GalCivII OR SoaSE?

Yes, that's exactly what you want to do

SoaSE doesn't have the depth of a 4X game at all, it's fairly run-of-the-mill RTS (sort of Supreme Commander crossed with Homeworld only bigger and slower). From what you've said, you'd be much better off with GC2.

Short answer. GCII.

Long answer. You should get GCII.

I would think the answer would be different if you asked the question in the two games forums

Over here i guess all players would sa GCII and in the SIns forums the opposite.
For myself i have purchased both games and as of yet have not played Sins once  :NOTSURE:  However i believe both games to have their pros and cons so i would suggest playing the free demo for sins (as you already know what GCII does and the expansion just makes it 200% better) and see how you get on.

Best of luck.

Yes, galactic civilisations offers way WAY more dept and strategy than sins of a solar empire. Granted, sins just got released and has 2 patches out, Galciv + expansion have been fully patched already and a second expansion is far into the beta's.

Galciv game can last much longer, offers more strategy and more fun in general.
Sins has the visuals + offers multiplayer.
I'd go for galciv if i were you, or both if you have the time.

You can download the beta builds of Twillight once you pre-ordered it.

Whatever you do, don't get them both!

I can't tell you how confused I get with the scroll/zoom/rotate views when I switch between games.

Or just get 'em both anyway, and play when you get the time. Either way, you will have fun!

Whatever you do... DO get them both.

But then, I biased.

I have both - and both are good just get both!

As you may have gleaned from my previous post, I was very disappointed by how shallow and typically RTS-like Sins was. I would have to say don't get both.

I have purchased both and like them both. However, I play galciv much more. I lean towards liking 4x features more than rts ones and the rts portions of SoaSE is not that outstanding imho.

I have both games too and I think GalCivII is the better game. SoSE impresses with its scale of universe and the huge fleets. It makes a lot of fun in the Multiplayer. But if you have a working strategy most of the games are nearly the same (especially in the Singleplayer). Vinraith is right, SoSE feels more RTS-like as 4x-like. GalCivII has much more depth in the 4x-area "eXplore". There are more different ways of playing and I love to design my own ships. So, if you don't like to play multiplayer games you should take GalCiv2.

(Sorry for mistakes or senseless expressions. English isn't my motherlanguage.)

Get both.

Galciv2 and Sins both rock. Enough said.

Etrius

You want to get GCII as SotsE is just another kiddy clickfest RTS game. Though slower than most it's still what it is. It's not a 4x like GCII by any means. You couldn't get me to play a copy of SotsE if someone gave it to me for free. GCII will offer you hours and hours and years and years of gaming pleasure and be sure and get the GOLD PAK so you get everything.

I have both, and would agree with much of what has been said above. Much of this is personal preference, but from my point of view, GC2 is likely to provide you *years* of consistent play, while SOASE is more likely to provide a nice "change of pace" from time to time when you want to play a shorter game.

Another factor which must be mentioned, which there is no way of knowing ahead of time, is how each game will play on your machine. I'm not criticizing Stardock here, they do their best with a very difficult situation, but both games have "issues" on particular machines. I put up with the unexpected CTD's in GalCiv2 because the value of the game is worth the inconvenience. I have learned to set my "autosave" to a frequent setting. SOASE has very annoying problems on machines witn NVIDIA cards (which are hopefully going to be solved soon). Odds are, you will not have a problem, (and if you do the support is great), but you never know ...

All i gotta say is those who say Sins is doenst have the strategic depth GC2 has, hasnt really gotten into Sins yet. I am a BIG fan of both games. But they are simply very different. If you like alot of point/click, through a vast array of different menues and options (wich i personally love) then GC2 is supperior. But the Fleet stratagy and combat of Sins is so vastly in a compleatly different legue to GC2 its not even funny. There is SOO much stratagy involved in fleet make up and dynamic and movement. It really is my favorate part of that game. And an aspect you simply dont even come close to getting in GC2. PLUS IT HAS MULTIPLAYER!!!! wich i LOVE. But to be honest GC2 does have a higher replay value, due to it being compleatly different every time you play. So that being said, what id suggetst is getting Sins first. It just came out, it has a 3rd update due end of the week, and its a change to get into the community while its still fresh. Meaning everyone is still relatively new online so theres plenty of noob games to build your experience and reputation in. Plus GC2 TA is not even out yet. As much as im all about betas, wait till its out then dive into all its glory! I know there may be some that say get into it now so you see all the changes, but ive always been one who actually likes to wiat till christams morning without peaking, because i revel the suspense.

Is Sins like Homeworld? I loved the HW series it and the Total War series are the only RTS games to date that I liked. I usally hate RTS.

The ability to design your own ships is one of the best features in GalII other wise the game for me plays a lot like Masters of Orion 2 (not that piece of excerment Masters of Orion 3) except updated with more features.

I have both games and I'm happy with the purchase of Sins. I think I like GC2 better. RTS games have a constant rush feeling all the time that I don't find particularly rewarding. TBS is much more relaxed and you can play a game a little at a time without getting too lost. Sins is a good game though. It doesn't have quite the depth of GC2, but it's a fun game and definitely worth the purchase. Given either or, I would have to go with GC2 unless you have your heart set on RTS.

Sins looks a bit like Homeworld, but doesn't really play like it. If you're not a fan of the RTS genre, its doubtful you'd enjoy it. I bought it thinking it was going to be a hybrid of an RTS game and a 4X TBS game, but it's really just an RTS game with very little strategic depth and minimal replayability.

First of all, Sins wasn't really my cup of tea.

That being said, both are excellent games in their own right, and you should get both. If you absolutely must choose, I'll say GalCivII - but that's because I like that style of gaming. Where I can take a break, tab out and talk over MSN for a while. Or go make a cup of tea.

Yes. Cups of tea. Or many cups of tea.

But on the other hand, you may be the kind of player that really likes a slightly more action-packed RTS, like Sins, that's over a bit quicker - that way you can finish a gaming session earlier than a GalCivII gaming session, and THEN have your tea.

But overall, I'd say:

Get both.
Buy them.
Play them.
Love them.

<3

I play and enjoy both games but agree with the others in this thread that GalCivII offers more strategic depth. Sins will improve through updates and expansion packs - as did GalCivII - but it is unlikely that any real time game will ever be able to match the strategic depth of a turn based game. Just the nature of the beast.

I do like the way the various ship classes in Sins tend to cover each others weaknesses and the value of several classes is almost entirely their force multiplier effect. This makes fleet composition a lot more strategic than GalCivII and I hope a similar model is chosen for GalCivIII.

How much worker micro is required in Sins? I hate games like Warcraft/Starcraft cause of that, and loved Kohan since it had ZERO of that. Can someone fill me in?

Compared to GC2, there's less micro-management. Of course, I haven't played any big maps with Sins. I have not yet felt the motivation to play a Sins game that requires more than one sitting. But, options are available for pretty big maps with a number of opponents. It's possible to set up a long game and in that case, micro-management might be a factor. Planets need buildings to be of use and ships need to be queued to build, but the range of buildings and ships is pretty limited. The tech tree is pretty simplistic so you won't get innundaded by it. Things have to be a lot simpler for RTS since you usually don't have the time to sit there and mull over things. You can raise and lower the game's execution speed on the fly so that helps.

That's not what I mean my micro- I mean micro in the RTS sense, not TBS sense.

Are you clicking every second to build your economy?