[quote]If they take time to make single player worth playing and add a feature to pause the game to issue commands during skirmish maps, I'll get it.[/quote] Has it occurred to the people making similar comments to this one that maybe RTS games just aren't for [i]you[/i]? RTS's are about time pressure. They're about you making decisions quickly that will affect the outcome of the game. Speed [i]matters[/i]; if it doesn't, it's just a TBS game, regardless of how "real-tim
[quote]is it really so hard to believe that an omnipotent being would re-use parts/ideas? [/quote] You talk up human physiology in your post, but if you wanted to design an upright walking creature from whole cloth, you wouldn't use our skeleton. One of the reason we get backaches and other such things is because our bodies are [i]not[/i] "well designed" for walking erect. Oh, we can do it, and we can do it with fairly minimal problems, but our skeletons are not what you would build i
[quote]For activating, yes. But for downloading 2 Gigas of data, this is another thing.[/quote] Again, if you're making your game available for download [i]only[/i], you're accepting that only people with internet connections that can download your game will be able to play it. For store-bought games, GOO/Valve equivalent only need a one-time activation. A dialup connection is all they need, and they only need it [i]once[/i]. From there, you can just copy the game from place t
[quote]Why do you think Stardock will release Impulse Anywhere, allowing to download the game on one computer with High speed in order to install the game on a gaming rig that isn't connected to Internet?[/quote] That's still an incredible minority of the [i]gaming[/i] populace to have no connection to the Internet at their primary gaming machine. Even a simple dialup connection would suffice. Developers who want to use GOO or whatever Valve released will simply
[quote]This basically implies that the bonus is so Goddamned large that it dwarfs the weapon. This is a classic Bad Idea in my book.[/quote] No it doesn't; it just needs to be large enough to get past defenses. If basic attacks vs basic defenses of the same tech generation generally leads to a + or - 2 difference, then all you need is a +2 or +3 to get past the defenses. Likewise, a +2 defense bonus will negate that, bringing things back down to where t
[quote]Barring any other combat mechanic you randomly insert, the optimal response to that situation is to maximize offense while giving up on defense as ineffective.[/quote] If you're getting that impression, then it is due to not fully appreciating how the system works. First, even if you build ships without defense modules, you still have the logistics limit on how many can be in a fleet at once. If they can one-shot your ships (perhaps with liberal use of a "first strike"
[quote]You get marginal, almost useless gains from Tier 1 to Tier 5; such that you'd be better off researching better weapons.[/quote] Marginal? The difference between having a utility module and not having a utility module is [i]huge[/i]. Much of the power of ships come from different utility modules interacting with one another. Many utility modules only provide a per-ship bonus, so a ship that has both an attack and a utility module is better than one without a slot for utility mod
[quote]You're shifting the focus from *number* of weapons to *power* of weapons, but that is all.[/quote] No, it's not. GC2 weapons are essentially one-dimensional; each new weapon either obseletes the old one (by being smaller and/or more powerful, thus overall increasing the attack value of the ship) or you keep using the old one. A weapon is objectively better than another, and this can be measured using math that can be written into an Excel spreadsheet (I've done this).</
[quote]2 or 3 weapons on a ship? I assume we're talking something equivalent to a tiny or small hull...you can't possibly be wanting to limit battleships of the line that much...can you?[/quote] If I were to spec it out fully, the progression would be as follows (these are ordered in "tiers" of hulls. One tech tier might have multiple hulls available): Tier 1: (1 attack, 1 defense). Tier 2: (1 attack, 1 utility). Tier 3: (1 attack, 1 defense, 1 utility).<
[quote]1) Korath. One tech, several turns.[/quote] Nobody ever accused the TA tech trees of being properly balanced. [quote]Assuming the AI doesn't build a ship to block my incoming ship, I can research the required tech to invade them and get there in 10 turns almost regardless of galaxy size or difficulty, if range is ignored.[/quote] 10 turns? Really? On a Medium sized galaxy, the galaxy is 50x50 squares. I don't recall the actual numbers, but
[quote]Alf, a simpler game is NOT always a good thing! If you just simplify until there's nothing left to simplify, you get Pong. The way I see it, it's about finding the right LEVEL fo complexity, not lurching to one extreme or the other.[/quote] I didn't advocate "lurching" to any extreme. [quote]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
[quote]Seriously, TBS & tactical gameplay are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary - it's a coding challenge that some developpers turned into RTS to snatch the adrenaline rush crowd of players away from intellectual strategic planning that true, well designed, TBS is.[/quote] Where is this RTS stuff coming from? I said nothing about RTSs in reference to tactical combat in TBS games. There was a long series of posts (not just by me) about why tactical combat is a bad id
[quote](a;) positive effect on those who like the "gameplay variations introduced" concept as a whole or (b;) negative impact on those who prefer familiar principles.[/quote] You forgot (c;) have an overall negative effect on the game because it's a bad idea. TBS tactical combat has a lot of inherient problems, and solving those problems will often result in compromising gameplay somewhere. [quote]What about the UP electing a leader before each vote.[/quote] Th
[quote]Oh man, what are YOU talking about when you're writing... 15-- Cities in Civ#x = Planets in GC2, no matter how much you spin it away from facts or interpretations. 19-- "i described" , i must have skipped it somehow. 20-- What Trade idea, exactly? Tech trading in CivIV and GC2 work exactly the same. Techs, almost. But i'm going after Trade * (of everything, resources by Camels/Civ VS. nothing of t
[quote]We all know how population caps in RTS games suck Hydralisk Gonads right? Well why not bring that system into GalCiv3.[/quote] Because it doesn't fit. This goes back to the question of why you're adding a mechanic. Most RTS games have unit caps to discourage certain kinds of behavior. For example, some units are so powerful in mass quantities that the game has to provide a mechanic to keep massing such things from being too easy. Also, RTS games not only have a
[quote]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.[/quote] 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 [b][u]facts[/u][/b]: 15: Planet viability has nothing to do with Civilization. For t
[quote]So if i clicked YES, they must resign or prove to me *logically* that what they have is sufficient to stop my decision from being a clear winning status to the code. Again, this is a loop contradiction simply because the code WOULDN'T offer me the win popup if certain conditions aren't met.[/quote] Wait, so the AI has to show you, via some unspecified means, that it [i]deserves[/i] to continue the game? In the situation where the
[quote]I stopped at number 1. GC2 is not & never will become Civilization IV no matter how many ways we, you, i, him, her or (more importantly) devs (that ARE reading us all) could ever find to change, replace, enhance, modify (pet peeve of mine, btw), create, design other similar or entirely new features for it.[/quote] Wait: you're actually arguing [i]against[/i] GC3 having a decent UI? I don't understand where that comes from.
[quote]How is 27 "making the AI play stupidly"? The goal of the diplomacy stat is for the AI to offer you better deals[/quote] You just answered your own question: offering you deals that aren't in its best interests [i]is[/i] playing stupidly. [quote]I'm not allowed to use different words?[/quote] That's called " Moving the Goalposts ," so no, you're not allowed to use different words. A debate about t
[quote]You're losing me, Alfonse -- a single player TBS game such as GC2 interacts with a Human to declare pertinent information while an algorithm is a gameplay process that reproduces AI behavior as virtual opponents against that Human; the code takes these decisions already & we're simply unaware of Victory gaps until we click on the provided screen to look at the numbers (TA sixth box of growth bars to compare, that is!) or instinctivel
[quote]-Flat defensive bonus: You have to my knowledge already complained that any value SD would assign wouldn't be enough, although you may not have said it so succinctly. In any case, I would tend to agree with that conclusion. -Fleeting all ships in orbit: It's in TA, we've already had this discussion, and you complained about that . -Something else entirely: Oh, screw it, we know you'll complain about that, too.[/quote] The problem with those mechanics is
[quote]Fully half of it is either "remove x and don't replace it" or "remove x and replace it with", and I quote, "something that doesn't suck", albeit not always in those words.[/quote] Which half? The only ones I can see where I don't describe what the [i]effect[/i] of the replacement system should be are: 6, 14, 18, 27, 30, and 32. 22 doesn't count, as it's a warning not to add these to the game. [quote]In other words, you really have no idea what you want t
[quote]"Replace it with something that doesn't suck" doesn't count.[/quote] Two things: 1: I later posted an idea about combining influence and espionage. So there. 2: That still doesn't change the fact that you [i]grossly[/i] mischaracterized my list. [quote]Just out of curiosity, have you played Sins?[/quote] I played the tutorial in the demo, but I never really understood how the game worked, so I didn't bother to buy it.
[quote]If you're going to replace something, you damn well better know what you're replacing it with first.[/quote] Bad mechanics are bad mechanics, period. Games should not have bad mechanics, therefore saying that something should be removed does not require detailing what it replaces. [quote]Otherwise lazy and/or overworked devs will simply leave that hole in the game and ship it.[/quote] Um, so? If they're willing to ship a game in such a state, they wouldn't have
