Alfonse

[quote]You want planets that cannot be taken by an equally teched enemy. Not "more difficult", impossible .[/quote] Impossible? To defend 10 planets in this fashion, you have to build 10 separate defensive [i]fleets[/i]. To take one planet, all you need to do is destroy [i]one[/i] of those fleets. The attacker has an innate advantage: being the instigator, they determine the time and place of the attack, and they determine how much force to bring to be

[quote]#9-7, overused levels: Agreed. Those level types really are overused. In pretty much every game type.[/quote] There is a reason they're "over"used: they're good, solid level design that provides the player with unique and interesting hazards. [quote]In other words, to make up for sloppy level design.[/quote] Or, to encourage resource management. Maybe you'll learn not to use up all your shotgun ammo when you don't have to. Or maybe you'll be killed because you r

[quote]Every other bit of logistics needs to be researched as well, why should this be any different?[/quote] To give the defender the [i]advantage[/i]. That's what we're talking about here. A player who is defending worlds must defend each world individually with different ships. And in a game like GC2, where an enemy has relatively easy access to any planet, you would have to put multiple ships at [i]all[/i] of your worlds to take advantage of this. As it stands now,

[quote]the problem of orbiting ships not being fleetable was recently negated for us with the orbital command center.[/quote] Which has to be [i]built[/i]. You must research the tech for it and build it. [quote]Technology and science have always follow this rule.[/quote] That assumes that the two societies in question intercourse frequently. That's not usually the case for inter-stellar societies. Now, that might be an interesting side-benefit of trade. Instead

It's funny: you never explain exactly [i]what[/i] these mechanics are you're talking about. Can you give examples?

[quote]I agree that the Economy is the foundation of GC2, and from it all else flows. But at the end there, when you start talking about balancing and weaknesses with respect to production, offense vs. defense, etc... I start to get a little squirrelly. I'm all for abstraction to a certain extent, but I wouldn't want the game to abstract away the economy to Just Another Stat. Economy SHOULD be the foundation of a civilization. What's needed, IMHO, is a refresher

[quote]Ya on the news and in the State of the State address they been talking about SD. Now was is it, 132 jobs i think i remember correctly. Wow SD is exploding.[/quote] I don't mean to denigrate SD here. It's great to see a well-run game development company that can expand in times of economic collapse, and it's a testiment to Brad Wardell's leadership and business sense that they have done so. But if the best thing that the governor of a state can bring up in their State of

[quote]Something like: IF (AI-Military "sucks", Research "military") ELSE (Research "Something Else")[/quote] That doesn't work. Mere "research" is not going to deal with the fact that the other guy has 5x the ships you have, because while you were busy researching, they were busy using their 5x better economy to build a larger military. The fundamental problem with the AI isn't it's high-level decision making: what techs to research and who to attack. It's high-level strategi

[quote]What do you think GC3 could add to make the game feel more of an EPIC struggle, than just a runaway blowout?[/quote] Part of that is the rules, part is the AI not taking advantage of the rules. The AI in GC2 was always designed to play the game a certain way. The way it was likely intended to be played. Unfortunately, GC2's rules tell actual [i]players[/i] to play the game another way. Because of the generally wide selection of choices, it is easy for an AI to choose po

[quote]The AI needs to be FORCED to do this[/quote] Why? I certainly don't. Unless someone actually forces me to, by threatening me and having a military to back it up, I generally don't research military until I have research a lot of mainstream tech: manufacturing, at least up through level 2 of these, tax buildings, etc. I use Diplomacy, a few fake ships, and trade to keep people from turning their eyes to me. Occassionally, I pay someone to go to war with someone w

[quote]I'll not be surprised if we see ONLY the starter edition for OEM, and then MS will take a hefty charge to "upgrade" it to something useful.[/quote] They're not going to do that. Starter edition won't even be sold as OEM; starter edition is for emerging markets (China, etc), as a way to stem piracy.

[quote]This includes important features such as rendering of graphics, game editors, patch updates, game content and less QA testing.[/quote] Console games get more Q&A than PC games. Console games have to be tested for basic functioning by the hardware manufacturer before the game is allowed to be released. And I don't know how console game development affects game content. [quote]Graphics are so bad they can run on an xbox360[/quote] I'm sorry;

[quote]Bad tactic?[/quote] It's definately sub-optimal. The AI probably follows a similar strategy, which is why it fails so often. It is better to centralize money production on a few high-PQ planets. The other planets are consumers of this money. This is more effective because you can have more tax buildings as well as a higher than base population on that planet (since it has the tiles to handle it). One high-ish PQ planet can financially support 3-4 others when properly bu

I just wish Super Events were more balanced. And reasonable. For example, the "Race X is becoming a super-race" is fine, because it's the beginning of a process that you can stop. Along with the "Woe To ALL: The Dread Lords have come!" These are things you can see happenning and have time to take preventative measures. They shake up the game. However, things like the Jagged Knife and the Pirates are just unfair. You lose your planets, period. No slow build. Nothing. Wh

There's a difference between cheaters and competitive players. Cheaters are jerks who do illegal things with the system, perverting its purpose. Competitive players push the system to achieve greater skill.

[quote]All we were saying is why does RTS games have to be so fast paced.[/quote] Because if they were slow paced, they wouldn't be RTS games. They'd be, well, Sins of a Solar Empire: a TBS game that happens to not wait for you. [quote]Im looking for one I can enjoy and not worry about if Im building fast enough.[/quote] Then what you want is a TBS game. What makes an RTS an RTS is not merely being in real-time. After all, if you put a 10-minute timer on GC2 tu

[quote]But should that also effect our gaming enjoyment from any specific game?[/quote] Why not? Are you saying that every player should enjoy every game? If that's the case, why should we need more than 1 game? Some people like Chess. Some people don't. For those who don't, there's Checkers, Go, Diplomacy, and any number of other board games that might suit their fancy. [quote]I dont believe we are bashing any one deveoloper or another. Like I said above it a trend. T

[quote]Once I research the next size hull, everything I create is that size.[/quote] The reason is that large-size hulled ships are fundamentally better per-unit-cost. They pack more firepower per-unit-logistics, they have more Hp per-unit logisists, and they cost less than the equivalent Hp/firepower/logistics of smaller ships. You don't need to add a % chance of missing (the game's combat has enough random factors, thank you). You just need to make the smaller ships more eff

[quote]But what if a player gets enjoyment from a TBS or RTS through more creative channels, like building the most perfectest/awesomenest turtle base with laser towers and moats of destruction? Or researching the pinnacle of some tree (or in my completionist way, all trees)?[/quote] Then [i]stop playing with competitive players[/i]. Find people who want to play by whatever rules you're interested in playing by. As much as you want to blame the problem o

[quote]Any game where 1-2 strats (oftentimes early games ones at that) are "optimal" and pretty much crush most anything else is just lazy game design.[/quote] "Lazy" game design? That seems a little arrogant. You can't predict what will happen to your game once it gets out into the wild. You can do all of the testing you want, but that can't compare with potentially millions of players hammering on the game for months on end. All a game developer can do is put mechanics and r

[quote]I think the point he was trying to makes the that most modern RTS have become a race. He who build 'this and that' fastest wins. There not alot 'strategic elements' elements in a race.[/quote] The point of any game is to beat the other guy before they beat you. It's always a race. What is strategic about it depends on the number of ways you have of getting to the finish line, and the number of ways your opponent has to stopping you, and vice-versa. In every viable RTS,

[quote]On the other hand there was Myth (it's sequel was even more amazing), a slow paced, no resources, purely commanding your units game.[/quote] So... it's not an RTS at all. There's no time-pressure, no "strategic elements" (ie: resource management). Just units shooting at each other. It's OK for you to like it, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with real RTS's. Without the time pressure of having 5 things to do and the time to do 2 of them, it just isn't

[quote]Who says that the mines would be that small? Take a 10-Meter or 50-Meter or -heaven forbid- a 1-Kilometer sized metal sphere. Fill it with some kind of explosive. Add a few super-strong magnets. Repeat several hundred times. There's a minefield.[/quote] So, you're going to build [i]ship-sized mines[/i]? Do you not see how silly that sounds? You may as well just build actual ships and leave them there. Furthermore, magnetism is a 1/(r^2) force. That means it decreas

Here's a completely different question: The biggest, most ultimately fundamental problem with every TBS game is this: the Rich get Richer and the Poor get Poorer. This doesn't quite happen in real life. Look at companies, for example. The larger the company, the more difficult it is for them to change strategies, react to market conditions, etc. Yes, they have a lot of power, but smaller companies can out-maneuver them as new technologies and advancements emerge. Why? Time pre

[quote]the same problem applies: the mine/missile is too small and expendable to support any type od "stardrive"[/quote] That's not the problem with mines. The problem with mines is that space is [i]big[/i]. When you're fighting tactically (assuming you're firing at ranges where you can see the targets. IE: relatively closely), missiles work because you know where the enemy is: right in front of you. Unless you scatter a minefield around a target that an enemy wants to attack (a fleet