As much as "alignment" is a nice concept, it's a "per person" thing rather than a "per race" one. You can't really say an entire race is good or evil. That standard depends on how each particular race views good/evil. Should the Korath have a *minus* 50 alignment or something?
According to the story, races were already trading amongst themselves too, and they all have to research Trade techs. Accoridng to the story, some races had already warred among themselves, yet you have to research hulls and weapons and defenses and sensors, even the basic ones. According to the story, some empires had already carved an interstellar empire, yet you start with your HW, and apparently pop "growth" is related to migration - from/to where, unknown. And then there's the A
If the Iceman thinks it's well below perfect, then he's certainly out of the norm. Did you see me say well below anywhere? The OP gave it a 7.8. Some people agreed. This thread doesn't even have a big # of posters, so how do you get to what the "norm" is? Oh, I know, reviewrs and "polls". To TOS: What in this world would
That's all you could come up with? Apparently it was enough to shut you up. No wonder you're so familiar with the word "pathetic." Yep, you gave new meaning to it. Thank you for that. The fact is, you have no arguments, and no idea of what you're saying. Let's see. You say scoring is relative, and is scaled to the best there currently is. So if tomorrow someone releases a much better expansi
Yeah narrowminded, he can't even get his own story straight, but he rules
why star bases are in space, and not in orbit. Last time I checked, orbits are in space... Anyways, since you're so limited in what you can say, judging by this poor excuse for a post, I'll let the subject rest because quite frankly your verbal diarrhea doesn't really impress me. I think you've made enough of a fool out of yourself, I'm satisifed <
Hummmmm... That would make ANYTHING small in late game next to useless. Again?! Like I told Yamota in the previous page, there would have to be some form of compensation, namely miniaturization. If there was a slot limit, you could cram a lot of lasers on a tiny hull, which wouldn't be effective on a large hull (because of the slot # limitation). Like I said, th
Sorry about that 4X hiddenranbir, I had a mental block. I always think of 4X as being MoO and Stars!, my mistake. Mental block, sure. Heh. That's not the point, and you know it. I think DA is a 10 expansion. You said that was an "absurd opinion." I then asked you what your opinion of a 10 game was. You never responded to that directly, but you did say that Space Empires V was your idea of a "real space strategy game."
Maybe make hull sizes only mount weapons and defenses in an equivalent "tier" - tinies mount only the basic beams, smalls can mount up to lasers, etc (same for other weapons and defenses). This probably would need the techtree to be slightly restructured though. Ok, as someone who generally likes things to make sense, be realistic, and follow a certain logic of "tidiness" (sp?), here's my take on how the Space Militarization branch of the techtree c
the size of engines drastically increasing over hull sizes, or even better, defenses! Yep, brought that up already, defenses and engines are the only items that should have sizemods. None of the rest makes sense. Does it feel strange to anyone that bigger hull doesn't come with better defense? Not really. The thing is, the techtree is not a level-based one. If you could focus on each hull tech and
I suppose this would eliminate the rock/paper/scissors paradigm If a major overhaul of the entire military engine was to be done, then the logic thing to do would be to go with a standard combat system. Ships have hull points, armor protects against all attack forms, shields protect against beams (hit before armor) and PD (also before armor) protects against missiles (and fighters, if there would be such a concept in GC - not GC fighters mind you). Now,
there's no reason a civ could not make a breakthrough, or indpendently discover a slightly higher tech without first knowing one immediately preceding it in the tech tree. That's why it's a tech*tree* These quirks bug anyone else? Oh yeah. There's lots of them. You'd think that a storyline tailored for the gam
I don't know if "slightly" is the word your are looking for... Not really big changes, only restructuring the # of weapons/defenses per class. Hence slightly That would make smaller ships completely useless mid-late game. Yep, but that's what you get from a system that decreases size with level, instead of
I'll respond to your post completely later, I hope you don't forget to do so... I just wanted to encourage everyone here to count the the posters in this thread that are supporting GCII versus the critics and take a minute to laugh at ToS Iceman's moronic math skills. 10 pro, 7 against, the rest on the fence. You must have forgot page one, Einstein. Looking for support, eh? Even if this were true, which
Yep, there is a problem with weapons. They have a sizemod, which is about the most unrealistic thing about this system. A laser on a huge hull occupies more space than in a tiny hull, yet does the exact same damage! This is totally absurd. And then comes size reduction with level, AND with miniaturization. All this leads to a very bad combat system (in terms of realism if you will). That's why a BHG can be mounted on a tiny hull. With the current system, there's little that can be done about
And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better. Speaking of ripping to shreds, and nails in the coffin. Name your ZERO expansion. Yes, there must be one. If there's a ten, then there must definitely be a zero. Do you agree? It might not even be that bad, it's just that it's the worse around. Now, will someone seeing that rating think that the expansion features *absolutely* nothing
nm
Really? We already have very primitive ion engines on satellites and space probes. So basically you're saying the techtree and the storyline don't make sense In 200 years we haven't improved Ion Drive?! Gah! It's all in the techtree really, mixing normal and warp propulsion is a bad thing. Now if they were seperate branches and normal prop would also help
Balancing costs and available tiles and tech levels and other factors would also create a trade-off system, one that could be be perceived as more realistic and simple. A resource-based system would be the most realistic (and the introduction of asteroids seems to point that way), especially in a setting where money has been practically a non-issue since the invention of fusion power.
Since defending against a weapon is calculated collectively and since the defences are weak anyway, is there still some strategic value of even having three branches of defence? Or even attack, given how either one ends up effective because of the nerfed defences? Well, I think the die-roll rock-paper-scissors like model has reached its limit. It cannot hold if the combat system is made more complex. Sure defenses seem to have been made weaker, but unle
The previous standard for galactic 4x games is MOO2. It did not have asteroids, you could not design enemy opponents, you can't customize your ship graphics, and planetary environments are not as big a deal as they are in Gal Civ2 - DA. The mark of how well DA upgrades the game in EXACTLY the right ways is that you feel that this should have been the game to begin with. That is how it is with all great expansions. When was MoO2 released again? We're talk
Nice dodge, of course you couldn't name a better expansion. Maybe the question confused you? And 10 is relative... a 10 score is not an indication of perfection in a game... it simply means there is nothing better. There has never been a "perfect" game, and there never will be, no such thing as a "bug free" game, and the gameplay has been thoroughly tested. I didn't have to rip you to shreds, you did it all by yourself. No dodge there. None was ever nee
Except that none of those races have a research bonus, just like the humans, and those that do have start out with HD only... That the humans couldn't expand on the HD faster than any other race, having the edge on the tech itself and supporting techs, is strange. There's a lot of stuff from the *game* storyline that doesn't translate to, or even contradicts, the game's setup.
Iceman, either you are very young or you haven't thought much about the economic realities of game development. Actually, you're out of luck on both guesses. I am a veteran 4X player, and I've been involved in the game making process, though not a very deep level. I do know the constraints though. GCII is a much nicer game than Master of Magic for example, and costs far less in inflation adjusted dollars. <b
.e. you don't have a notion of a perfect expansion pack beyond some vague b.s. about being bug free and gameplay perfect. Ok, let's see. First, pick up a dictionary, and look up the word perfect. It's under P. Now, as for comparing expansions for rating purposes, that's idiotic. How do you do that? By the number of features added? By the quality of those features - and if so, according to whose standards? For features that work in a given genre but
