on game-feedback and is the main reason for tech support for games of this sort. It is the new gold standard for game quality and cannot simply be ignored or downplayed. Asking for a "complete" game out of the box is essentially asking for a large chance of an imbalaced and unsupported game.



It can't be argued, of course. Despite that, I maintain that what works in business is always what's "correct." Something that's theoretically "correct" cannot be held to be a moral standard if everyone who does it ends up flat broke and out of business.

Some standards need to be maintained, of course, but in this case, I don't believe that it's all that much of a standard to hold onto. The free-market system is essentially self-regulating in this sense. Games that are unplayably incomplete won't be bought and the company that makes them suffers both in sales and in reputation.

If it's "complete enough," in the ambiguous sense of popular approval, then it passes the moral litmus test.



Well, purporting to know the tastes of a whole populace is even more "arrogant" than knowing just my personal tastes. Even so, I also provided that it may not be "arrogant," in which case, it cannot then be argued that DA doesn't only have "acceptable bugs."

So either you're making an arrogant claim, or DA's bug status is absolutely within acceptable limitations. One or the other.



True, but I was speaking only for myself, as myself, so I can hardly be held morally liable for expressing what is explicitly only my personal tastes.

I wouldn't object to Fighter and Carrier implementation, but I've yet to see any game in which I thought it made sense or was enjoyable.



Perhaps you can point to specific literature that refers to orbital bound platforms as "Starbases?" As far as I know, "Starbases" only refer to installations that are or have the capability to function independently of specific planets.

IIRC, Starlancer had "Starbases" but they were not orbitally limited. Most literature refers to platforms simply as "space stations." The Death Star, for instance, was a "space station," but it was not orbitally limited and is a specific example of a "space station" not merely being an orbital installation.

Deep Space stations in Star Trek were also not orbital in nature as was the Traveller's space station. Ferengi trade "space stations" and Delta Quadrant freestanding "space stations" are yet more examples of space stations that are not orbitally limited.

Regardless of your preferences, "Starbases" or "space stations" that are not limited by planetary orbit are a mainstay of two of the most popular space operas in pop American culture and it seems clear that the game is only catering to these tastes.

hiddenranbir:

The game is indeed about choice, but there's a limit to that. A choice that's marginally popular and will only randomly affect particular games - well, it doesn't make sense to develop it and have it take valuable real estate on the interface.

Such a thing makes more sense as a mod, to be perfectly honest. Perhaps you can ask one of the modders to make it a reality?

Point was, the game is not really *concerned* with starships, it's not the main focus, as in other galactic games of the sci-fi genre. Fantastic and fictional? Sure, but there's fictional and there's "dumb". And GC doesn't even try to be believeable, or makes some feeble attempts. I'm not the only one feeling this way, so there are other sensibilities out there that are not satisfied too.
Of course, there is a lack of realism in non-sci-fi stuff all over the game, not fictional stuff, so the objectivity argument is not really the best. But yes, I know, there's always the other argument, it's a game.   



As above, it's mainly "unrealistic" vs dumb. SW's latest episodes are crap, I tend to forget they're SW at all.



Yeah, and so it doesn't have to make "sense", and can't be discussed. Alright.



So where are those asteroids or hostile planets? And the supply bases are what but "colonies"? You *need* planets, and having the SBs in deep space away from said planets creates logistical problems that only add to the difficulty of building, operating and maintaining them. Thought I had already mentioned that. As for artificial gravity, is that a solution in our orbital space station? What about the room people need to maintain sanity? What about the effects of being isolated in deep space?
Star systems are also easily pinpointed in space. SBs in deep space, however, rely on beacons, which can be, accidently or not, disrupted. They also need shields as they have no atmosphere to protect them from cosmic radiation. Corrosion and quakes, that's if you would colonize such planets, but is that what really "happens"?
"Space-age materials" can be produced in orbital manufacturing facilities, where gravity's effects can be greatly reduced. You don't need to go to deep space for that, adding enormous costs to the whole process which should be already costly enough.



Ah, that explains it.   

"After playing through the campaign I would have to say that my views are slightly less favourable to DA than before - while DA is an excellent expansion it's by no means the "best expansion ever" like people are saying in this thread"

I think that has been firmly established.

Of course you're talking atmosphere combat vs space combat, but even if that's not the main point, the thing is, this is not a simulation game (and there are games that have a more modern approach to it), it's a strategy game. Your example doesn't remove fighters from the equation, does it? And GC's fighters (yep, the ones with a seemingly unlimited *range*), they're not really fighters are they? As for missile combat, there's PD, which in the game (and this is *not* sci-fi and unrealistic) protects against *any* attack. How much more unrealistic can you get?



Or it could just, there's no telling, right? So why should you assume it shouldn't be?



What do you mean primitive? You have a light-saber at home?
When both can manipulate objects through the Force, any object will do, since both can deflect such attacks. And then there's the minor issue of "honor" (that's not the word I'm looking for, but it'll have to do), if you will.



Again, this was never about impossible concepts, but cheese and dumb stuff.



So you mean GC doesn't have "must have" techs? Hmm. That's odd. Maybe I just misunderstood it.



Which is itself absurd, because making things like government forms be "researched" in labs like weapons, or concepts like good and evil, is a mechanic imposed by the way the game was implemented. GC's techtree scheme is more of a necessity.




GC's techtree is made of several branches with dead-end sub-branches, and some choices (...). Techs being "independent" just makes it more "unrealistic".



Sure, no prob. I just can't be repeating myself in each and every thread, at the risk of sounding boring. I guess you can understand that. My opinions on the techtree are scattered among various threads in the forums.

Oh, that kind of support. Well, I think there is some exageration as to SD being the best in that kind of support. I personally don't see it that way. I mean, them being so much better than everybody else. I prefer not to comment that.



To be absolutely honest, I didn't understand what you meant with this; how it relates to not having bug reports for a *long* time being an indication of there actually not being any detectable bugs. There are, and I know what they are, but they're really not noticeable. Some unless you have access to the code, some unless you're really looking for them. They're not noticeable during game play, and they don't affect gameplay.
As for DA, is the PQ bug "acceptable"? Not for a few people I hear.



Somehow I find these statements clashing with the rest of your post.

Sure. Star Trek. You can search for "starbase" in the Wikipedia and it'll read, among other things:

Many sci-fi series use the idea of starbases in their story lines, most notable of which is Star Trek, which shows huge structures usually (but not exclusively) in orbit around planets.
Two sci-fi series are even centered on a starbase: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Babylon 5.

Check the pic for the Spacedock One too.
Also in ST, examples of orbital starbases: sb74, 103, 179, Earhart, G6, DS5, DS9, DS K-7.



DS5 is located near Ivor Prime. DS9 orbits Bajor. DS K-7 is near Sherman.
There's also space stations Amargosa and Regulla I, but I won't include those for a matter of nomenclature.



Sure. I just said they're cheesy, and ultimately don't make much sense. I was expressing my opinion. And I did explain my view. Not forcing anyone to agree with it.

Wheww! That was long. Now this is an interesting debate.

But how many Blizzard expansions were pretty much based on player feedback and requests? Seems to me, most of what is in DA was pretty much brought about from this forum and the people who made suggestions. But it could just be me.

Rox: I think no anomalies are marginally popular, but we still have the choice. Same with most of the choices we have. The modding potential isn't as high as it could be for the choices given.

It's to give us choice to 'do it ourselves' then DA falls a bit flat on the face here too.

From the mods I've seen over the past year, we can just change text/graphics(?) I haven't seen a major sweeping mod that dramatically adds something to the game. Nothing to change the way the game plays/works. (I can think of a few mods for Civ4 which could have easily passed off as standalone games of their own!) We probably have a better chance of getting something in a mod from a space civ 4 mod, tbqh.

Your powers of perception are staggering.



There was no personal attack, merely humorous observation.

And yes, lots of people are here on the weekend. However, most of them don’t think of DA is second best to Space Empires V. If they did, they’d be at the SEV boards.



Of course you would. It’s the best you can do. Feel free to follow your own directions to prove your point and post the results here.



Yup. Did you learn that star bases don’t need to be in orbit?



You are correct. Proving you wrong (you claimed no game got reviews of "zero") using data from Wikipedia is a great argument.



This has already been explained to you as clearly as humanly possible. If you still don’t understand, I am unable to help you.

And look up the word "wrong," because you must be confused. You were the one that argued against DA being perfect repeatedly when no such claim was made.



My personal opinion is that the game is a 10/10, and the best expansion ever. Some reviewers agree with me. The average review is 95%, not 100%. Do you understand yet?

Not every reviewer agrees with me (that DA is a 10/10), but no one agrees with you (that SEV is superior than DA). Yet you find my opinion “absurd.”



Semantics... I’d stoop to your level and start criticizing your grammar and punctuation, but we’ll just skip that. You think SEV is a better game (in your words, a “real space strategy game").

Speaking of consistency, I see you’ve lost yours. You finally have stopped using the “DA is not perfect” argument.



Yes, I do. Everyone who has read this thread knows that you are dishonest, and will lie without provocation in an attempt to make a point. This is not a personal attack, but a documented fact.



Sad.



There is nothing in Wiki indicating that star bases should be in orbit around planets. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

So, what was your point?



So, what do you have planned for this weekend? Another rousing tour of buggy and incomplete game forums?


Are you aware that you’re not the first person to say, “I see you can’t come up with your own lines?”

I see you can’t come up with your own lines.



You continue to complain after instigating and perpetuating the very situation you’re complaining of.

So, will you now concede that I never stated that DA is perfect, and that your arguments were strawmen? Or shall we continue?

ToS Iceman:

Thanks. I was aiming for the trend of discussion here to focus on things people would find more interesting rather than on the specific lineages of specific posters, you and I included. Makes for more interesting reading and a more populated boards.

Re: Starbases

I may be mistaken about several of the DS spacestations, but the Traveller's space station and its mate, the space station of the Traveller's lifetime partner, are definitely deep space stations. This is also true for several of the installations of the Kazon, and at least one economic center for the Ferengi.

Indubitably, space stations are not limited to orbital locations, and I don't hear the DS stations being referred to as "Starbases" particularly.



I will sometimes make opinion-based statements that have to deal only with my particular sensibilities. The statements from this line of discussion are an example. I hope that I make it clear enough which ones are taste-based and which one are not.



Focus is a relative thing. Certainly, the game is no less focused on starships as, say, Master of Orion. Starships are your units in this game. ALL your units are starships, from trade, to colony, to war. By the same measure, we might say that Civ isn't "focused enough" on ground units.

It may or may not be at that, but this is exactly the level of "focusing" that the game strives for and its main fan base prefers. I know I prefer no further focus. I don't, for instance, especially want to pilot a Starfighter in Tie-Fighter fashion. That would make the game tedious.

"Dumb" is also relative. Was it better to have population units in the billiions that you can instantly reassign to farming or research or industry? What of an economic management scheme wherein you can instantly reassign between research, federal income, and (of all things) luxuries? And THEN you have separate "luxury" resources on top of that? Is that more "realistic?" Of course not. There is not a single 4x game you can name wherein the economic model approaches the complexity of even a Late Medieval Italian kingdom, and frankly, that's exactly how it should be.

It I wanted to count beans, I'd balance my taxes.

GalCiv2's model is different, but not any the less "realisitic" or "dumb" for all that.



And yet they're arguably more "realistic" than the original episodes were. At the very least, they provided lots more detail on the underpinnings of the Star Wars world.

If you'll review the original episodes (and everyone would be well advised to - they're that good), you'll notice that they dwell less on detail and "realism" and more on melodrama, action, and adventure. In fact, you could set Episode IV in feudal Japan and it would lose none of its impact.

Labelling GalCiv2 as "dumb," I think, simply means that there's a lot less focus on the things that some gamers find important - the details of weaponry, fancy quasi-scientific naming of ship components and all that jazz. The game eschews all that for a more robust strategic experience at its core. All its files are XML after, and you can put whatever name or explanation you want in it.



Not exactly. Any discussion of such things have to be at least partly tongue-in-cheek and can't be taken beyond a certain level of seriousness. Arguing for the "realism" of warp drive against the Probability Engine is pointless - they're both equally fantastic.



The problem of "realism" pops up again and again, as in here. Are deep space stations less "realistic" than orbital space stations? Which are more difficult to supply?

The answer is both are equally fantastic in the manner we're discussing, and that supply is purely a matter of interpretation.

Why do we need planets, anyway? Do we live deep underground because we need metal? Of course not. We mine the metal and bring it up where it's easier to live.

Is it logistically easier to research, create, and supply technology that allows us to live in a myriad of incredibly hostile environments? Wouldn't it make much more sense to simply focus on making space itself hospitable? That way we can live anywhere we want and simply mine planets robotically for the resources we need.

If we find a sufficiently Earth-like planet, then that's all well and good, but otherwise, we can just live in whatever orbit provides the best approximation and mine earth and gases and whatever we want from the planets we use.

What about room? Well, what about it? It's a function of adaptation technology. Making a station on the surface of Jupiter or Venus isn't likely to be easier than just making a station in space and it's likely that such stations will be just as small as an orbital or deep space one.

In fact, it'll probably be easier in space.

The effects of being isolated are deleterious no matter where you are - even if you're on Earth.

Are Star Systems more easily pinpointed? By virtue of the Stars? By the same token, you can simply orient your Starbase according to a known star and your location is known. No need for beacons of any sort, and no atmosphere or gravity will interfere with observation, transport and supplies, or transmission of data.

See? For every difficulty you raise, I can raise counterpoints that make deep space colonies more advantageous.



Actually, I'm more of talking about modern Carrier strategy, and Fighter tactics. Modern Fighters no longer engage other fighters in the manner Star Wars and Robotech fighters do. They simply engage their missiles and fire.

If we're complaining about "realism" and "dumb" things, then space fighters looking and acting very much like stylized WW2 fighters has got to be up there in terms of "dumbness."

Knowing what we do of space, space fighters would need accelerators at every point and would probably look more like bubbles or submersibles. It's even debatable whether we can make viable space vehicles of such small size for such purposes. It's not impossible, but the likelihood of a space fighter being viable and looking and acting like WW2 fighters is about the same as a deepwater warfare vehicle being the same.

That is - not bloody likely.

Is Point Defense "unrealistic?" Well, it depends. What exactly is "point defense?" What is a beam attack and how does it work? Why would or wouldn't a point defense solution work somewhat against a beam attack?

Even "space cannons" are fundamentally unlike any weapon we have on Earth, despite the superficial similarities to guns. Just think about it. Every time you fired one, your ship would go back the other way. Does it really make sense to have it as a weapon? If it is, it's probably unlike anything we know of as a "gun."

Why would or wouldn't a "point defense" solution work against such a weapon?

The thing is, you have preconceived notions of what constitutes these things and are unwilling to conceive of a reality in which these items do what they say they do.

Under what conditions will PD functions work against a beam attack? HA! It's essentially fantasy. We can make up whatever reasons we want, and science and reality are bizarre enough that anything we make up is perfectly reasonable for a thoroughly unrealistic defense system going against a thoroughly unrealistic weapon system.

I could, for example, say that point defense works against impossibly fast sci-fi missiles (even PHOTON missiles, for crying out loud) by "defracting" them momentarily (essentially pausing them a bit) before shooting them down. The same system that "defracts" energy missiles also works slightly against beam attacks because it corrupts their "frequency cohesion."

Heck, Star Trek Shields work universally against anything and everything, even theoretical time-phased particles! Why shouldn't "point defense?"



Precisely. Why use a cutting weapon at hand to hand range? Jedi and Sith have absolutely no qualms about using blaster weapons if the situation is best for it. Why use hand to hand weaponry at all?

We get all this rigmarole about lightsabers being able to deflect beam attacks (say what?!?!?) and honor and all that crap. Yeah, right. Dumb.

The real reason is because hand to hand fights are cool! Yup, they're cool! And they're especially cool when it involves swords and stuff.

You can come over and look at my lightsaber any time you like.



Absolutely. After a certain point, techs are so cheap that there's no reason not to just purchase and use them for a pittance, but prior to that, there's no great number of "must-have" technology. For example, you don't "have to" upgrade to Interstellar Republic if your plan involves prioritizing other techs first.

Civ3, for instance, puts such a premium on Republic that many players sacrifice great resources just to get it ASAP and even when your plan isn't infrastructure or development-based, it's almost absolutely imperative that you get it anyway.

MOO2's Automated Factories and related industry tech are almost the same. You can't use advanced ships if you can't make them.



I don't see why it's unusually absurd. All 4x games are the same. You use libraries and universities to research - Hoplites?!?!? Huh? Metallurgy is discovered in foundries and smiths, not libraries, and military discipline is founded in armies and military installations. It's absurd, but it's reasonable, too.



Several is better than just one, and I don't particularly see the interaction between say, Laser Technology and interstellar relations. For that matter, I don't see how all Earth history is divided between Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, or why you must have Monarchy before you can have armored cavalry units. Lots of steppe tribes had armored cavalry units while having no more complicated a political system than the immediate clan.

There's nothing unrealistic (or more unrealistic) about technology the way GalCiv handles it, and if anything, Civ's tech system is provably ridiculous. The Chinese developed moveable type and had cheap printed books 700 years before the Gutenberg Bible. And yet Western Democracy is still as alien and as inapplicable to Chinese society now as it has ever been.

Indeed, most Asian "democracies" are nothing like America's systems and are unlikely to be so for the forseeable future. Why is Civ, then, not "dumb," too? If the best 4x game series in history can be "dumb," then surely it's not such an indictment on other 4x games to be similar?



Well, Blizzard is certainly better and Atari not as good. Stardock is by far not the "best" in terms of product support, but they're better than a good block of developers currently out.

Firaxis could be said to be as attentive as they, but some Firaxis patches caused an otherwise fine game to crash repeatedly, and in some cases hopelessly corrupt system data. DA hasn't obligated anyone to reinstall their OS, as far as I can tell.

So, not the best, but better than most.



Most of the bug reports I've seen I don't normally encounter in my games. In fact, most bugs are single reports. Blizzard bugs are likewise not very noticeable by the general populace, but are incredibly bad when they occur - the few times they do. I don't know that this counts as being horrible, or "buggy," even.

Civ3 Warlords once had bugs that caused it to go back to Main Menu, and a few bugs that rendered even saved games crashable. There was also an AI "bug" that made the Army mechanic basically unusable except as an effective cheat - that's an entire strategic element basically removed from the game and never at all quite addressed.

Does anyone label Civ3 or Warlords as "buggy?" I don't know of anyone who can fairly say so.

To be quite clear, I think that you have flavor-based issues with lots of DA and it's biasing you against the game, even where there's nothing all that wrong with it. It's a natural tendency, of course. We tend to be more critical of things we already don't like. But I think you're not really noticing it.

The campaign is a minor part of the expansion pack.

As someone who played and enjoyed Starcraft Broodwars, there's no way Brood Wars compares to the kind of game improving changes that Dark Avatar delivers.

If immersive campaigns and movie-quality cut scenes are your metric of a good expansion then Blizzard is the standard bearer. But if new features and content that expands the game play is your metric , then Dark Avatar is the standard bearer.

I definitely agree that DA has content that expands the gamepley, but I wouldn't say it's particularly more or less than Broodwar or Warcraft3:TFT did for their respective games, the new units, maps and ladder options in broodwar (since you used that example) turned that game from a solid RTS game to one that had such finely crafted balance and counters that it would be played extensively by both casual gamers and professional gamers for the next 10+ years, now I think DA has definitely done similar things for Galactic Civ too, however BW also had an involving campaign on top of that with characters, cutscenes, plot twists, triggered events in the missions and all the rest of it.

I guess I've always been one to require a purpose for doing things and so sandbox mode never appealed to me as much as playing through a campaign. If you have a story and a goal, the game seems to have a lot more meaning, not just "lets take over the galaxy again". Not that sandbox mode can't be fun but for me a good story is pretty much the heart of any single player game, the galactic civ universe is such a rich one that it seems a shame to waste all that potential for storytelling - even if they don't have the budget for cutscenes I would have been happy with more than a couple of paragraphs of text after each mission.

Overall the campaign might be a minor part of the game that will only occupy most people for a couple of weeks, but it's the little things that turn an expansion from a great one (DA) to one of the best of all time (BW).

Just like they're not limited to "deep space" stations   



Yep, but you do understand that it makes it a bit hard to discuss things when you switch from one to the other at your own convenience, don't you?



Not all, no. You have SBs, and "ground" units. And I was refering to *building* starships as part of the game. It's shallow, when it could be one of the most interesting parts of the game, a *space* game. And can I ask you to please keep the Civ examples out of the discussion? It's recurrent, and really not relevant. Only increases the size of your posts to almost non-readable lengths, and I'd like to read the rest of the forums   
Yes, it's true this is Civ disguised as a space game, but the base principles are completely different. This is not a reflexion of the *past* history of *humans*, but the *future* of a dozen *alien* races. You can't compare.



I'm assuming you understood what I meant by "dumb", and are not really saying I expected that level of realism. I don't mean dumbed down, I mean really dumb. I've given dozens of examples, and there are many more.

Which reminds me, I have to do just that   



That's where we disagree. Compared to other games of the same *specific* genre, it is.



Care to explain that? Just because they don't have the space battles, which cannot be realistic because in your opinion things will not be like that at all in the future? Are the pods any more realistic than space battles? The huge clone armies? The huge robot armies? I think I might be missing your point. Also, they *have* to provide detail, that's their reason for being in the first place. They are meant to explain the background behind the 1st 3 movies. Also they also have melodrama and all that crap, you can't really have a hollywood movie without it, can you?   



Details, exactly. The fact that the game doesn't have both, details and robust strategic experience, is what makes it good but not great, the whole point of all this I guess. Sure I *can* edit the XML files, but the fact that I *have* to (if I want to of course) is not really helpful. Also, there ar things you can't really change.



If you don't accept certain "basic" assumptions about space travel and future techs, then none of this discussion can even take place. We might as well talk about the weather.



See? Here we go again.



Because *life* needed a planet to develop, with an atmosphere, water, etc. Humans didn't evolve instantaneously in deep space for a reason. We'll always need planets. I don't understand why the discussion is going this way...



Why didn't you say the moon or Mars instead?



I'm sure NASA will be pleased to have you working for them   



But your counterpoints are weak. The universe is expanding. Relative coordinates? Hmm. Ok. Detecting "dark" bodies in space? Ok. Even beacons are of no use, as they're limited by the speed of light. A star, OTOH, is always detectable, and its gravitational effects pretty much allow us to "map" space aroud it - detecting possible "obstacles" that can compromise jumps.
Interfere with observation? So what are satellites for again? Transport and supplies? But you're *dee* in space, what do you mean? Transmision of data? How do you power your transmitters without a star as a power source? Of course there are ways, but that cheap? And eternal?
See, for every counterpoint of yours, I can come up with a counter-counterpoint    You know this is not the way, don't you? I think you know we need planets, you're just trying to present a case. That's ok, I like the challenge.



Yes, we all know that. But again, fighters are still part of the equation. Did you check the GC's techtree? And read the descriptions? Particularly the PD ones. Chaff, ECM, Point Defense, and all that. The early techs are all XX century techs (and *human* techs, which is lame - yet another dumb thing, lack of QA basically). Sparrows, Stingers, Harpoons. I think it's pretty clear.



Not necessarily. Space combat will still be limited by human reflexes, so it won't be much different from what we have today. Unmanned drones are a different issue though.



You should read the tech descriptions for an answer to those questions.



Again, read the descriptions.

Recoil? Ever heard of gauss guns? "Other" games call them railguns, space cannons is another "childish" description so common in this game. And there goes immersion again.    And I'm sure you can imagine thrusters that stabilize the ship when firing.



Again, we´re talking about GC. Read the tech descriptions and they'll tell you all you need to know. If they're weak, that's a whole different ball game. The fact is, you can't dismiss them and argue with *your* preconceived notions about them. I *am* using what's in the game for this discussion.
So ECM or chaff or point-defense (as described) is hardly effective against mass drivers just like shields are ineffective against Harpoons or slugs.



Because ST weapons are energy based weapons?   



And why not? Cutting weapons are generally hand to hand weapons. They are effective because they *cut* through your body, rendering it useless. Without a body, you can't really use energy blasts or other fancy stuff, right?   
Sure they use blasters, but against each other it's prety useless. So everything being equally (potentially) ineffective, which is most effective in case a blow gets through?
Light sabers are energy weapons above all. So why shouldn't they deflect blasters? And they're cool, sure, but can you say the same about the lame stuff in GC? Because that's what this is all about   



I see you said "there's no *great* number"    Sensors, Propulsion, Economics, Hulls, should I go on?
As for Republic, and such examples, as I said before, that's essentially a "bonus" tech, not really worth being called a "tech".

Thing is, here you have *one* entity, labs. Space age labs. nd again the Civ examples. Hoplites didn't have any special metal or weapons that were unique to them. It was basically the way they were organized, discipline, formation and leadership. Generals could attend universities for military doctrine, and read old treaties on tactics in libraries - that is, if you need a racionale   



Because that's how history has it.    And clans are some sort of "monarchy", aren't they? And the definition of armored in steppe tribes is what, leather?



Well, I could give you the example of Mass Driver (yep, that absurd concept where you attach *drives* to asteroids and hurl them at planets but that don't really plunge said planets into ice ages) not being related to Propulsion. I'm sure I can think of others if you really want me to.



Again, this is not an argument. This is not just about you. Saying "DA IS almost bug-free" is not compatible with presenting *just* your own case. This is one of those cases mentioned above, where you switch between general and individual comments.
I don't really judge a game by its bugs. As long as they get fixed. But if it has bugs, and they're not really fixed, that doesn't weigh favorably to the game. It could be better, and that was of the points in my first post in this thread.



Nothing new here. I have 2 "gripes" with GC. Lots of cheese potential, and lots of bad sci-fi/details/QA/consistency/whatever. That's all I've been saying. Again, for the Nth time, it's a good game, it just isn't great because of details if you will. It has potential (to become a true strat game *in space* - true space strat game seems to confuse people), but it'll need some major overhauls, resulting from what IMO were bad design decisions. It'll need continuing "expansions" and upgrades which I suspect was already foreseen by the devs. Some aspects of the game seem naive, or excessively simplified.
If you read my every post, that's all you'll find. Nothing more, nothing less.
Someone once said this resembles a strat game in the desert, where planets are cities. Very true, best description I heard.

This can have at least 2 other interpretations. The base game is lacking in several aspects for the majority of players; and the devs didn't have such a strong view of what the game should be like after all - like with MP, carriers and TC, but those may be more because of technical difficulties than anything else.

ToS Iceman:

That's precisely what I said. Specifically:



Now this is exactly the same as I've been saying about the bugs, but I can acknowledge that my opinion on the bugs is just mine. Despite that, the general consensus on bug issues seems to be positive.

Thus, one must argue either that the bug situation is "okay," based on acceptable fan base barometers, or you could make the arrogant claim that your opinion is the only one that matters. While I stated my opinions on the effects of bugs in MY games, it's also true that there's ISN'T a whole lot of fan-based condemnation on this game based on bug problems (which can't be said for many games).


In the same manner, you are insisting that your own opinion on the flavor issues of GalCiv2 are absolute - that it is NOT a great game because the flavor is shot to hell, as opposed as simply your not liking it because you don't personally agree with the sci-fi position the game takes.

See, I can accept your saying that the game's flavor is simply not your cup of tea - that's fine. But saying that the game is only so-so FOR EVERYONE (or ABSOLUTELY) because it doesn't meet your personal standards of flavor... ...well, doesn't that strike you as a little much?

This bears particularly on your position here:



See that? I CAN accept certain basic assumptions about space travel, but I also appreciate that these assumptions aren't all that valid, and that various games and speculative stories don't all hold the same assumptions in place. For instance, the travel and communication paradigms for Star Trek are not the same as that for Star Wars and the universal and political implications make each a fundamentally different world.

Moreover, Turtledove's world, Le Guin's world and certainly Asimov's worlds all have different takes on the same issues.

We can have a discussion about how silly and "dumb" GalCiv2 is based on your own imaginations on what space "should" be like, but we must both accept that this is largely an issue you have with the game, and not an issue the game has in general.



Less important points of discussion:



My counterpoints only appear weak because you're already ruled them out based on your own assumptions of what space travel and living should be like. If I do not accept these assumptions (and I don't), then they are significantly stronger.

The universe is expanding? So what? If you can place a planet in orbit relative to a star, then you can likewise place a station in like orbit not near a planet. No need for beacons and whatnot.

Satellites on a hostile planet? Why bother going planetside? Just live on the satellite. Better yet, live in orbit around the star and mine all the planets for resources!

Wherever planet you are, you're *deep* in space, too. Whatever resources you need for startup and maintainance have to come from somewhere else (not to mention interstellar trade) and those are easier to accomodate on specially designed habitation installation than on a hostile planet.

How do you power transmitters? Fusion power, my boy. It's essentially eternal.

We can go on and on about this, and there's no end to it. Your points appear strong to you because you're self-convinced you're right and will accept no other reality.

If you can persuade yourself that you're wrong and I'm right, you'll find the same "strength" in my arguments.



1. You have an extremely limited view of history. That model only really has to do with the European theater and applies nowhere else. Does China have a Medieval period? Southeast Asia? India? Central Asia? Each of these land areas are as large as Europe itself.

2. Clans aren't monarchial at all. Some monarchies evolved from clan based structures and retain some remnants of that, but they are fundamentally different things.

3. The definition of "armored" is metal plated armor. The metal armored cavalry troops of the Parthians and the late Romans who predated the Knights drew inspiration from similarly equipped Central Asian steppe tribes.



By the same token, modern warfare should be exactly the same as Ancient warfare, since human reflexes have not changed materially in the last 2000 years.

Heck, modern warfare has changed drastically in the past 50 years!



Ah, but read the description! (note - it's the same thing you said). Hoplites are special troops the Greeks get from Bronzeworking, but no one else gets them! Why?

Universities for military doctrine? In the Ancient Period? There were no Universities! Old treatises to be read in libraries? Hoplites weren't trained by generals nor were they created based on any such treatises!

Where is the "reality" now? I know you say not to compare GalCiv2 to Civ, but it IS the closest analogue, next to MOO2, and you won't even touch the last one.

Any comparison of GalCiv2 to almost any other game is flawed because it's just not the same game - not focused on the same thing. It's like you're bashing GalCiv as not being great because it's not enough like Halo2 - which "focuses on the right kinds of things space games should!"

If you institute the kind of changes you've hinted at to GalCiv2, then it wouldn't be the same kind of game anymore - you haven't improved it at all! You would have simply changed the game into some other game that you like better.

Making GalCiv2 into a graphic-intensive Chess game (for instance) doesn't make it into a better GalCiv2 game, even though Chess is a better game than GalCiv2. It just makes it into Chess.