And where do I say FOR EVERYONE? If I need to put IMO in all sentences I write, my posts will exceed yours in length   
I thought it'd be a given that whatever we write here is our personal opinion, and there would be no need to clear that with each sentence. Noone can ever talk for everyone else, and I think that's pretty much accepted by everyone. That you're turning this into an arrogance thing is odd...



Different paradigms, similar net effect. But that's not the issue and you know it. It's the bad cohesion between the storyline and the game's initial seetings, it's the pop growth rates that don't make sense, it's the propulsion techtree branch that is totally reversed, heck it's even the lack of orbital cohesion that *you* admitted being counterintuitive   , and a whole lot of other things. And if you read the forums, you'll see it's not just me.



Not *my* assumptions, current *physical* realities. That doesn't mean they won't change in the future. What about *your* assumptions?



Hmm, that's in a star system. *You* were talking about *deep* space. (As far as I can tell, StarBases are platforms that are built deep in space where there's nothing, precisely BECAUSE there's nothing. If there were a planet where you need it, you'd build your installation there, not in deep space.) You might want to be consistent    Seems to me you're actually telling me I'm right.    And contradicting yourself.



I mentioned satellites as a counterpoint to your "interference with observation", and you know that. Isn't that what we've done here, on Earth? This is not *my* assumption.



Ok, so none of this discussion means anything, because *everything* is in deep space. Can't argue with that.
Isn't that an assumption of yours, the resource storage? Doesn't that depend on the planet? Aren't you forgetting that you said SBs should be outside solar systems? I think you're getting confused and actually defending *my* view.   



Well, my boy, fusion is *not* eternal. And fusion needs fuel. And you're talking supplying an entire "planet". Life support, heat, atmosphere generation, gravity generation, food production, shields, construction/repair/maintenance vehicles, comms, thrusters, light. Water and sanitation? Health problems? Etc etc.



Still waiting for the convincing arguments    And the same can be said about you, ot not?



Maybe it's not just mine... China does have an Ancient period, a "Medieval" period, and a Modern period (that's how you put it, remember?). What does medieval mean to you? That the Dark Ages were specific to the Roman Empire in all of its extent, that's another matter. That it encompassed most of Europe, part of Asia and part of Africa, it just means that the designation doesn't apply to Europe alone.



Clans follow a Chieftain, hence "monarchic". One guy ruling the Clan, and since the Clans are usually composed of people with family relations, the lineage is also monarchic in nature.



Drew inspiration but not materials. Not armored then. Your point?



Your assumption. Reflexes in a modern jet fighter and on a chariot or horse, where's your comparison? Is there any sense in this? I don't see it, frankly. Can you evolve fighters (space age fighters) to extreme speeds and still retain reflexes? That is the point.



Yeah, so? Point? With regards to what was being discussed, of course.



Because the Greeks (the Aegean city-states actually) had the most formidable military at the time? *They* revolutionized warfare with the Hoplite concept. Not anyone else, *them*. With the Phalanx way of fighting, as opposed to the traditional "free for all" of sorts. The Romans then improved on the Phalanx and created the Legions. But anyone that knows his history knows that.   



Modern universities have their origin in Aristotle and Plato (actually, Sophistic principles).
They weren't trained by the commanders themselves, if that's what you mean. But that's not what I said either. And the Hoplites example was *yours*, not mine.



Right there. You're not becoming arrogant now, are you? Assuming you're right and all. Wouldn't want that, now would we?   



Sure, but it also doesn't follow what other games in the same *genre* do, but you know that already.



And those changes you're talking about would be?

having been an official beta tester for SC:Broodwar, and Diablo 2 and an unofficial one for Warcraft 3:TFT (yarrr) and following just about every Blizzard game closely through their development, I can tell you that Blizzard not only base much of their content on player feedback and suggestions but were one of the first companies to actually do this.

Many high profile players such as Zileas and Shlonglor actually got jobs with Blizzard following the work they'd done beta testing and writing about the games. So the players are not only making the suggestions but designing and playtesting the games first hand.

Tos Iceman:



But there's a difference. Saying that the game isn't great and saying that one does not like the game particularly aren't the same thing. The former implies at least some bit of general applicability and objectivity, whereas the latter is specifically only a personal dislike of the game.

There's something of a difference between saying "I think this game sucks," and "I don't like this game, but I can see that it's a great game anyway."



Absolutely not. Sci-fi, by its very nature, is SUPPOSED to only superficially "make sense." It is fundamentally unrealistic. There are so many ridiculous things in Star Wars that are colossally "dumb," but we gloss over it anyway.

Why, for instance, does the Death Star have such a porous structure that entire fighters with warp engines can go into its core and blow it up? Surely several bars of steel will go a long way protecting against that? And this after the first one was blown up by a missile targetting the core! Who's the stupid guy who designed the Death Star?

All scifi has consistency problems, and even the slightly better imagined Star Trek comes apart at the seams if you look at it sideways.

You're criticizing GalCiv2 for a fault that all scifi has!



All assumptions are based on physical reality. Which ones you choose to emphasize will affect the final product. It's still quite subjective. As for me, I have no assumptions of my own. That's why I can accept so many worlds as being plausible, and why I can equally enjoy GalCiv2 and MOO2, despite their being fundamentally different in suppositions.



The current line is arguing for non-planetbased colonization via "space stations," which are still not in orbit around any planet.

Between star systems, it's conceivable that junctions and stopovers are needed for various purposes - you build a Starbase there because you don't have anything to build on, supposing that you preferred to build on planets in the first place.



Yes, it is. We do that here because we live here. If we were coming from outer space, it seems rather pointless to set up shop in a hostile environment while pining for the advantages of orbital stations.

Why not just live in orbital stations? Is Venus less hostile than empty space?



1. Everyone has assumptions.
2. Different things. Clarified above.



Yes, yes, and yes. Fusion isn't literally eternal, but it might as well be.



Absolutely. That was my point, exactly.



Um, China's "Ancient Period" isn't conincident with Europe's "Ancient Period," and it's not commonly called "Ancient Peiod." Likewise, "Medieval" is a nonsense word when you're talking about Chinese history. There is no "medieval" China.

What does Medieval mean to me? The specific period in history that historians refer to by that nomenclature, the phrase "Dark Ages" having fallen into disfavor. "Middle Ages" is another term used. While the designation may or may not strictly apply to Europe alone, to attempt to understand even near Middle Eastern history by the common European historical goalposts is dangerous at best and foolish at worst.

If you can refer me to a Chinese historian who commonly refers to a chunk of his nation's history as "Medieval," I'd be much obliged.



1. Clans aren't all ruled by chieftains or exclusively by them. Some clans are ruled by council.

2. The political structure of monarchies is usually quite specific, whereas clan political structure varies by region and peoples.

For instance, even in clans where the ruler's rule is absolute, it may not be hereditary, nor may he have a class of nobility that nominally supports him, etc, etc.

The political structure of some clans may resemble some types of monarchial rule, but they are by no means the same thing.



Armored by metal lamellar plates. All references specifically refer to this kind of armor as characteristic. Point made elsewhere.



It doesn't matter. Regardless of whether you can evolve fighters to extreme speeds or not, the egress of technology and the widely different factors involved makes it incredibly improbable that space fighters will fight anything like a WW2 fighter.

Indeed, it's even questionable whether fighters are a reasonable way to make war in space.



The Greeks had the most formidable individual units in their immediate demesne. At no point was the Greek military ever a threat to anyone outside of its locale.

Indeed, the Macedonians had a superior fighting force and were later able to annex the Greeks directly by force. Once Alexander had merged his Macedonians with the Greek heavy infantry, it was not longer merely the Greeks, but more accurately, the Macedonian Army.

Too, while the Greek phalanxes were a key unit, they were by no means all that powerful on their own. Phalanxes are tough defensively from particular angles, but they're unwieldy and cannot maneuver very well.

As a comparison, the Chinese spear infantries at comparable times were already Legion-like in terms of formation tactics, strategy and efficacy. We cannot know how they will measure up against one another, but Chinese infantries were NOT free-for-all affairs, and famously had the 8 basic formations into which they formed to clash with the enemy. These forms were changed up in battle as the situation demanded.

Legion warfare is also not derived from Phalax warfare. The fundamental ideas behind them clash directly.



Yes. It's SILLY that you need libraries in order to develop good fighting men with bronze weapons. Sparta was famously all about the fighting, and they had the most formidable units among the Aegean city states.



You tell me. Fundamentally changing the game is how you say it. If you fundamentally change the game, then you haven't made it better, you've simply made it into another game that YOU like better, no?

I know you read the conclusion of one of my latest posts, so I'm not even going to comment this...



Read what you want, like I said it's not just sci-fi. But fine, I'm not going to repeat myself.



Of course not.



But that's not what the current line says, is it? Maybe you were confused? Were you confused then or are you confused now?



And those purposes would be? They have to be very good, requiring you to man a starbase in the middle of nowhere...



Nope, so that the atmosphere doesn't doesn't interfere with observations. Or because they're not restricted to line-of-sight, in the case of comm satellites.



Yeah, ask NASA. Or the russian or european space agencies. That is, if you really need to.

And you're talking from experience I take it. Got your own fusion based power supply, uh?



Strict definition of medieval being an age between two other ages...



As long as you've noticed the quotation marks...



Cataphracts were actually used as a response to the phalanxes, not the other way around. If that's what you're talking about.



According to you, maybe.



How how does this relate to what I said, and most importantly, to where you were going when you brought up the Hoplites example?!



Read what I wrote again, this time more attentively.



Again, tactics. But whatever.



Well, since *you* broght it up, I assume you know what you're talking about. Which ones are you refering to?

Tos Iceman:

My time is brief, so I can't comment on everything right now. Sorry. I'll get to you in a few days.



I think you're not getting my point.



Entirely made up ones! It's scifi, so we have any number of justifications that we can just make up as we go along. It sounds incredible, for instance, to just build up a city in the middle of nowhere, but we have Las Vegas.

The realm of scifi coevered by GalCiv2 is so far in the future that there needs no real scientific reason for these things to exist.



They're sent people to live in orbit, but not to live on the Moon or Venus. I take it one is easier than the other.



The historical term "Medieval" refers to a specific time frame within European history.

No Age of any other historical egress is referred to as "Medieval."



Depends on what you mean by "cataphract." If you mean Ancient Companion Cavalry, I believe they were used as a response to light cavalry and occasionally heavy infantry.

If you refer to the later development, phalanxes were not in use at that time.



The tactics involved in Phalanx warfare are practical, not theoretical. One does not need a library to evolve the Phalanx, and it seems counterintuitive, even to need books to develop practical ways of fighting with ready equipment, especially in the Ancient period.

As long as it's for GalCiv related stuff.



So far in the future?



Are people *living* in orbit? Really living? And aren't there plans for a permanent base on the moon? (notice the word plans, just in case)



Read *how* I wrote that sentence.



Parthian heavy cavalry. You brought up the Parthians.
Heavy cavalry was a solution that worked vs the phalanxes.



Maybe Military Academies all over the globe should listen to what you have to say.

Ah. More time now. Sorry for the delay. I hope you didn't miss me that much



Yup. Galactic space battles and the colonization of the galaxy are way beyond anything we have that it's purely fantasy. Once you get that far out, anything goes.



It depends on what you meant by "really living." Are inmates in prisons "really living?" What about Japanese salarymen who essentially live in little cubicles day in and day out? People have lived in the space station for extended lengths of time. They need to be brought down because there are deleterious effects from lack of facilities (gravity, for one) that need to be addressed.

I expect that people who spend time on any other place would initially be given much less time there as well, as they originally did with the space station. We don't know what kind of deleterious effects will occur when you live on the moon, but as of now, living in orbit still beats living anywhere else by a very very long margin.

If you're looking to show that planets are the way to go for extraterrestial colonization, present day space technology is not your friend.



Doesn't matter.



The Parthians were on the same temporal period and had borders with the Romans, not the Greeks. Roman infantry are Legions and Auxiliaries, not Phalanxes. The Parthians evolved from the previous Sassanids who were already headed the way of armored archer and lancer cavalries, the development of both can be traced northwards and eastwards.

These developments were much later than when Alexander passed through the area and in no way involved any contact with contemporary Greeks (who I doubt even had Phalanx-style at this point in time).

If you can point out a reputable historian who says that Parthian Cataphracts (a term which really refers to Roman cavalry "cataphractoi," but can be extended if you wish) developed to counter phalanxes, then I'll be very much obliged.

Legions might be a more reasonable and more temporally correct unit to be mentioning, no?

Perhaps you meant "phalanx" as in "spear formation," many of which do not actually resemble the phalanx of the Greek or the Macedonians. Some people like to call Swiss pikemen "phalanxes" on the supposition that they're essentially the same as Greek phalanxes, but this is misleading.

If you know what a Swiss pike formation and what a phalanx is, you would know that they are fundamentally different creatures.

Moreover, phalanxes and swiss pike formations were excellent weapons for dealing with cavalry, light or otherwise, and it seems counterintuitive that the Parthians would develop a nonspecific armored cavalry unit to fight an infantry unit that's practically designed to defeat cavalries.

Against the relatively lighter Legions, the Parthian's largely mounted troops proved to be devastating on any number of occasions, and phalanxes are, of course, vulnerable to archers and ranged weaponry, but I don't recall any reference to Parthian cavalry being developed in response to (of all things) phalanxes!

Despite the previous domination of the region by the hellenistic Seleucid Empire, by many accounts, the most devastating military defeats of that power were by Romans, and the rise of Parthia only came about during the waning days of the Seleucid Empire. Even then, the horse archers were usually noted to be the great devastating weapon of choice, not heavily armored cataphracts.



Sarcastic remarks don't contribute to any sort of meaningful discussion. If you have nothing to contribute, then isn't it best to just say nothing?

2178~2225 is hardly "so far in the future", that's what I meant.



Let's see. Inmates are really living on Earth. Japanese salarymen too. Astronauts in orbit, they live on Earth too, they spend some time in orbit. A limited amount of time. Extended lengths of time doesn't say anything, as you're not comparing it to anything specific. It's a dodge basically. And the gravity issue, yep, right on, shame you didn't think of it before.



And that research you accessed is found where? I'd like to read it.



And since we won't be really needing it for another few hundred million years (if all goes well)... but then again, present day space technology and deep space stations are hardly better friends...



Of course not, stupid me.
I'm sure you got a better name for Dinastic China or Feudal Japan.



Actually, I asked you about Cataphracts to determine what you were really talking about. You started with "central asian tribes" (you should find the difference between clans and tribes BTW), then moved to modern-Iran Parthia to justify armored cav, which like you say has little to do with Hoplites...



I said *heavy cav* was used to counter the phalanxes' wall of sarissas. Archer cav, with long range attacks. I later asked about Cataphracts, I was probing you to see if *you* were talking about Cataphracts. 



Actually the Sassanids evolved from the Parthians, not the other way around. 4th and 3rd Iranian dinasties respectively.



Actually, Hoplite phalanxes appeared around the 8th~7th century BCE.



See above. I didn't say such a thing. But you have a particular way of reading what I write.

WWW Link



Regarding Hoplites? Nope. Notice that I didn't bring any of this up, you did. You were trying to make a point, and never really kept consistent.



I meant it exactly as the topic required it, Hoplite phalanxes. I try to stay on topic, I don't drift off.



Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a point to be made...

Tos Iceman:



In that case, make your point again. Less sarcasm, more clarity.



The date is largely for flavor purposes. It's like turn of the century books which have us flying the stars by 2025. Obviously that's not going to happen.

Thus, arguing about specific dates is like arguing about which color starships should be - it may be theoretically interesting, but it's largely superfluous. As far as we know, space travel is such pure fantasy that speculating on when it will become possible (if it even ever will be) is as pure fantasy as speculating on when Elves and Dwarves will be discovered on Earth.



"Spend some time" is also loosely translated as "lived on/in/at." As in "I lived in Kentucky for a few weeks."

Did you really live in Kentucky? Of course you did. Just not for most of your life. At that point "really living" simply becomes a matter of semantics.

You're objecting to space stations because the people who have lived there only did so for limited amounts of time. The amount of time people have spent anywhere else is also extremely limited.



The longest anyone has ever spent in space is in a space station, not on planets or moons. This information can be accessed generally at many sites.



Of course. The part of Chinese history dealing the the dynasties is called the Imperial Period. Smaller blocks of history are labelled by dynasty, and the few times where China is divided, it's mentioned by specific names, such as the Warring States Period.

Feudal Japan is likewise referred to by specific names. Some of the most important parts of Japanese history are referred to by the ruling powers or the state of the nation, such as the Tokugawa Era, the Meiji Restoration, or the Sengoku Jidai.

None of these periods are usually referred to as "medieval" in any fashion, probably to avoid confusion that any of them are contemporary with "Medieval" European history.



My mistake. I had meant (and meant to type) Seleucids. I confess I have no idea why I typed Sassanids.



Archer cavalry is almost never referred to as "heavy cavalry."



The site doesn't say what you apparently think it says. They formed their armies based on their experiences with battle from the Seleucids, but that wasn't their only influence, and the heavy cavalry, as far as I can tell, wasn't developed to counter heavy infantry.



I have. I said that it's silly to suppose that the development of hoplites involved libraries and universities. That point hasn't really been challenged other than by the same speculative notions that allow all kinds of stuff to be developed in Research Center, Research Academies, and Invention Matrices.

All this other stuff is quite peripheral, I assure you.

As an aside, even the Seleucids didn't use hoplite phalanxes, but units which were merely arrayed as a phalanx. Hoplites were specific to Greece and had little to no direct part in the development of heavy cavalry.

Do I really have to? Wasn't it quite clear?



What are you saying, it doesn't make sense? Heh. Anyways, it *is* GalCiv we're talking about, and there are space stations already, so another 200 years in the future, who can say?
2025 is still a few years away, and it's not like it's not possible to "fly the stars" already.



Yeah yeah. Whatever. So in deep space that would be...? And the gravity issue?



Heh. So that automatically means living in orbit still beats living anywhere else by a very very long margin? That's nice.

(snip)
Blah blah blah. You know, going from the techtree to another game and then to world history is hardly staying on topic, and to be quite honest, I don't think this is the place. I know you know what I meant, so I'll leave it at that.



Maybe you should read that 1st paragraph again. Maybe it doesn't say what *you* think it says. Or what you would like it to say?