I think a lot of the comparisons with Civ IV are a bit unfair, since a lot of it's story and soul come from real life history, rather than the game. Having been forced to take history classes, I might know that Napoleon was a bit of an elitest and obssessed with conquering the world, but I don't think that Civ IV goes out of its way to establish anything about the characters itself. Civ IV relies more on people knowing history than establishing any soul itself.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of history classes, so I found a lot of the characters and races to be quite dull. I still like the game mind you, mostly for the gameplay options rather than any story or depth.

-Dewar

if I'm a race that has advanced mental powers and my imbalances is to build a ship that can amplify my powers and project a defensive field around my fleet that gives it a -3 to damage taken (think moveable starbase kind of defense) my game will play out completely differently if I start it next to this race versus starting next to the religious fanatic race that gets one kamakaze attack before combat starts and will use that to take out my defensive ship every time.

You say this negatively, but its a great example of what I'm talking about. I cannot for the life of me digest why cookie-cutter gameplay is preferable to a situation in which you have to adjust to your enemy. Again, its a case of throwing strategy off the bus and replacing it with memorization of build/research/etc. orders.

I guess it is a gamestyle choice. I can't understand why someone would want to play a game that is wholely dependant on starting position. Going back to Civ, I guess you are one of those people who would enjoy playing random leaders with random traits and never restart the game if you found out you were stuck on an island with room for only one city. I have a certain play style (I'm a builder/economy kinda ruler) and I like that GC2 gives me the choice to design my units the way I like by combining technologies and not have it so lockstep like Civ4 so I can play mostly my kind of game, with some variation due to who my neighbors are. By having smaller tech advances and multiple ways to combine them, coupled with races that are similiar with subtle but effective differences, I can play a variation of "my" kind of game every time.

There are certain games I just don't enjoy playing out. Starting a game wedged between two warlike races and spending the next 4 hours fighting it out with fleets of 3-4 small ships because everything I have is going into ship production and I can't spare the research and can't trade is my idea of torture. If it brings you a sense of accomplishment because you can beat the game no matter what it throws at you then more power to you.

I think the game has enough variability with map size, tech speed, habitable planets that most people can find what they want in the game. Zorrmorph, you seem be looking for a game that will force you to adapt in order to win. I agree this game doesn't offer that, but it does allow you to change the starting game variables and pick the game you want to play. Hopefully someone can mod the game along the lines of what you're looking for.

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/economy style of play even(which I also tend towards), that could be made more interesting if you couldn't always research the same techs in exactly the same order. Or if you didn't have to tech whore to the whole galaxy and all the races didn't end up at pretty much the same level techwise all the time. Then you might have to make some tough military vs. infrastructure vs. research type of choices.

And we will have to agree to disagree on the gamestyle thing, as you mentioned. You like to play the same game every time, and I can't stand it, and that's pretty much where we'll have to leave it. On the subject of modding, the things I would need to change cannot be changed. If they could, I'd be making the mod myself.

GalCiv2 seems mostly about slowing raising your numbers and that's it. There is a dynamic change between colonization and done; and no planetary invasion and planetary invasion. But that's pretty much it. As I ramped up against my opponents, it's just me trying to keep my numbers close to his which is done precisely the same way every turn. I'm not adjusting to counter new strategies, but rather the same strategy played over 6 hours. In other words, this game needs phases. Uniformity of turns is killing it for me. Why would I want to be doing the same thing on turn 100 that I'm doing on turn 1000?

Sorry this is a load of bull. The most charitable thing I can say about your statement is that GalCiv gives you enough rope to hang yourself from. Starcraft and the other games you mentioned all have strict control over size and density. GalCiv lets you tweak the starting conditions.

I have to adapt to my opponents depending on what they're doing. Sometimes they're building influence starbases and slowly taking over. Sometimes one is king on beam weapons and another on mass drivers. Who do you attack? Should you attack?

Should you be sending money and weapons to prop up the minor races? Or should you invade them? Should you be going for the tech resources or build up your own local starbase network?

Should I be building up a defense to a particular weapon?

Maybe you should turn up the game difficulty a little bit.

Should I insert random fanboi rant here or wait to the end of the comment?

Your post was long and boring, it lacked soul. I don't know what you want from the game. A backstory? OK Humans invented hyperdrive, end of story. You know what game had this "soul" you describe? I remeber reading about 20 pages of backstory to Moo3 before it came out. Guess what good that did to the game? You can't ahve a real backstory to this game mostly because YOU MAKE THE STORY. Maybe soemthing more about the precursors. But I thoguht that campaing gave you a bit more backstory.

Either way yes I love the game,a nd yes I play it away from the computer. Mostly so when I load up my save I know what to do and I'm not lost rediscovering everythign again.

[The point is the repetitive grind, the fact that you can just 'lock in' to the same researching/building strat game after game after game. Nothing changes. I didn't say, and don't now, that it makes it a bad game. I say it limits it to the same type of gameplay as an RTS, only slower: memorize the best order of doing things, then go kick the crap out of the enemy. It is about rote learning of what the best tactic is, then repeatedly implementing it. This is not strategy. Strategy requires you to have to adjust to conditions that are different than what you've faced in the last dozen games you played. ]

Is that so? So I guess all those Avalon Hill and SPI games weren't "strategy simulations"?? I guess you never played "Stalingrad" or "Gettysburg" or "Waterloo", strategy is not "just" based or required to adjust to conditions that are different every single game only. Strategy is figuring out what it takes to win the game at hand. And have you played a "dozen" games all the way through? I highly doubt it, unless all you ever play on is tiny or small maps. Have you played every variation of the game on every difficulty? I highly doubt that as well, since there's 1000's of them. So, you cannot sit there and say "every game is the same template". I certainly don't build the same template every game, guess what? I adjust to the conditions that are different every game. I might not get a good placement and only get a handful of planets, or I might find myself in a war on two fronts very early in the game, my template has to change based on what conditions I meet and they haven't been the same in the 4 games I've played.

There is a "linear structured build sequence" here and that's in just about ANY game with techs, I don't know of any where you can jump to the nuclear bomb the first turn or any future tech without having to have known many of the basic techs to it. That's just part of these types of strategy games. You do get choices of the linear paths you take and you do not have to follow each path the same in every game to win. Plus as stated before the conditions of the game, the starting locations and the random events even can and will change your building proceedure. Even if it is the same techs every game.

I will agree there are "template(s)" key there is the S in every game. There is no one perfect template though that will win every game 100% of the time. Now in RTS games there's a big difference because there's only a few templates that become overpowering and those you will see most often. The firstest with the mostest usually wins. I hate that "strategy". Being the firstest with the mostest in Galciv II doesn't mean you will win, espcially when you come face to face with a web of Military Starbases supporting the defense. And yes the AI does build military starbases in the larger maps and longer games I've encountered these myself and was surprisingly pleased.

I also stick to my point that no game should be "compared" to any other game. That's the problem with citizen reviews, a professional reviewer will review the game based on it's "own merits" not the merits of another game. What makes GalCiv II stand out is that it IS it's OWN game and not a clone of MOO II or any other 4x space strategy game. Although it has "elements" I've SEEN before, it doesn't make it a clone. Once again I just state, some people just want what "THEY" want in a game and if it doesn't have all the elements, they think they have some sort of god given right to have the "developers" change it for THEM. I still say "go make your own game" and you've said that you are, that's great. I'll look forward to seeing it and be sure and let us know when you do so we can come tell you what "needs to be changed" lol

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 like I'm saying the game sucks. My guess is infinite won't be enough.

Much of this thread reads like a bunch of Civ fanboys who've only got the most basic understanding of GalCiv II. We'll see which game has people's imagination in 6 months.

I'm not sure who this was directed at, but I find it amusing since I've got as many posts in this thread as anyone and you can count the number of times I've mentioned Civ or CivIV or Sid Meier or Firaxis on a closed fist. GalCivII eats CivIV for lunch -- I'll never play CivIV again but will play an occasional game of GalCivII. You'd probably be better off discussing what I actually said than what you'd like to imagine I've said.

So I guess all those Avalon Hill and SPI games weren't "strategy simulations"?? I guess you never played "Stalingrad" or "Gettysburg" or "Waterloo"

Gah. Those are wargames. GalCivII and other 4x games are strategy games, not wargames. There's a big difference. Incidentally I enjoy both types, but I can tell the difference between the two, and there are major differences.

have you played a "dozen" games all the way through? I highly doubt it, unless all you ever play on is tiny or small maps. Have you played every variation of the game on every difficulty? I highly doubt that as well, since there's 1000's of them. So, you cannot sit there and say "every game is the same template". I certainly don't build the same template every game, guess what? I adjust to the conditions that are different every game. I might not get a good placement and only get a handful of planets, or I might find myself in a war on two fronts very early in the game, my template has to change based on what conditions I meet and they haven't been the same in the 4 games I've played.

Yes you are right, I have not played every possible combination. However I don't have to meet every person that ever lived to intelligently comment on humanity, or have played every possible board position in chess to comment on that game, or watched every movie ever made to comment on movies. It is irrelevant.

As far as adjusting to conditions, I never have to research tech in a different order, and I never want to build different buildings. I might put slightly different stuff on my ships, and I might go military sooner, but really there isn't much that changes at all. Could I win by a different method? Probably I could. But I never have to. I can play with any race on any size galaxy and win with the same basic strategy. I think that's boring and lacking. Others don't, and I'm glad they've found a game to enjoy.

There is a "linear structured build sequence" here and that's in just about ANY game with techs, I don't know of any where you can jump to the nuclear bomb the first turn or any future tech without having to have known many of the basic techs to it. That's just part of these types of strategy games.

Wrong again. Obviously I'm not expecting to go from A directly to Z in a tech field, but the fact that the options available to you NEVER change makes it far too predictable. You can research every tech every time as every race. That's what I object to, particularly because it is completely unnecessary.

I also stick to my point that no game should be "compared" to any other game. That's the problem with citizen reviews, a professional reviewer will review the game based on it's "own merits" not the merits of another game

List for me one of these vaunted 'professional' reviewers. The state of game reviewing is positively horrendous. I understand why Stardock and other commercial developers care about them, as many are foolish enough to buy into what they say. But bias, conflicts of interest, and outright stupidity are so rampant in the reviewing pool that it is beyond me why any conscientious gamer could care less what they say. Their track record as a whole and in almost every particular is abhorrent.

some people just want what "THEY" want in a game and if it doesn't have all the elements, they think they have some sort of god given right to have the "developers" change it for THEM. I still say "go make your own game" and you've said that you are, that's great. I'll look forward to seeing it and be sure and let us know when you do so we can come tell you what "needs to be changed" lol

Show me one place where I or anyone else has said or even implied they have a right for the game to be changed in this thread. I sure can't find it. Try discussing the game reasonably instead of hysterically tossing around ludicrous smoke-blowing accusations.

As for my project, if and when I am fortunate enough to finish it, I'll try to conduct myself with the grace and class that Stardock has, allowing us to have this discussion without trying to shut it down or acting defensively. They are top-notch people from everything I can see. And in that eventuality, should it ever occur, I'll view criticism the same way they obviously do: an opportunity to improve the product.