Senseless

Since you have not elaborated on what you regard as "clear, definite consequences to decisions", and the only example you have of colonization ranges just contradicted your conclusion, I think you need to sort out your own feelings before a meaningful discussion on GalCiv can be engaged.

I agree somewhat on the lack of character for planets. It's only PQ that counts. In Civ (never played MOO) i used to rename cities in accordance to their characteristics. In Galciv it's just the Skowbo's, Rathra's and Ivey's.

Agreed. Every accomplishment definately gives lesser feeling of an ACCOMPLISHMENT than in SMAC. That's because really there is very low number of things that give really strong effects. Say, in SMAC you can double your empire power in just a number of turns. In GalCiv, you will gain just several % in the same number of turns in most cases.

But you gain better AI and better competition instead (because of abovementioned things). So i still think that a good way is to play in one of these two games depending on that you want at the current moment.

~SDC~

Sure, I can agree to some limit with the feel. But why then am I sitting hours and hours "just one more turn"...? I guess it's because I'm getting a feel of something happening in my game. Must build those bases, must prepare for war, must win...
Anyways, I think this game is great. But all thoughts should be accounted for. We're not on the MOO3(master of orion3) board are we?

I agree as well. All the planets are the same. I see no clear cut differences in none of them except PQ. Oh well.

Bobo sad for you. If no can tell progress in game, Bobo think not know how to play game. Bobo not know which Moo is talking. If Moo2, Bobo say him agree...is big challange on hard level. If Say challange on Moo3, Bobo laugh. Bobo like Moo3 but is no challange. Is no matter what level.

Planets in GalCiv not like planets in Moo. Bobo have big secret to tell: GalCiv NOT Moo. All games different. Like Moo better than GalCiv is ok. Not crime.But not expect all games to be like favorite game.

Maybe some help you with GalCiv and you play more. Like more. Maybe you never like GalCiv. That ok. Can play other games. Not end of life.

Not wanting to be a smart alek here but it's called abstraction.
Lets be honest here. Have you ever seen anyone grow farming? Farming is an abstraction for food production. No game could have production of every food type with models for all. It's too complex.
Minerals an abstraction for all the various minerals out there. Again no game could include them all. It would be too complex (and boring) Imagine making a decision. Ohhh how much Iron Ore to extract. Ok how much Gold. Ok how much mercury do I neeed. Ok how much Aluminum. Ok now how much alloy do I make? How much radium do I extract. How much do I enrich for weapons, etc. You quickly see that the reality is, you can't have a game with each and every mineral in it can you? of course not.

So the bottom line is, all games abstract to some degree. The difference is Galciv abstracts all of this (food, minerals, and the like into one rating (PQ) Higher is better, Lower is worse. Anything below a certain number is habitable but at such cost as to be useless. Not very complex but not senseless either.

And vs reality (millions of "food, Mineral, environmental differences, and combinations) , an abstraction of 3 proxies for all that isn't all that different from an abstraction of 1 in the grand realism scheme of things.
And I for one would rather have more abstractions (less proxies) that an ai can actually handle and give me some game, than complex variables it cannot even give me a game with.
What you want may differ, but it doesn't make one or the other senseless.

Speaking of senseless, what kind of sense does an ai that won't even attack a defenseless planet make?

Anybody else hear Mongo from "Blazing Saddles" when Bobo "speaks"?

As far as MidnightBreakdown's analysis... you might want to check out the strategy forum for PQ/morale/maint ideas. It's true that the planets don't really stand out, their basically just a PQ rating (perhaps more images and variations of planet surfaces?)... I mean, two class 15's are identical, and can have identical socials; no distinction is made ingame (other than where the planet is located).

Now, the "no feeling of progress" part I don't get. I sense progress with each new tech researched, each new resource mined, and each minor civ exploited.

~SDC~

I found using the 'systems out of range' as an example of what GalCiv doesn't have to be amusing, as this is almost always a minor and often a major issue in any given game. I swear that 'One sector too far' seems to be my life sometimes.

I think you just haven't played the game enough to see where strategy counts, you are in that early stage where you are trying to use strategies from other games. Nothing wrong with that, gotta start somewhere, but GalCiv has a lot of individuality and it will take you awhile to see what you can do with it. Heck, I played three or more games before I figured out I could use starbases as refueling points, which is a strategy right there because you have to figure out where/when to use them as such and hope you get results that are worth the effort.

Bobo is clown. Bobo act like HE designed game. Bobo really needs to be quiet because GROWN folks are talking. Bobo can go take a hike off a cliff.

Now back to the thread. MidnightBreakdown, made a very valid point. No one is acting to break the planet management all the way to its lowest levels. All we are asking for is give the planets some life. Make them more then PQ. Make the player want to defend them. I swear when I lose a planet via invasion or rebellion I really don't care because in reality it seems it does not mean a damn thing. Now in MOO2 you had planets that were research, production or food powerhouses. The planets were defended with alot of force. Now I am rambling a bit... Oh well. The game is still great.

Dont get you shorts in a bunch Ant. My pet Bobo was not adressing YOU. ( By the way, did you design Moo2? You sound like you had a part in it.)
Good thing I put him back in the cellar and he didnt see your rude post. Hes VERY sensitive. However, if you feel the need to argue with an ape, be my guest, Mr. Grownup.

Wampyre's (and Bobo's :)) points are just as valid and welcome on the board as yours are AntWrig. There's no need to be so rude.

On topic, I like the PQ system GalCiv has set up. It's a lot less time consuming then how Moo3 does it. Which means more time for fun. Although I do own MOO3, and like it for other reasons.

And by about half way through the game, my planets are fairly different and unique. One planet might have a huge production bonus from a series of galactic wonders, another might have a huge research bonus from getting the "undersea domes" event. Yet another might have an insanely high PQ from random events, and have a correspondingly high population.

And since random events play a big role in this, every game is different, with new surprises waiting for me.

I am fine with the PQ in GalCiv. The planets even have different sizes and colors. As someone who enjoyed ship design in MoO, I don't think GalCiv needs it.

One cool feature in MoO was that not all techs were available every game. If you loved gauss cannons and rushed to them, sometimes they would be unavailable. Would people like it if some of the dead-end techs in GalCiv were randomly unavailable each game, esp. if more are being added for the expansion pack?

The only other thing I liked about MoO that I wish was in GalCiv was that the ships went straight from star to star, rather than following the grid. I wish GalCiv ships did that.

Bobo thank Mike. Bobo also tell wampyre to cooling off. Wampyre rude talking to Ant so Bobo say him sorry. Also Bobo take over keyboard. Tell wampyre go watch tv.

Now back to the thread. MidnightBreakdown, made a very valid point. No one is acting to break the planet management all the way to its lowest levels. All we are asking for is give the planets some life. Make them more then PQ. Make the player want to defend them.
_______

Actually my planets become quite varied in the game. I usually have a production center, and varius other centers of influence merely because of the type of starbase improvements and planet improvements I choose. You cannot economically afford everything.

And like I said. It's a balance. Do you abstract more (giving the ai less to do) and make the game interesting via gameplay) or do you abstract less, give the ai more to do and risk overwhelming it.

And my point is valid. 3 proxies (the rest of an infinite # of possibilities abstracted) is not much different than 1 proxie in the grand scheme of things. And I'd much rather have the game play than the complexity. SMAC is a prime example. Lots of great stuff, but the ai just couldn't quite keep up. Too much for it to do. Loved the game, but now it just has no chance to beat me. You may not care how good the ai is at giving you game or may value it less than I as does the original poster. But for me, if a little simplification is the cost for me not getting to the top difficulty and slapping the game around in about a week, I'll take that. Plus, with all the planetary colonization events, planets really do take on a personality all their own in my galciv games.

But his point of saying this way of doing it is senseless vs another game's is not valid. It may be different. It may be less complex on the surface, but very complex underneath or whathaveyou. But that doesn't make it senseless. Furthermore, since he posted and ran, I doubt he wanted a real converse on the subject. He just wanted to stir it up.

um... ok. Considering the original poster is comparing it to MOO (I can only assume MOO3), it is rather a joke. Look.. this game isn't trying to be Chess or Go or anything else. It is a very fun, enjoyable game. It has a very promising future, with the expansion and mods. If it isn't everything YOU want, then that really is your problem *shrug*

Oh.. you don't think different settings matter? So you play the exact same game on say, intelligent.. as you do on normal and on genius? Yea.. right. You really have played this game, right? LOL

I'm sorry.. I just have trouble taking seriously anyone that thinks MOO3 (or any MOO) is as elegant or complex as chess. MOO3 was released in a very unfinished state. It has a confusing UI, a TERRIBLE AI (if you are finding a challange on the higher levels, quite frankly, you are not very good. I would hope you have Grays mod installed if that is what you are getting), a sad graphics decision (800x600.. gag), and a very, very unpolished, buggy game. Chess? Yea.. right. Come back after a few patches and several mods, then we'll see.

IMO, they are different sorts of games. I don't WANT this game to be MOO, or SEIV.. I like it as it is. I liked Civ III.. I like this game more. Trying to make this game MOO simply isn't going to happen. They are not going to suddenly revamp the entire game because you think it doesn't mesh quite with how you feel 4x-y this game should be.

I hope they do make AI improvements, ship additions, tech additions, starbase fixes and upgrades.. but I don't want them to rewrite the game.. the game is fun.

fleabitfox

This is more like an apples to oranges thing to me. MOO 3 has a totally different flavor from Galciv. For the record, I think MOO 3 has amazing potential, but some evil marketing people from a big company put a proverbial loaded gun to the heads of the developers and a dog was let out of the pen too early. But, dev issues aside as if both games were made with equal commitment, then there is no way to put these two games on a scale and see which is worth more. It would definitely be choosing to have either the apple or the orange, rather than choosing between a Granny Smith and a Red Delicious.

The best way to get unique planets is to go the evil route. You'll end up with a tech world and a production world from bonuses, and your economy world will be your largest PQ world. On your production world you build all the unique +production buildings (or until it's maxxed) until you can crank out a wonder in 2-5 turns by mid-late game.

So I can't see any validity to the 'all my worlds are the same' argument, because mine aren't. Nor are all of equal value by any means, not only do you have the special worlds mentioned above you also have certain sectors that rock simply because they have so many settled planets in them. Those sectors you defend at all cost (or focus on taking them, when you spot such a sector in enemy hands).

I think Bobo rocks and has good points

I have never played the Moo games but they sound interesting expeacaly cause the diff values for each planet and not fallowing grid sounds more realistic. If there was one thing i could change about galciv is the PQ system i am not saying my worlds are all the same but by mid game most of them have the exact same socal progects so if ruffly equal. I would have each world have a Atmoshere-class, mineral-class, Water coverage-class,Indigonus life-class and Gravity/Size-class. so what it there is no air on a world make underground and dome coloneys on it so you can get the realy good minerals not like in galciv its like: hmmm we can make ships go faster than light but we cant create a small controled inviroment on a world even though we can in space when there is a big planet with probly lots of valuable stuff on it.