Na, no good. Theoretically speaking it is reasonable that Colonising a planet is more than landing a ship, it is a way of 'claiming' a planet as your own. The minimum possible number of passangers allowed on a colony ship that is launched from a planet, is the minimum possible population alien civilisations will accept as a true colony(theoretically speaking).

If a nation places a fort on an island and claims it for their own, then (in the "old days" of history) that island is theirs. And they stay there long enough, a town develops, and eventually a city. I tend to apply the same logic to this: the crew of the survey vessel sets up a base on the planet, and they live out their lives there and have children and create a city and so on.

Besides, (in game terms) any right-minded player would wanna buff up the population of their new planet, especially if it's starting pop is 1, so that would follow along the lines of what I was saying: the government tells the survey vessel to establish a fort, and they ship off colonists to fill out the planet (or, ship off prisoners and the like, such as Britain and Australia).

Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion. My above written is how I interpret the logistics of building a blank and refitting it in space. Your mileage may vary, of course.

Gah. The parts come from Galactic Corp... you pay for it for heaven's sake. You even get to choose which company does the upgrade as there are more companies to choose from. Galactic Corp, your Corporate "friend..." let us assume they do have the means of transporting stuff, albeit with a 1-4 week delay. Stuff is different from people and can be send at a whollotta gees into space. People turn into mushie-mush, but stuff does not.

Does that solve your problem? Of course we all want shipyards in order to upgrade ships, much more fun.

My understanding of the term 'cheesy' is somthing that gives a player an unballanced advantage against the AI. From your own words, you proove yourself to be wrong.

@Mystikmind:
Yeah? Guess who posted this in the exact same day as the quote above, in another thread:

1.3 isn't that bad! It does have a much higher 'fleet' advantage than 1.4 if you can get the 'first strike' attack high enough, you won't loose any ships or take any damage in 1.3. This is admitedly a bit 'cheesy' but how they fixed it in 1.4 has other 'cheesy' consequences. Let me explain... in 1.4 when high end weapons are around, you can have a fleet of 10 super dreadnaughts at 100% strength, attack a lone 90% damaged frigate, and unless you had specialised your defence, you are guarranteed to loose one of your dreadnaughts every time. If you took just one of those dreadnaughts by itself and attacked the frigate, you would win with no casualty.... this is serious CHEEEESE.

So what exactly is your concept of cheese?

So what exactly is your concept of cheese?

Ah yes, good point.

Cheese of course is a slang term which i got from reading other peoples posts on this forum. I guess it has to mean what the majority of people think it means, which from what i have seen so far, is that it is somthing a player can do to get an unbalanced advantage.

I did, there's only one, #2, and it says nothing. Your point? BTW, if you were replying to my comment, then you should stick to what I commented (as OT as it was), or do you also have a different opinion on how issues are discussed?

Ok let me walk you through it... i had two points to comment on, upgrading a ship when not at a starbase and upgrading costs verses buying outright... ok you got it now?

So you should get your own facts straight, because saying something now and another thing later (I quoted you above so there's no confusion) doesn't do any good to one's credibility. But I'm starting to see this is recurrent in your posts (cheese, realism, etc).

Guess what... that's a majour function of this forum, to help people get their facts streight.

I believe that minimum number would be.... 1

It is? i thought it was 1 million, i forget?

Well this has been great fun guys but I have to say I really think PizzSKat summed it up rather nicely with this enlightened remark... Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion

True, I think it is good to test personel opinions with vigerous debate... see if it takes me in the direction of re assessing my opinion or just thinking somone is a dufas (not mentioning any names) hehehe

I used to use colony ships with the minimum possible number of people in Galciv1 for the purpose of improving my civ's ethical alignment.

I would go and colonise crappy worlds - anything above 11 will still grant random events. I would pick the good option and then destroy the colony, at which point it would ask me if i really wanted to destroy the colony of 1 million citizens.

You are discussing a pc-game, with no relevance to science (which still holds to the idea that FTL travel is a tad difficult),

Hmm, excuse me, but it's a *sci-fi* game, hence saying it has no relevance to science is somewhat absurd.

with make-believe Aliens based on the concept that most of them share a somewhat common build, and yet you continue to argue as if everything should adhere to science and common sense.

Everything? I just made a comment, and it was

This is an excellent trick, but it's a bit cheesy that the game allows upgrading outside of a space yard...

After that I just defended my opinion, which is just that, IMO it's a bit cheesy that the game allows it.

You argue about cheese whilst it is game-mechanics, intentionally added by the game designers.

Maybe it is, maybe it wasn't supposed to be but someone exploited it. Happens all the time, and in this game it's common. Look at the speed issue. That was intentional too?

Realism and games need not go together... what is real about Chess, for example? No army would ever attempt to fight an opponent in the open, on exactly equal footing, but nobody complains about that either.

I'm sorry, but this is the worst argument I've ever heard about games and realism.

Not to be a spoil-sport, but the game has SOUNDS, in SPACE. Its a game, and its not real.

And? In game terms, it *must* have sounds, or the reviews would kill it. In real terms, depends on what sounds you're talking about. The bridge of ships has sounds. The firing of weapons, which I suppose it's your point, does not necessarily take place in an airless (or any other means of propagation) environment - thus it *can* produce sound. Explosions in space, while there is air blowing out of the hull (for there *is* air inside the vessels), there'll be a flash and sound will be produced - you may not get to hear it, inside another vessel and all, but that's a detail.
Yes, games are just that, but if they're not *believable*, they lose in the end. Like movies or books. There's is a maximum to suspension of desbelief.

Any comparison with real life or attempts to justify "cheese" where it is part of game design and thus condeming those who use this "cheese" as people who are actually cheating is inherently flawed as you play a game within the rules and setup build by the development team.

Again, I didn't condemn anyone for using anything. Read it again. I said I think it's a bit cheesy you can do that in the game. Quite different. Only when you do not want to see that do you think it's the same.

"In space no-one can hear you scream..." remember that next time you enter a space-battle in GALCIV II, and be glad the designers deceided to ignore that particular part of reality as well.

This is another of those stupid (no offense intended) things to say. If you wanted to hear someone scream in space, you'd actually have to be *out* in space. If you are, you'll surely not hear anything. Try using a radio, and then let me know if it works or not.


@Quixen

Yeah, I was trying to add fuel to the fire but I really wasn't looking for someone to aim a flame thrower at me in a threatening manner.

In a threatening manner?! This?

Oh yeah, but when did you see them replicate a colony module, or the most part of a spaceship? The rest of your post just assumes this, so there's nothing there to reply to.

Whatever. I can only read one thing into your interpretation...
Anyways...

Lets say the freighter "blank" is carrying several thousand people, (being as big as they are)all they would really have to do is create the things they would need to land on the surface of a world capable of sustaining life... and flourish.

Carrying several thousand people where? No cargo containers, no nothing. And in this game (and one of the reasons for me to call it cheese) you need vessels with modules to transport *everything* (*people*, troops, trade goods, whatever). And about the things they need to blah blah, I already made a comment about tents and etc .

Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion

Yes, and mine, again, was that... don't have to say it again, do I? Now, I do have an opinion, and I believe in it because I think about stuff before opening my mouth. I don't go around changing it like underwear. In the same day. I tried to reply as best I could to everyone telling me I was wrong, without turning this into a novel. English is not my native language, so maybe something came out the wrong way, and I apologize if that's the case. Yet, I was not the only one to say it's cheese, whatever interpretation is given to the word. It's just a word, people seem to take offense in it. If in fact the game allows it by design, then it's MO that it's a cheesy design decision for the reasons I stated already. If it's not, FC had alreay explained the trick in another thread, and maybe it gets looked into.
Now, what would be nice to avoid this type of situation was that people would actually think things through before making silly comments. Not aimed at anyone in particular, but by this reply you should get my point.



edit: I intended to leave this thread alone, but just couldn't without defending myself of some "accusations" which I consider to be misplaced. Now I'll drop the issue.

@Iceman

I would like to respond to a couple things real quick and then I will get into the meat of my post.

Hmm, excuse me, but it's a *sci-fi* game, hence saying it has no relevance to science is somewhat absurd.

Yes, it does have everything to do with science but... the rest of the word there is "fiction". So yes, the game is based around Imaginative Science.

Carrying several thousand people where? No cargo containers, no nothing.

Well.... DUH! We are using replicators from Star Trek why can't we teleport as well!!!

Seriously, I am just kidding. I did not mean to insinuate that you were the one actually pointing a flame thrower at me. I was just trying to be somewhat colorful in my post. I Didn't mean to offend you. With that said, all I was trying to do was respond to this...

The rest of your post just assumes this, so there's nothing there to reply to.

I was trying to say that I did not assume anything and that there was more to my post than what you made it out to be. You compose your replies very well for someone whose native language is not English.

Again, I was just trying to be a bit entertaining.

I think Mm's Conan example says it all. Also, a game will be that much easier to learn and master if it is as logical and realistic as possible, as opposed to having to memorize hard caps and nerfings and all that. And we all know that people nowadays just don't like to read manuals...
Anyways, in regards to the "definition" of sci-fi, guess what separates good sci-fi from crappy sci-fi?   

Call it what you will, if it is based on science, it's sci-fi. If the fiction part is relatively solid (as much as fiction can be), then, like I said above, it's good sci-fi. If not, then it's crappy sci-fi. I agree with what you said about SW, ST and GC (the latter having merely a sci-fi varnish), and I do think the same way. But I do like things to make sense, and lots of details. Or I might just as well play solitaire or mahjong or whatever - they're just games too, and also provide entertainment.