Super Projects vs. Galactic Achievements, indestructibility

from GalCiv2 Forums
This is fast becoming my #1 peeve with the game. I can, somewhat, accept the idea that a Galactic Achievement is so substantial that I cannot destroy it or upgrade it to a different tile function, even if I would never have built it myself.

But why in all the names of all the gods must I accept the "local" choices of a conquered world when it comes to annoying (to many big map folks, at least) tile-wasters such as a Hyperion Shipyard or Omega Defense System?

I'm on record whinging about GC needing to be more than "just a wargame." Part of my irritation here is that this problem is inconsitent with the preponderantly authoritarian perspective of the overall game.

I *conquered* this place, even though I would be doing other stuff if the game didn't over-value conquest. We rained unholy havoc from the skies on these people, and after that, we can't take down their Fatten Our Stupid Ships Who Waste Time Hiding in Orbit facility? It isn't as if any other fool in the galaxy couldn't build the same dratted thing.

4,581 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Come on, at least another Gerontocrat should chime in here. Or am I deluded to think this is reasonable GC2 curmudgeon commentary?
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I second the motion. I hate Omega Defense and the like.

NO MONUMENT TO THE FALLEN SHALL STAND AGAINST MY WILL, FOR I WILL RAZE THEIR HOMES AND REND THEIR BONES!!!
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Also it is infuriating when I conquer a planet and haven't yet chosen a spot for my manufacturing capital... well guess what, now its a crappy little planet in the corner of the galaxy. Why can't I have a choice to destroy it if I haven't built my own yet?!
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Somehow didn't see this post until now...

Yeah, it can get annoying when the AI has carelessly built up my future their planets.

Some of the rules that have been set make little sense to me; for example, why would only one race be able to produce a trade good? For that matter, if I give another race my trade good -- which symbolically, I think, is meant to suggest the right to produce that trade good for themselves -- why do they not have to spend a tile for it? They're certainly not using my tile. Compare to China producing knock-offs of popular American products. But maybe I am misunderstanding the nature of trade goods, however.

I also don't really understand why it is that, if my empire can only build one economic capital, it is perfectly capable of absorbing someone else's. This implies to me that it should be possible to build a second there, without having to conquer it, if I had reached that planet first. It would make more sense if the econo-cap limitation was based on physical geography, ie. distance from each other, rather than political boundaries. What I mean is that there must be a certain amount of space between your one economic capital and your second, third, etc. This would also give a new dimension to the economics of games played on huge maps.

All that said, I try not to worry too much about how "logical" game mechanics are. It's easy to drive oneself mad trying to make a game conform to realism, especially a science fiction based game. When I sit down to play a game of Chess, which I do a lot, I don't think in terms of its realism ("Why can the knight only move in this pattern? Is his horse lame or something?") but in the abstract. With a more realistic game like GalCiv2, or less abstract I should say, this is more difficult to do I suppose.

Got a bit sidetracked there, sorry.

Also, GW, would you mind emailing me the code for our banner? I seem to have lost the instructions on how to do it. Thanks in advance.