Basically, the question is the difference the players skill or the racial setup? The question is not an easy one to answer. And Taera, even if I don't agree with you I think it's great that people bring up these points. I have been arguing similer arguments for almost two years now on these forums, and I have played a LOT of games. My actual experience is a strong factor in my opinion.
I lose more than my fair share of games. I have a reputation as a great player, and that's really not justified. I think I have just been around long enough that people think I must be good.
But I have lost a lot of games to players that had lower agg/def stats than me, and I have beaten plenty of players that had higher.
Your list of characteristics, racial choices, and research priorities would make a good solid combination in a game. But by no means an unbeatable one. You could program an AI that would do all the things you suggest, and it would still lose to even an average skill level player.
But in a game with players of fairly equal tactical skill, it could very well make the difference. I don't see this as a problem however. It's part of the game. Something has to make the difference.
Geoschmo
[ February 02, 2003, 16:58: Message edited by: geoschmo ]