What i quoted is soooooo similar, or as anyone should interpret such close relations, to Civ IV (or less) that it's all quite obvious that your favorite gameplay (IN general) is picked right off Sid Meier's ruleset philosophy.
Really, this is getting asanine. If you're not going to back up your statements with any actual facts, then please stop making them.
Here are some facts:
15: Planet viability has nothing to do with Civilization. For two reasons: 1, not all cities in Civ are equally viable either, so I clearly cannot have taken the idea from there. And 2, the reason I want planet viability is precisely because the game is in space. The random-number-generator is what dictates how many planets you can get, not your choice of terrain. You can't do the kind of fudging you do in a Civ game to make the best of bad terrain; a PQ4 is a PQ4. As such, you need to make sure that all planets can be reasonably useful.
19: Civilization IV doesn't have any collective unionization of the kind I described. It has something similar to the UP, which I arged against. So in fact, this change would be moving it away from Civ.
20: Tech trading in CivIV and GC2 work exactly the same. Therefore, this idea would be moving away from Civilization.
22: Neither Civilization nor GalCiv have ever had tactical combat. And I want to keep it that way. I guess that's technically making it more like Civ, but that's a pretty poor argument.
26: Civilization does not have a robust alternative planetary/city conquest mechanism of the kind I describe.
27: That Civilization doesn't have a gameplay-sanctioned way to dominate the AI doesn't mean that removing GC2's mechanism is intended to move it towards Civ. There are plenty of reasons to remove Diplomacy on its own merits, and this thread has outlined them in detail.
So yes, your comment is entirely nonsense.
We're Wardell followers. Fanatics (How strange!) of a satisfactory system of principles & features that DO an excellent job within its premise; 4X in space with a slick Sci-Fi tone and planets and, and, should i?
Good game design should be taken wherever it is found. And ignoring CivIV's incredible advancements in User Interface out of some sense of pride is just stupid.
BTW, I would point out that it is clear that Wardell has not followed your advice of ignoring the competition. The UI of Elemental clearly shows that he has learned the lessons of CivIV's UI.
Note that a good game mechanic idea can be bad for your specific game if it does not fulfill what you want that mechanic to accomplish. That's why you should look at other games and evaluate what works for your game and what you should rightfully ignore.
And to answer Sole's question, that is why I didn't propose changing the resourcing model to look like Civ's; because it works against the goals of a GalCiv production model.
I just think you're providing inadequate detail.
The details don't matter. What matters is what the eventual mechanic should accomplish.
For example, GC2's resourcing and production model rewards local specialization (planets have a specific function: money generation, production, etc) and global generalization. Compare this with Civilization, where local specialization is mostly discouraged; every city of a particular size ends up looking for the most part like every other city (with the possible exception of factories). It is that (among other things) which gives each game its unique feel, not the specific mechanics that create these effects.
We aren't designing the game here (and if we are, we're going about it the wrong way). If I were to provide what I would consider relevant details to how to develop some of my ideas, I would effectively be designing the game. It would involve the creation of a multi-hundred page document, detailing interdependent mechanics and so forth.
Describing how production should work is meaningless without knowing also how combat works. Or how influence or any such replacement would work. Mechancis are interdependent, so talking about one in the absence of the rest is not useful.
What is useful to a game designer is not what a specific mechanic should be, but what a specific mechanic should do. The process of game design is to take a set of goals and to build the mechanics that fulfill those goals. Taking that process halfway doesn't interest me; either stop at goal setting or take it to the level of a full design.
i've alwasy thought its odd that as soon as you've met a race, you instantly know their full economy, research, military, population, influence via that little graph at the bottom, maybe this should be tied into espionage?
The thing about space is that it's... space. It's open and empty. It's hard to stop someone from just wandering wherever they want.
I would say that whatever mechanic gets used should be fairly trivial. Probably not on first contact, but it should not be too difficult to get basic statistics from another race. Likewise, it should be quite difficult to prevent someone from getting basic statistics.
However, what might be interesting is the ability to, if you invest in espionage in some way, lie to someone. Not like Diplomacy or the Spin Control Center; I mean a real lie. If they have been relying only on basic espionage, you should be able to invest more in espionage and be able to feed their "agent" (not that I'm suggesting it be based on DA's agent system; it's just a general term) specific misinformation. That way, you can actually have a espionage war: they have to spend resources to make sure they're getting accurate information, while you can spend resources to keep them from getting that information.
A winning condition is a goal, how it is deployed and brought to your attention is context.
That's not how it works. A victory condition is a special rule of game design; it is what defines that the game should end.
You don't have the choice not to surrender the game when you are in Checkmate; it is a mathematical fact in accordance with the rules. You lost.
Similarly, if the clock runs out in a sport, the game is over (unless it is a tie and the rules have something to say about that); you don't get to choose whether you should surrender if you have fewer points than your opponent.
What you were talking about originally was if you're close to a victory condition and essentially assured of victory, but not having achieved a victory condition. You said that, at that point, you should be given the opportunity to automatically win, and presumably the enemies should be given the opportunity to play on. And further, if your enemies want to keep playing, they have to justify it to the victor in some way.
You're talking about a fundamentally silly rule. Chess has rules for this because it's entirely mathematical; you can prove that you've won, even if the other player isn't checkmated yet. As I pointed out, and as you agreed, there is no mechansim to do that in a TBS game. So the entire foundation of the rule collapses.