Tos Iceman:
And where do I say FOR EVERYONE? If I need to put IMO in all sentences I write, my posts will exceed yours in length
I thought it'd be a given that whatever we write here is our personal opinion, and there would be no need to clear that with each sentence. Noone can ever talk for everyone else, and I think that's pretty much accepted by everyone. That you're turning this into an arrogance thing is odd...
But there's a difference. Saying that the game isn't great and saying that one does not like the game particularly aren't the same thing. The former implies at least some bit of general applicability and objectivity, whereas the latter is specifically only a personal dislike of the game.
There's something of a difference between saying "I think this game sucks," and "I don't like this game, but I can see that it's a great game anyway."
Different paradigms, similar net effect. But that's not the issue and you know it. It's the bad cohesion between the storyline and the game's initial settings, it's the pop growth rates that don't make sense, it's the propulsion techtree branch that is totally reversed, heck it's even the lack of orbital cohesion that *you* admitted being counterintuitive , and a whole lot of other things. And if you read the forums, you'll see it's not just me.
Absolutely not. Sci-fi, by its very nature, is SUPPOSED to only superficially "make sense." It is fundamentally unrealistic. There are so many ridiculous things in Star Wars that are colossally "dumb," but we gloss over it anyway.
Why, for instance, does the Death Star have such a porous structure that entire fighters with warp engines can go into its core and blow it up? Surely several bars of steel will go a long way protecting against that? And this after the first one was blown up by a missile targetting the core! Who's the stupid guy who designed the Death Star?
All scifi has consistency problems, and even the slightly better imagined Star Trek comes apart at the seams if you look at it sideways.
You're criticizing GalCiv2 for a fault that all scifi has!
Not *my* assumptions, current *physical* realities. That doesn't mean they won't change in the future. What about *your* assumptions?
All assumptions are based on physical reality. Which ones you choose to emphasize will affect the final product. It's still quite subjective. As for me, I have no assumptions of my own. That's why I can accept so many worlds as being plausible, and why I can equally enjoy GalCiv2 and MOO2, despite their being fundamentally different in suppositions.
Hmm, that's in a star system. *You* were talking about *deep* space. (As far as I can tell, StarBases are platforms that are built deep in space where there's nothing, precisely BECAUSE there's nothing. If there were a planet where you need it, you'd build your installation there, not in deep space.) You might want to be consistent Seems to me you're actually telling me I'm right. And contradicting yourself.
The current line is arguing for non-planetbased colonization via "space stations," which are still not in orbit around any planet.
Between star systems, it's conceivable that junctions and stopovers are needed for various purposes - you build a Starbase there because you don't have anything to build on, supposing that you preferred to build on planets in the first place.
I mentioned satellites as a counterpoint to your "interference with observation", and you know that. Isn't that what we've done here, on Earth? This is not *my* assumption.
Yes, it is. We do that here because
we live here. If we were coming from outer space, it seems rather pointless to set up shop in a hostile environment while pining for the advantages of orbital stations.
Why not just live in orbital stations? Is Venus less hostile than empty space?
Ok, so none of this discussion means anything, because *everything* is in deep space. Can't argue with that.
Isn't that an assumption of yours, the resource storage? Doesn't that depend on the planet? Aren't you forgetting that you said SBs should be outside solar systems? I think you're getting confused and actually defending *my* view.
1. Everyone has assumptions.
2. Different things. Clarified above.
Well, my boy, fusion is *not* eternal. And fusion needs fuel. And you're talking supplying an entire "planet". Life support, heat, atmosphere generation, gravity generation, food production, shields, construction/repair/maintenance vehicles, comms, thrusters, light. Water and sanitation? Health problems? Etc etc.
Yes, yes, and yes. Fusion isn't literally eternal, but it might as well be.
Still waiting for the convincing arguments And the same can be said about you, ot not?
Absolutely. That was my point, exactly.
Maybe it's not just mine... China does have an Ancient period, a "Medieval" period, and a Modern period (that's how you put it, remember?). What does medieval mean to you? That the Dark Ages were specific to the Roman Empire in all of its extent, that's another matter. That it encompassed most of Europe, part of Asia and part of Africa, it just means that the designation doesn't apply to Europe alone.
Um, China's "Ancient Period" isn't conincident with Europe's "Ancient Period," and it's not commonly called "Ancient Peiod." Likewise, "Medieval" is a nonsense word when you're talking about Chinese history. There is no "medieval" China.
What does Medieval mean to me? The specific period in history that historians refer to by that nomenclature, the phrase "Dark Ages" having fallen into disfavor. "Middle Ages" is another term used. While the designation may or may not strictly apply to Europe alone, to attempt to understand even near Middle Eastern history by the common European historical goalposts is dangerous at best and foolish at worst.
If you can refer me to a Chinese historian who commonly refers to a chunk of his nation's history as "Medieval," I'd be much obliged.
Clans follow a Chieftain, hence "monarchic". One guy ruling the Clan, and since the Clans are usually composed of people with family relations, the lineage is also monarchic in nature.
1. Clans aren't all ruled by chieftains or exclusively by them. Some clans are ruled by council.
2. The political structure of monarchies is usually quite specific, whereas clan political structure varies by region and peoples.
For instance, even in clans where the ruler's rule is absolute, it may not be hereditary, nor may he have a class of nobility that nominally supports him, etc, etc.
The political structure of
some clans may resemble some types of monarchial rule, but they are by no means the same thing.
Drew inspiration but not materials. Not armored then. Your point?
Armored by metal lamellar plates. All references specifically refer to this kind of armor as characteristic. Point made elsewhere.
Your assumption. Reflexes in a modern jet fighter and on a chariot or horse, where's your comparison? Is there any sense in this? I don't see it, frankly. Can you evolve fighters (space age fighters) to extreme speeds and still retain reflexes? That is the point.
It doesn't matter. Regardless of whether you can evolve fighters to extreme speeds or not, the egress of technology and the widely different factors involved makes it incredibly improbable that space fighters will fight anything like a WW2 fighter.
Indeed, it's even questionable whether fighters are a reasonable way to make war in space.
Because the Greeks (the Aegean city-states actually) had the most formidable military at the time? *They* revolutionized warfare with the Hoplite concept. Not anyone else, *them*. With the Phalanx way of fighting, as opposed to the traditional "free for all" of sorts. The Romans then improved on the Phalanx and created the Legions. But anyone that knows his history knows that.
The Greeks had the most formidable
individual units in their immediate demesne. At no point was the Greek military ever a threat to anyone outside of its locale.
Indeed, the Macedonians had a superior fighting force and were later able to annex the Greeks directly by force. Once Alexander had merged his Macedonians with the Greek heavy infantry, it was not longer merely the Greeks, but more accurately, the Macedonian Army.
Too, while the Greek phalanxes were a key unit, they were by no means all that powerful on their own. Phalanxes are tough defensively from particular angles, but they're unwieldy and cannot maneuver very well.
As a comparison, the Chinese spear infantries at comparable times were already Legion-like in terms of formation tactics, strategy and efficacy. We cannot know how they will measure up against one another, but Chinese infantries were NOT free-for-all affairs, and famously had the 8 basic formations into which they formed to clash with the enemy. These forms were changed up in battle as the situation demanded.
Legion warfare is also not derived from Phalax warfare. The fundamental ideas behind them clash directly.
Modern universities have their origin in Aristotle and Plato (actually, Sophistic principles).
They weren't trained by the commanders themselves, if that's what you mean. But that's not what I said either. And the Hoplites example was *yours*, not mine.
Yes. It's SILLY that you need libraries in order to develop good fighting men with bronze weapons. Sparta was famously all about the fighting, and they had the most formidable units among the Aegean city states.
And those changes you're talking about would be?
You tell me. Fundamentally changing the game is how you say it. If you fundamentally change the game, then you haven't made it better, you've simply made it into another game that YOU like better, no?
