I think it would be really cool if everyone could see their way clear to the fact that I am not trying to cut down Stardock, and quit acting like I am. They have great customer support and clearly take pride in their work and want to produce a high-quality product. In having that commitment they distinguish themselves greatly from 95% of the developers out there, ESPESCIALLY those who make strategy games. I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat this to get people to stop acting l
Zorrmorph
The point is still being ignored. You can adjust the starting situation all you want, but it doesn't change the dynamic of the game. Having dynamic play does not mean having the starting situation dictate everything, as is being continually and falsely asserted as being my point-of-view. I agree that being able to design units is a good strategic aspect, though it is limited by the repetitiveness in other areas. For your building/econom
Perhaps I'm not being clear, because once again the thrust of my argument is being ignored. Having racial differences that are more interesting is only a small part of it, but it is a concept that would be enhanced were the main point to be used. The main point is, I repeat, that the progress of each game should be differentiated. That in the course of the game, not dictated at the start but through depth of strategical options after the game has st
Right now, I can randomize locations for 6 races and I'll almost always be near one that is warlike and one that is expansive. It keeps me from neglecting one part of my game to focus too heavily on another. ... prefer to play out my games the way I want while being aware of who's around me and not have every be determined by wh
I totally agree with your analysis of history/soul. Well done. I don’t see how your Chess analogy works, because there aren’t imbalances in Chess. Everybody starts with the same stuff. If an imbalance is created, it’s because someone took someone else’s pieces. You are viewing Chess over
that is your flaw in your comparisons or anyone elses comparisons. It doesn't require comparison, it's not trying to be another game. Good point. Sad that you directed it at me though, since I never said GalCivII should be a clone of any of the games I briefly mentioned. I said it should offer disti
I totally agree with the idea that everything is cookie-cutter, and this is a game that'll I'll play a little but not much because of it. Stardock succeeded in creating a game that has good AI(clearly their main objective), but look at what got thrown off the bus in the process: realism(I don’t need it in every area but when it doesn’t exist in virtually ANY area it is distracting), ‘soul’, tactical combat, etc. To use the chess example any chesspla
I'm part of Group #4 but then I'm not. I am an 'armchair developer', but also one who has actually been involved to a limited degree in actual development of actually successfully marketed games. But I actually only use terms like broken and unusable to describe things that are actually, in fact, broken and/or unusable. I do have to agree that transparency is a must in this kind of game. The key is to make the same information available to both the
WARNING: LONG POST COMING You've been warned. First off, who am I and why should you care what I think? Maybe you shouldn't care what I think, but I'm a strategy game enthusiast who still plays the original MOO as its the best game in the genre(I'm definitely looking forward to trying out this game, but as of right now its unavailable in my area and since I don't own credit cards as a matter of principle, I can't buy it online).