Quote:
RonD said:
Maybe that makes me a "bumbler", but I really cannot think of any SP TBS games (discounting chess, etc) that cannot be beat by exploiting AI weaknesses.
|
If the AI had no weakness there would be no beating it would there? Some things you consider cheese, some you don't, but all in all winning a single player game is about finding and exploiting AI weaknesses (or could be conversely considered finding and exploiting your own strengths).
My problem with GalCiv2 is that it seemed like there was a multitude of strategies that the computer just couldn't cope with so it wasn't about choosing not to "cheese" it; you could only choose to cripple yourself or put your head in the sand OR crush the AI. In addition to that there is no multiplayer so there is little reason to continue to improve yourself and/or develop new strategies. In addition to that the Metaverse (aka high score list) was undocumented and arbitrary in its scoring; you will always score higher with a military victory AND (this is a rumor I have not confirmed) you will gain more points in a game that goes past 10 years everytime, no bonus for finishing early with a great strat.
I liked the atmosphere of the game. I liked their distribution model/copy protection scheme (or lack there of). I appreciate that they were releasing updates very frequently... though it would be nice if a lot of those issues were addressed BEFORE release.
I don't know. It drives me nuts because I think I like the game despite everything, but I can't bring myself to play it for all the frustratingly bad things that seem to get revealed daily.
This is getting long, but... well, let's just keep going Dom2 players have a higher than average attention span I think.
Quote:
NTJedi said:
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.
|
I have to disagree. The opening of the game does not allow any military rush so there is only one thing to do at the start of the game: Land rush, Econ/Tech. Then build small ships with high firepower and blitz nearest most vulnerable AI, repeat. If you allow games to go longer/go different, that's your CHOICE and nothing else.
Oh, and yes, the randomly generated universe/nation placement is REALLY bad. I mean, I don't mind it sometimes, but more often I'd like to pick different set ups like Civ4 allows. Maybe a Land rush: all nations start horizontally situated and rush outwards, Ring: all nations start on the outer boarders and rush inwards, Core: all nations start centrally located and rush outwards, Balanced: all nations start at maximum distance from eachother and have an equal amount of resource near them (though not necessarily the same kinds of resources).
I firmly believe multiplayer was not included in this game because multiplayer highlights exploits (the -2000 max debt "feature" exploit) and weaknesses much faster and much more harshly.
cjx