StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stark wrote:The part you quote is quoted in my post. If you want to read 'all these games' as meaning 'all games forever' when we're talking about a specific subset of games, thats up to you: I explained myself already.

Gosh, as if that strawman is what I complained about. But no, you're Stark, you're just a retard who thinks digging in his feet makes him look clever. You made a stupid comment, you got called, now you'll play the retard dance to avoid just saying 'You know, I can't phrase things worth shit' like any responsible individual.

I don't see that many similarities in the interface between Civ and MOO2. MOO2 had real-time combat and a very different "city/planet" interface, plus the fleet system, leaders, and the way tech limits discovery/exploration.

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't see that many similarities in the interface between Civ and MOO2. MOO2 had real-time combat and a very different "city/planet" interface, plus the fleet system, leaders, and the way tech limits discovery/exploration.

...Then I guess that big 'End Turn' button was just a figment of my imagination? I want some of what you're smokin, Cap'n.

Sounds like someone is confusing MOO2 and MOO3

Anyway, this whole "it takes centuries to move from one end to the other" is a weak arguement IMO - it's a gameplay conceit that works out properly on the scale of the games - who the hell wants to spend 20000 turns with realistic legion move speeds scaled to realistic time, or a legion moving 300 squares in a "1 year turn". It's called ABSTRACTION.

A battleship in Civ need not be a battleship - it could be a fleet, one more powerful then a "destroyer". A musketman in 2005 battling a tank need not literally be a musketman. It could be "irregular partisans with outdated equipment". etc. etc.

The 1 city = 1 construction is also a gameplay conceit to avoid tedious micromanagement, again, one that I welcome. Let's look at MOO3 compared to MOO2. Oh, great work there making a playable game I'm sorry, I'll take MOO2 over MOO3 any day.

Anyhoo.... any problems dealing with "Spearman defeating a tank" is going to be resolved in Civ4. I hope anyways. As for the Civ games, I love it. I am still playing this game and enjoy it immensely, especially with the Conquest expansion.

Stark wrote:*sigh*

So everyone likes all these games being the same. I'm fine with that. I'd love Graham to back up his 'MoO2 and Alpha Centauri aren't like Civ at all' statement, but eh.

Course, Sid Meier cursed the genre. How? By making a format that never changed. Gave us a game where a plane took years to fly around the world, and noone ever fixed it. Ironically, since everyone seems to like the format, I now know WHY noone ever fixed it.

Cursed is too strong a word. He happened to come across both a gameplay formula and interface that worked efficiently, that could be applied across a number of themes. Unless he went EA on other developers, or game distributers on Sid's behalf demanded conformity to his format before backing a new game, then I agree with others on this thread that blaming him for his rivals' lack of imagination or willingness to innovate is unwarranted.

Graeme Dice wrote:So where's your fucking apology for lying about my post dipshit?

So are you planning to simply concede the point?

SirNitram wrote:Gosh, as if that strawman is what I complained about. But no, you're Stark, you're just a retard who thinks digging in his feet makes him look clever. You made a stupid comment, you got called, now you'll play the retard dance to avoid just saying 'You know, I can't phrase things worth shit' like any responsible individual.

Hmmm. Looking back:

SirNitram wrote:Because you claimed we all wanted games the same.

No, I didn't.

Over it yet? You initial complaint (above) is a misinterpretation (intentional or not) of what I posted. Is there another complaint you have? If you'd like to explain exactly what it is that's at issue, I'm sure I can help you. Or if you'd just like to continue insulting me, thats fine too: finals are over now.

Graeme Dice wrote:So where's your fucking apology for lying about my post dipshit?

Amusingly, however much I don't know what Nitrams talking about, I think you're just a fuckhead. I would've apologised, since I did indeed misread your post, but you got on my nerves. So... no. Go fuck yourself, and your mum too.

Maybe you should had started by saying what you wanted different from this genre....... frankly, its virtually impossible to think of changes to the genre without some vast new technology on the block.Just go play Axis and Allies if you want to moan so much.Its turn based, and its fucking boring after 2 hours.(unlike the board game)

PainRack wrote:Maybe you should had started by saying what you wanted different from this genre....... frankly, its virtually impossible to think of changes to the genre without some vast new technology on the block.Just go play Axis and Allies if you want to moan so much.Its turn based, and its fucking boring after 2 hours.(unlike the board game)

Curses I was going to ask, what changes would you make Stark. It's easuy to bitch and moan but hay as we don't have to program it, why not suggest different ways to run things.

Oh and further to the Game Play concept of 1 city 1 Construction.

A hospital need not be a single Hospital but a radical overhaul of the City's Health Service. Raising a Regiment will obviously require building them the approiate base etc.

Thinking about the thread, a large scale strategy game has to have abstractions, and large ones, too. What Meyer did was make a choice as to which. He did it by the board game principle, which caught on, but for the most part, an effective strategy game is one that offers many options. And you always always always need abstraction on some level. Chess or Mahjong, for example, are very abstract in representation and through that are able to support many different strategies. If you want the game to resemble real life in some shape or form, be prepared for a lot of concessions if you want it to run smoothly.

Now, I haven't played MOO, but I honestly loved the sequel. It had just the right amount of micromanagement, and I do not really see why being able to build what I want when I want is a bad thing.

Enigma wrote:Anyhoo.... any problems dealing with "Spearman defeating a tank" is going to be resolved in Civ4. I hope anyways. As for the Civ games, I love it. I am still playing this game and enjoy it immensely, especially with the Conquest expansion.

The spearman defeating a tank problem was solved in Civ II with the firepower stat. For some unfathomable reason, they unsolved it in Civ III.

Then resolved it after patchs.

MoO2 had only one thing close to Civ. Buildings on your planets. Otherwise, there are ZERO similarities between the games, except for perhaps the diplomatic model, which most games have somethign similar anyawy. You're thinking of that miserable MoO3 which made me cry. Yeah. It made me cry.

X-COM. Mention it. Love it. Okay, I'm done there.

Really though, Turn Based Strategy was never that mainstream, so there's fairly little incentive to develop new titles. It's sad, but totally true. Why bother with us, when everyone else eats up a starcraft or C&C? Or even the amazingly fun TA?

Nephtys wrote: Really though, Turn Based Strategy was never that mainstream, so there's fairly little incentive to develop new titles. It's sad, but totally true. Why bother with us, when everyone else eats up a starcraft or C&C? Or even the amazingly fun TA?

I loved the idea of TA, but in execution, I quickly grew disenchanted. I always ended up having to micromanage all launchers to fire on radar silhouettes because the devices that were supposed to do so never did their job. It was just annoying.

Accusing Sid Meier of ruining the strategy genre reminds me of the way people accuse George Lucas of ruining Hollywood. In both cases, someone did something very successful, spawned a host of wannabes and imitators, and then got blamed for the industry focusing on its attempts to recreate his success.

RedImperator wrote:The spearman defeating a tank problem was solved in Civ II with the firepower stat. For some unfathomable reason, they unsolved it in Civ III.

Civilization 2 was NOT designed by Sid Meir, but by Bryian Reynolds of Firaxis, who also did Alpha Centari; hence why it didn't suck.

The basics of real time strategies haven't changed from the days of Dune II.

I don't see where this Sid Meier bashing is coming from. He after all did a pretty good job at creating a game that simulates building of an empire.
Infact did it so well there's little room for improvement.
It comes short in some areas, but that's what always happens when scale gets big. There are games that do a better job of simulating things better than Civ, but are pretty limited in scope as a result.

There was improvement after Civ, but as of late it's been quiet on that front as far as the big game houses are concerned.

-Gunhead

Eleas wrote:I loved the idea of TA, but in execution, I quickly grew disenchanted. I always ended up having to micromanage all launchers to fire on radar silhouettes because the devices that were supposed to do so never did their job. It was just annoying.

It was a game-balancing issue, IIRC, one to force you to scout out rather than plaster everything in radar range. One expansion had an autotarget facility but it was obscenely expensive.

phongn wrote:

Eleas wrote:I loved the idea of TA, but in execution, I quickly grew disenchanted. I always ended up having to micromanage all launchers to fire on radar silhouettes because the devices that were supposed to do so never did their job. It was just annoying.

It was a game-balancing issue, IIRC, one to force you to scout out rather than plaster everything in radar range. One expansion had an autotarget facility but it was obscenely expensive.

Not only did the computer have no such concerns - the autotarget facility didn't work for me, which kind of sucked when I finally bought the damn thing.

Worked fine for me, and DAMN that was a beautiful thing when my Punisher/Guardian batteries opened up at extreme range and started shelling the holy howling shitfire out of an inbound land attack force.

The best is four islands, where each island is JUST out of the normal operating range of a vulcan.

But if you aim WAY down. You end up with a hail of plasma firing to the enemy island and it making landfall.

skyman8081 wrote:The best is four islands, where each island is JUST out of the normal operating range of a vulcan.

But if you aim WAY down. You end up with a hail of plasma firing to the enemy island and it making landfall.

The Intimidator/Big Berthas have greater range than their rapid-fir brethren so you have to be careful and they're also a lot cheaper.

Stravo, if you don't like the fact everyone is copying Civlizations, or the features of the Civlizations games

#1- Stop playing them
#2- Get a copy of a C++ programming language
#3- Get Teach yourself C++ (or Visual C++) in 21 days
#4- Get 'Teach yourself game programming with C++ in 21 days
#5- get other related books as you needed
#6- Write your own Stratergy games.
#7- See what Lord Wong said

Solauren wrote:Stravo, if you don't like the fact everyone is copying Civlizations, or the features of the Civlizations games

#1- Stop playing them
#2- Get a copy of a C++ programming language
#3- Get Teach yourself C++ (or Visual C++) in 21 days
#4- Get 'Teach yourself game programming with C++ in 21 days
#5- get other related books as you needed
#6- Write your own Stratergy games.
#7- See what Lord Wong said

You mean Stark