Using the same list as Zyp above (from post 103 of this topic, on page 5):
2&3: These are, to a degree, mutually exclusive. Removing any random elements from combat will give battles where you can be absolutely certain in advance the results before the battle happens. Your "properly composed" fleet takes the place of the current "bigger number" fleet without actually making a functional change in the (completely predictable) outcome of the battle. Besides, tactical combat of some form is a given at this point.
4: I'm all for greater visibility, but flatly reject being limited to moron math. I'm not in 5th grade, and I don't like my games insulting me by assuming I am. Besides, this would limit the game to pretty linear mechanics, generally resulting in the "bigger number wins" scenarios you hate so much.
5: Good in theory, perhaps even doable - but it would be quite a stretch. For instance, before WWII, Germany's largest trading partner was France, with Poland also being a significant trade partner. Unless the smaller civ can prevent the larger from simply TAKING the resources they need, this model won't work.
6: Rework the current mechanic for building them, yes. Scrap the entire concept, no.
7: More flexible map generation is always good.
9: Designs that are better at one over the other, yes. Designs that can only do one, no. Arguably that mechanic is already present, as ships without engines are pretty ineffective as attackers, while ships with engines can attack easily at the expense of some combat power.
10: Again, I don't like being limited to math I can do in my head. Great for a pencil and paper game, not so much for a computer game.
11: See #4 and #10.
12: Meh. I'd prefer the current system, but yours isn't necessarily bad. It would need to be more filled out to make an accurate judgement.
13: I have no experience with Civ, but the basic idea sounds flawed. It screams "rich get richer" to a point where even *I* object to it.
14: Maybe not scrap the whole thing, but there are definitely points that need improvement.
15: Planet viability IS the terrain equivalent for GalCiv. No cookie-cutter planets, please.
16: Colonizable, no. Usable in some form (larger versions of asteroid mines, fuel sources, etc) yes.
18: Perhaps each gets a down side as well as an up side. Currently there is no disincentive to move up in government techs.
19: Not that I like your idea any better than the current system, but improvement is necessary somewhere.
20: I don't particularly like the mutualy exclusive tech trees you want, but tech liscencing is a good idea. Although if tech can be stolen, this will relate to #5 above.
21: Meh, I'm good either way.
22: This ship's pretty well sailed. Now it's just a matter of how it's implemented.
23: Might be a good idea, but marketing the game is a lot easier with a campaign.
24: An inhabited asteroid can not match the size or production of a real planet, and should not be depicted as that. Asteroid mining might change some, but hopefully not to that. The only real changes I'd like to see is the use of multiple mine ships to improve them faster, and perhaps a better culture flip defense (assuming culture is basically the same as current.)
26: As I brought up when this post was new, the current system is not absolutely starbase-dependant either. Nor should the culture mechanic be exempt from the same issue as trade in #5 above. Nonviolence is a great philosophy, but only if your opponent is willing (or forced) to play by the same rules. Grapeshot trumps the crap out of a nonviolent protest.
27: Reluctantly, I have to agree. Not because of the AI issue you sited, but because it's going to be nonfunctional in a multiplayer setting.
28: Bleh, I refuse to play with either system. There's a damn good reason you can turn surrenders off.
29: Essentially, the current tiny class IS a corvette size. And hopefully Stardock NEVER includes a carrier concept. Magic reincarnating ships? No thank you. That carrier damn well better need to visit a planet to rebuild its fighters, or need a resupply ship, or use up expendable onboard resources or SOMETHING to get more fighters.
30: Only replace it with a fuel requirement, or an actual life support requirement, or mainenance requirements or something. A ship constantly on the move for 5 game-years is going to need the occasional refuel, refit, and maintenance cycle.
31: Meh. The current system is fine, but I'm open to improvements.
32: No conceivable positive outcome can result. Change the mechanics, sure; ditch teh entire system and replace with nothing, no.
For the more current issues:
Well, this is a direct form of Tactical Combat in Space.
No, it isn't. There is a difference between making moment-to-moment decisions during a battle and making a single command decision at the beginning of that battle. Even moreso when that decision is selected from a small palette of about 4 possibilities.
Stop trying to move the goal posts; we all know what tactical combat means.
No, we clearly do NOT agree on the definition of tactical combat. The difference between this and anything else is a matter of degree of control. There are quite a few steps between this and full tactical control. For instance, you tell your ships to target enemies with fleet bonus modules first. Once those are destroyed, does your fleet continue the battle uncontrolled, or do you get a choice to retarget another type of ship, or retreat? Now if you get that choice after every round of combat, does THAT qualify as tactical control, or are you still just givign general directions?
Chess and Go have more challenge and depth than all the TBS games ever made put together. They are also much simpler
than any TBS games.
Maybe there's something to that. Maybe overcomplicating a game is not the way to create real, lasting challenge and depth.
I know I've said this before, but you clearly missed it or misunderstood. If we *wanted* to play chess, we would be playing chess.
If you're going to have a mechanic where off-planet constructs can aid a planet's productivity, asteroid mining as DA implemented it is not the way to do it. It's too simplistic, boring, and one-dimensional.
That directly contradicts your uber-simplified, playing-chess model. What explains your preferences toward simplicity in some areas and your extreme dislike of simplicity here?