Alfonse

[quote]Such as 'missles in space' No, missiles are only deployed in "tactical" situations. Mines wait for someone to get close to them. That part is the problem.

[quote]MINES: Have a "mine module" that allows ships to lay a minefield in a given square (possibly have the module be able to do this only a limited amount of times before having to return to a friendly planet to resupply). That square would then have a high chance of damaging any ship that entered it (although some ships could slip through). Ships with weapons could also take a few turns to clear the field.[/quote] No. From a reality standpoint, mines are a fundamentally bankrupt co

[quote]As graphics technology improves in leaps and bounds for the next pc generation, more and more gamers expect, and more or less demand, new and innovating concepts to blow their mind.[/quote] Do they? See, I've heard this a lot. But I've yet to see actual evidence that a game with "good but old" graphics (as opposed to "crappy and old" graphics) is disproportionately punished relative to its cost. I personally believe that the Source engine, or perhaps something s

One of the things I felt that HW2 missed from the previous two games was how the gameplay affected the mood and feeling of the game. I'll give two examples. The mission just after Karak is destroyed in HW1 is crazy. In the span of one mission, you go from fighting basic fighters and corvettes to assault frigates, ion-frigates, and a fricken [i]carrier[/i] with a full compliment of fighters and escort ships. It creates the feeling much like the new BattleStar Galactica: you're a rag-ta

Research better hulls. The "cargo" hull should only be used for utility ships.

[quote]So far, you've entirely scrapped the population system, influence system, espionage system, economic system, anomalies, ethical events, combat system, starbases, morale, colonization mechanics, and probably a few others I've missed. What the hell is left?[/quote] Except for the economic system and population (and colonization, though I don't know where you're getting that from), all of those systems were either introduced in GalCiv2 entirely or were substantially altered in GC2

[quote]Have you ever *read* an indepth book of chess strategy?[/quote] Yes, I have. My point is that Chess has very simple rules. Yet it is an incredibly complex and deep game. Is that in spite of the simple rules, or [i]because of[/i] them? The more you overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. Despite all of GalCiv2's complex rules and functions, it is a much simpler videogame that has come the closest to achieving Chess-like depth: StarCr

[quote]but elegant != simplified, and certainly ! I've already provided evidence that you don't need non-linear mathematics to create deep and compelling gameplay (Chess & Go). What evidence do you have that linear mathematics isn't sufficient to create deep and compelling gameplay. [quote]Wrong (but oh so 'Intuitive') economic models are where we get into messes like the one we're in now in real life, and I'm not particularly keen on tr

[quote]First off, I would like to know if it is possible to use a computer program to relatively accurately predict the properties of the resulting mixture/compounds of various elements mixed together under predefined conditions.[/quote] Um, no. We can only really predict things at the very small nano scale. And complex interactions aren't easily predictable.

[quote]Except that population is needed for influence and invasion resistance as well.[/quote] Yes, but we're talking about GalCiv 3. Influence should be replaced by an alternate mechanism for subverting planets, preferably built into the new espionage model. And invasion resistance should be based on building stuff (again, not using up precious tiles), not planetary population. Once those are gone, population has no purpose.

I'm personally against non-linear functions because, to me, they're the sign of a lazy developer. Chess and Go have more depth than GC2 will ever have, and they're incredibly discreet and simple in their rules Mastering a concept is about a reduction to simplicity. It's about finding the elegant solution, seeing the patterns and intersections in the small and letting them build complexity via interesting interactions. Plus, other TBS games seem to have balanced gameplay withou

[quote]Or they could do the sensible thing: adjust the tax rate first, see the effect, then plan morale buildings to fit the drop they already observed.[/quote] But the function for morale is [i]even more ridiculous[/i] than the piecewise tax function. You can't just look at an planet's 80% morale and go, "I need 4 morale buildings that eacn provide 5% morale" because the equations are non-linear. You can only keep building morale buildings until the morale problem is better. Or you s

[quote]As for a 64-bit standard, I'd be in favour of this. 4GB RAM is more or less the standard these days, and it would make things easier for developers.[/quote] Maybe lazy developers who don't know how to manage their own memory. But few are the single applications that honestly [i]need[/i] more than 2GB of RAM. And I've never seen a game that is actually doing enough to justify taking up that much space. Developers just want the freedom to allocate memory and forget

[quote]4: I dont' so much hate the concept the concept of dumbing down the resource or economic models, as abhor the concept with a revulsion bordering on the violently psychotic - in my opinion the models are already on the simplistic side. I'm all for a full scale macro-economic model included in the game in economic expansions and contraction come and go, you can issue or buy back government bonds depending on your credit rating, etcetera. I don't like shooting guns partic

[quote]It is still possible, however, for light to reflect a few times between the panels of the ship.[/quote] Yes, but due to the empty nature of space, you're only going to one one or two bounces before the light simply disappears. Hardly worth the effort of modelling. The ambient occlusion stuff is designed to deal with an environment that is creating diffuse interreflections. Having a ground plane that reflects light upward is a big part of that. Space has no such thing. I

[quote]In real life, there's no "ambient" light, either - it's simply the effect of light bouncing around a gazillion times.[/quote] Yes, but in space, there's nothing for light to bounce off of. The ambient occlusion stuff is a better approximation of diffuse interreflection, which simply doesn't exist in space because it's empty. [quote]I don't know if you've noticed it, but when you add a "light" to a ship, it does not illuminate the panels and surfaces around it - it's pre

1: Better UI. Civilization IV should be the [i]minimum[/i] standard. 2: Combat should not be random. This is a personal pet-peeve I have with all TBS games. 3: Combat should not be reduced to simple "bigger number == win" type of things. Or at least, not always. Ship construction should feed into that; a fleet composed of the right ships with the right abilities should be able to defeat other fleets that are bigger/have bigger numbers/etc. Ditch the 3 attack vs. 3 defense nons

[quote]It's simply sqrt(13) * (1 + 30 * 0.25) versus sqrt(20) * (1 + 26 * 0.25) or 30.6 versus 33.5. Clearly in this case you get the benefit of a higher pop *and* a higher income by giving up 4 stockmarkets in favor of an extra farm and 3 VRC's.[/quote] You fail to take into account one other thing: empire-wide effects. 3 VRCs may not be enough to offset the morale sufficiently if your overall tax rate is high. If you are running 50+% taxes, because all of your other money-ma

[quote]Best New IP is hardly something you can give to Sins - we don't have any actual backstory. Giving an award for what might be there is asinine.[/quote] Hey, there was that introductory cutscene. Can't forget that ;) [quote]But given that IGN nominated FarCry 2 in this category, their competence is in question anyway.[/quote] Very much agreed. [quote]Again, some very shoddy nominations by IGN, but this is the award Sins does deserve, if o

[quote]Oh, and I have to add that I'm disappointed that Spore made the list. It was simply too flawed in its execution, and its development was unfocused.[/quote] Its presence tells you something about the current state of PC games.

[quote]Year after years, there are always (it seems) a gauntlet of 'Pick a weapon & Shoot at that enemy (monster, invincible or otherwise, btw) overthere at the end of the tunnel' type of games which **always** rank up the ladder of PC stuff.[/quote] Has it ever occurred to you that maybe those games are not as simple as you describe them to be?

[quote]3D Yes, "advance" away from isometric view No.[/quote] I don't know what KotOR you played, but the one I played was not isometric in any way, shape or form. It was over-the-shoulder, much like Mass Effect and Jade Empire. Also, calling BioWare's RPGs "action-RPGs" is an insult to true real-time action RPGs. BioWare's games are turn-based with dice rolling; they just hide it better than most.

It's slightly more complicated than that. The function that provides money based on the number of population a planet has is not a linear function. It actually is the square root (or some root) of the population, so you get diminished returns with further population concentration. And morale is a power function of population, so it increases faster. Combined, it effectively means that in a planet with X tiles, there is some combination of morale + tax buildings + population that will

[quote]Game manuals are boring.[/quote] This is a TBS game. Intricate details are part of the experience. If you find manuals that explain the game's rules in intricate detail boring, maybe TBS games aren't for you. Now granted, reading the GC2 manual is folly; it is horribly out of date and may never be brought up to date. What GC2 needs isn't an in-depth tutorial; it needs a tutorial that explains how the game is meant to be played. How to manage an economy and so fo

If you are familiar with XML technologies, then you must be familiar with XSLT. This is a very powerful XML transformation language. So if you don't like a particular XML format, just write an XSLT to convert it to a format you do like. And if a program has to use the old format (like GC2), just write an XSLT to convert the new format back to the old one. Problem solved.