Title: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 18, 2006, 08:49:20 AM Seems like I am now on some sort of secret Stardock mailing list. No idea why, except maybe the CGW guys told them how important I am to the gaming industry. Or they send it to anyone that bought something from them.
Quote ## Dark Avatar Delayed ## First the bad news, we have delayed the release of the expansion pack to Galactic Civilizations II until this upcoming February (the one-year anniversary of the release). The good news is that the reason we've delayed it is because we decided to add additional features. We will be having a public beta in November for everyone who has pre-ordered the game. You can find out more here: http://www.galciv2.com/darkavatar Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Sky on October 18, 2006, 10:02:26 AM Ah, I gotta get GalCiv2.
I think NASA needs to drop space exploration and figure out a way to move our planet deeper into space without reducing the amount of sunlight we gather. An extra four hours a day, minimum imo. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 18, 2006, 10:50:56 AM Are you off work today, or are there no smoke detectors in the restrooms?
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: sinij on October 18, 2006, 10:53:18 AM I love GalCiv2, only beef I have is overly simplistic tech tree and lack of ship toys a-la-MoO2.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 18, 2006, 11:38:10 AM An improvement mentioned in the notes is a greater variety of things to put on ships. I suspect these will be decorative, but one can always hope.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Trippy on October 18, 2006, 06:47:38 PM Ah, I gotta get GalCiv2. Somebody wrote about this once but I can't remember who. It was one of those "thought experiments" about what to do when our sun starts to die. Since the moon and sun just so happen to be about the same relative size when viewed from the Earth the idea was to turn the moon into a new light source and somehow push the Earth out of orbit from the sun (thereby avoiding getting destroyed when the sun expands) and it would be free to travel about the galaxy.I think NASA needs to drop space exploration and figure out a way to move our planet deeper into space without reducing the amount of sunlight we gather. An extra four hours a day, minimum imo. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Jain Zar on October 19, 2006, 12:42:17 AM I bought Galciv 2 but haven't installed it. I thought it had actual tactical ship combat. Instead its just construction.
Is it so wrong for someone to basically remake Moo2? That's all I want. Tactical TURNBASED capship combat with some Civ elements in between getting my Captain Gloval on. Sheet, just upgrade Moo2 with higher rez and make it XP compatible. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Daeven on October 19, 2006, 10:04:30 AM Stellar Empires V is comming. Bigger tech tree, tactical combat, lots and lots of star systems....
GalCiv2's shelf life is approaching its expiration date. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: sinij on October 19, 2006, 11:48:22 AM Linky? Also why do you think it will not be bugy suck choke-full of broken promises at release?
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Sky on October 19, 2006, 11:54:51 AM Linky? http://www.google.com/:hello_kitty: edit: Of course, it would have helped if Daeven had gotten the name right :P Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Daeven on October 19, 2006, 03:37:33 PM Linky? Also why do you think it will not be bugy suck choke-full of broken promises at release? Because SE IV was a thing of beauty? Unlike the hematoma that was MOO 4?edit: Space Empires 5. My bad. And it's out now. Time to burn some discretionary income. http://www.malfador.com/ Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: sinij on October 19, 2006, 03:53:38 PM Linky? http://www.google.com/:hello_kitty: edit: Of course, it would have helped if Daeven had gotten the name right :P For being mean I volunteer you to take one for the team and buy it. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Jain Zar on October 20, 2006, 03:39:30 PM I looked at that Space Empires 5 site. It says REAL TIME COMBAT.
NO. TURN BASED OR FUCK OFF THANKS. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 20, 2006, 04:07:00 PM NO. TURN BASED OR FUCK OFF THANKS. What he said. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Daeven on October 20, 2006, 07:19:23 PM Of course, you didn't download the demo. Y'all just read three words and wrote it off.
Go go indy dev houses! Twits. *points at the big 'stop' and 'play' buttons and ponders the implications* (http://www.malfador.com/SE5scr026.htm) Daeven, who may get off his ass and write a review sometime this weekend. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 20, 2006, 07:23:29 PM I am one of those weirdos that doesn't count pausable-real-time as turn-based. You might as well try arguing religion with me.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: sinij on October 20, 2006, 08:08:10 PM There is no god!
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 20, 2006, 08:26:40 PM Yes, there is. He's just waiting for you to use all of your AP and click END TURN.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Jain Zar on October 21, 2006, 02:30:41 PM Of course, you didn't download the demo. Y'all just read three words and wrote it off. Go go indy dev houses! Twits. *points at the big 'stop' and 'play' buttons and ponders the implications* (http://www.malfador.com/SE5scr026.htm) Daeven, who may get off his ass and write a review sometime this weekend. Oh you mean like the shitty combat in the Baldur's Gate games which hampered, not improved what could have been a fantastic RPG series, but instead was merely pretty good? Pausable real time is still shit. Its just shit where you get time to see what the fuck is going on, yet slowing the game down to turn based in any fight you aren't guaranteed to win anyhow cept with more micromanagement. At least in Advance Wars and Super Robot Taisen OG (turn based games) when I tell unit X to move to point A and shoot enemy B IT FUCKING DOES WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Stephen Zepp on October 21, 2006, 02:52:25 PM Using the 30 day free trial of Torque Game Builder (http://www.garagegames.com/products/torque/tgb/), any halfway decent programmer willing to spend some time learning TorqueScript could re-implement much of MOO 2 sans flashy graphics (and if you get an artist with a lot of free time, you may even get bling).
And that's for free (until trial period is over), so get crackin! PS: Sorry to be self-promoting so much recently--but honestly the tools are there, go use them! Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 21, 2006, 11:34:45 PM I would give it a shot, except I have made pathetic progress in every mod I have attempted. Implementing a full game is something I will do upon retirement.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Tebonas on October 22, 2006, 08:41:50 AM Played the demo, still like Galciv2 better. In fact, I preordered Dark Avatar after playing this demo.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: bhodi on October 22, 2006, 08:55:56 AM GalCiv2 is pretty good, I have a few complaints that I wish they'd fix.
There is no "autobuild, best parts, tiny w/ lasers" type of ship --- either you take the exact same tech path every game and build the same (saved) ship blueprints, or you make a blueprint for every single two laser scout ship depending on your fastest engine. If you just researched warp drive, guess what, you need to design a ship with it. This becomes annoying very quickly. You'll have a transport and colony ship blueprint for every type of engine you own. There's no 'autobalance' for tax versus happiness. Since the people *love* you at 100% (you get extra bonuses, double population growth IIRC) and only think you're pretty good at 99%, you end up micromanaging every turn to keep it there. It'd be nice to have it automatically ramp up or ramp down your tax rate to keep it there. It's still centered around he who settles more planets wins. If you get 2 and your opponent gets 3, he will win. Not as bad as the first game, but still bad. Single player campaign gimps parts of the tech tree. It's annoying if you prefer economy wins, for example, because trade routes are disabled. The way they lump and divide in civic management are obnoxious. You have a galaxy wide % slider for cash invested, % are divided among military (ship building) civic (planet improvements) and research. This means that it's much more efficient to have all your planets doing one thing; all to planet improvements, then ships, then full research. You can 'override' this at the planet level, but you burn a large percentage of your output doing so. Bah. Tech trees need work. Tactical combat. It'd be nice :( No Multiplayer. It'd be nice :( As for the turn based versus realtime argument, I can't believe no one has trotted out Fallout Tactics yet... Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: sinij on October 22, 2006, 10:07:34 AM I liked Fallout Tactics, wish F2 had tanks, but I like story component of Fallout universe more.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 22, 2006, 01:30:48 PM Oh you mean like the shitty combat in the Baldur's Gate games which hampered, not improved what could have been a fantastic RPG series, but instead was merely pretty good? Pausable real time is still shit. Its just shit where you get time to see what the fuck is going on, yet slowing the game down to turn based in any fight you aren't guaranteed to win anyhow cept with more micromanagement. You are mistaken, on multiple levels. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Merusk on October 22, 2006, 02:08:57 PM Oh you mean like the shitty combat in the Baldur's Gate games which hampered, not improved what could have been a fantastic RPG series, but instead was merely pretty good? Pausable real time is still shit. Its just shit where you get time to see what the fuck is going on, yet slowing the game down to turn based in any fight you aren't guaranteed to win anyhow cept with more micromanagement. You are mistaken, on multiple levels. For those of us who can't stand Real-Time combat, no he's not. TOEE - buggy piece of shit that it was, had superior combat to BG1 (arrow cheese of doom!) and BG2 (let me just run in here and watch - literally watch - my Demigod hero chew the shit out of everything..) For me, Combat in the Infinity Engine games was passable, but as entertaining and engaging as Dungeon Siege. I played 'em for the stories - which were fantastic - but was bored to death by the engine. Icewind Dale should have proved to you how lousy the combat was, because the story was yawn-tastic. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 22, 2006, 03:49:44 PM I had no big problems with the IE combat mechanics, in any of the games that used it. Sure, the arrow cheese stuff in BG1 got annoying occassionaly. Heck, I usually didn't even use much ranged combat in that game.
And your BG2 example? That only happened to me only a handful of times. Most of the other fights allowed other party members to become involved. Also, I don't play munchkin crap. Underneath it all, the mechanics were still based on turns, but without the hassle of combat being held up constantly and forcing the player to reassign orders - that's what the space bar was for. Heck, I believe you could even set up the game to actually pause after every turn if you were so inclined. I don't even get J-Z's second point about not being guaranteed to win - why should victory be assured? Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 23, 2006, 12:31:14 PM If the opponent can keep taking turns without you mashing the PAUSE button, it's not turn based. Not to me, anyway. Pretty simple. Some pauseable games are less tolerable than others. I don't hate all of those games, but the combat systems are not the same thing.
If you are going to call pausable real-time games turn-based, you might as well call everything turn-based. I choose to call "I go, you go" games turn-based, electronic or otherwise. If the other guy takes a turn when I go to make a sandwich, it's not turn-based. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Sky on October 23, 2006, 01:31:12 PM Wow. It's good to know I'm not the most rabidly anti-RTS person in the crowd. If I can pause and give orders, it's good enough for me. Most recently played the newest Freedom Force game which works that way.
I liked Fallout Tactics alot, but I could never get far in it because trying to play it fully turn-based made it extremely tedious because of the size of the maps. There's one map I think I kept getting stuck on, where you got to drive a truck through it. Quote If the other guy takes a turn when I go to make a sandwich, it's not turn-based. He's not - game is paused ;)Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 23, 2006, 02:24:34 PM That is probably why I never made much headway with Fallout Tactics. Great game, but the maps were huge and I was playing it wrong, I guess.
I'll counter you with: if I have to tie up the guy I am playing with so that he doesn't move his pieces around while I am in the kitchen, it's not a turn-based game. Unpausing a game means that both players are acting at once, which is not turn-based; it's "real time". Baldur's Gate is not turn-based. KotOR is not turn-based. Jade Empire is not turn-based. If you say it is, you need to count Dead or Alive and Tekken as turn-based since you can pause that shit and walk off. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 23, 2006, 04:33:31 PM If the opponent can keep taking turns without you mashing the PAUSE button, it's not turn based. Not to me, anyway. Pretty simple. Some pauseable games are less tolerable than others. I don't hate all of those games, but the combat systems are not the same thing. If you are going to call pausable real-time games turn-based, you might as well call everything turn-based. I choose to call "I go, you go" games turn-based, electronic or otherwise. If the other guy takes a turn when I go to make a sandwich, it's not turn-based. For the love of god.... (http://users.rowan.edu/~astill71/pics/BGturnpause.bmp) EDIT: Anyone else having a problem lately with viewing imbedded images in posts? Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Trippy on October 23, 2006, 06:31:53 PM EDIT: Anyone else having a problem lately with viewing imbedded images in posts? Give me an example.Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 23, 2006, 07:45:48 PM Like, my own post above. At first the image did not load, until I went to quote myself, just to see if the correct code got stuck into my post.
A few other instances as of late. After I hit quote to view the full post, it usually works. Sometimes I have to pull the image url out and put it into a browser myself for it to work. Probably something popping up on my end all of a sudden. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Trippy on October 23, 2006, 08:11:23 PM Probably something popping up on my end all of a sudden. Probably. May want to try clearing your browser cache just for fun.Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Jain Zar on October 23, 2006, 08:52:08 PM If the opponent can keep taking turns without you mashing the PAUSE button, it's not turn based. Not to me, anyway. Pretty simple. Some pauseable games are less tolerable than others. I don't hate all of those games, but the combat systems are not the same thing. If you are going to call pausable real-time games turn-based, you might as well call everything turn-based. I choose to call "I go, you go" games turn-based, electronic or otherwise. If the other guy takes a turn when I go to make a sandwich, it's not turn-based. For the love of god.... (http://users.rowan.edu/~astill71/pics/BGturnpause.bmp) EDIT: Anyone else having a problem lately with viewing imbedded images in posts? That's the fucking point. If you need all that shit, it might as well be turn based so I can reasonably input orders in some sensible relaxed manner. Which would be FASTER, especially given the piles of Magic User multispell cheese many BG 2 fights devolved into. (Well that and Infinity Engine's usual die reload die reload throw fireballs where the enemy is located but you haven't seen yet or prebuff spell the party..) Outside of easy fights where the party AI is vaguely capable of leading itself to a target and whacking it till its dead, BG combat was a slow tedious constantly interrupted micromanagement mess. Which would have been smoother and easier to control as a turn based solution. Shit, Nippon Ichi has made their entire company around giving the people turn based RPGs. You would figure an RPG based around TURN BASED GAMEPLAY would do the same. Instead it pretty much shows why real time combat in any form of strategy game is pretty shit, espcially given the utter lack of any form of workable AI in most games. Note Dawn of War is about the only real time strategy game I actually enjoy, and that's mostly because its 40K and I can kill Space Marines. Ok, its more like "spam Chaos Predators and drop Bloodthirsters on their asses", but complaining about how RTS games have very little actual strategy and are more like arcade games without direct control over anything would take a while to explain. (And let's face it, that genre is designed around not only how fast you can micromange dumb AI, but how fast your build/resource orders are. Maybe Mech Commander, and the Total War Engine titles aren't like that.) Of course the worst part of real time strategic combat is that its just not satisfying, but that is personal preference naturally. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 23, 2006, 09:27:26 PM Still not getting you. I just pointed out the option where you could make the combat actually pause on all of your turns. You're not explaining your points very well; you're just frothing at the mouth about how the game is not turn based...even though it is, with the option to actually stop at each and every turn you get. As you can see, I don't play this particular game in that fashion. I simply let the combat play out until one of my conditions are met, or I choose to pause it myself.
And what are you complaining about micromanagement for? Locked-in-stone Turn-based combat is all entirely micromanagement: you have to manually assign actions each and every round. Don't want that magic user to do anything? Oh, you have to select that, every round. Want to attack that target until it dies? You have to select that, every round. Want to move to some point on the map while in combat? Well, if you can't do it in a single turn, you have to keep assigning the order, every round, until you get there. Now, I am not against turn-based combat. Some of my favorite games ever, such as Final Fantasy Tactics and Fallout, are turn-based. But I certainly do not think either system is "better" than the other. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Sky on October 24, 2006, 07:49:54 AM If you say it is, you need to count Dead or Alive and Tekken as turn-based since you can pause that shit and walk off. There's my subtle distinction. You can't pause and give orders in Tekken or DOA. Thus, they are realtime.Quote BG combat was a slow tedious constantly interrupted micromanagement mess. That's what I liked about it. Go play Diabo :P I liked the constant die - reload - try again thing, because the game was a fun tactical game. You could try different strategies each time, sometimes I'd reload a particularly cool battle even after I'd passed it just to try it with some different strategies (web->stinking cloud->slam the door shut and chuckle! Take that, Umber Hulks!).I also set up my pauses as Straz suggests. I'd also suggest 'enemy sighted'. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 24, 2006, 08:30:15 AM Still not getting you. I just pointed out the option where you could make the combat actually pause on all of your turns. You're not explaining your points very well; you're just frothing at the mouth about how the game is not turn based...even though it is, with the option to actually stop at each and every turn you get. As you can see, I don't play this particular game in that fashion. I simply let the combat play out until one of my conditions are met, or I choose to pause it myself. And what are you complaining about micromanagement for? Locked-in-stone Turn-based combat is all entirely micromanagement: you have to manually assign actions each and every round. Don't want that magic user to do anything? Oh, you have to select that, every round. Want to attack that target until it dies? You have to select that, every round. Want to move to some point on the map while in combat? Well, if you can't do it in a single turn, you have to keep assigning the order, every round, until you get there. Now, I am not against turn-based combat. Some of my favorite games ever, such as Final Fantasy Tactics and Fallout, are turn-based. But I certainly do not think either system is "better" than the other. Please stop frothing, I think you are confusing my posts with someone else's. Unless you are frothing because I am feverently arguing a dumb point, in which case please carry on. I will try to explain what I am talking about, although it is obvious at this point that you have never played a turn-based game. The turns you are describing are actually D&D combat rounds (maybe a coincidence, but I think BG was inspired by something else; probably the same one that they used to make KotOR). Each round, everyone gets to do something. Sometimes they just get to wait, since some characters are slow, but the "clock" ticks for everyone at the same time; it's more like, say, a ten-second period passing. That is why it is called a round rather than a turn, and why you drew a big red circle around a END OF ROUND button (that just pauses the game for you) instead of a END TURN button (which would end your turn and let the other guy go). It is possibly a subtle distinction in game mechanics, but it seems like a big one to me. Sky is able to understand my poorly-worded posts, so he has an advantage in this discussion. He is also right about my DoA comparison, in that you cannot give orders while that game is paused. If you rename "frames" to "rounds", however...! Before we get too much farther in splitting hairs, I think we need to enumerate all known hair fractions. So, what do we have on our list?
Did I miss any? Also, I don't hate pausable real-time games, they just annoy me sometimes. I love D2LOD, for example. Also StarCraft, although I am rather tired of RTS these days. I also don't hate complexity; in fact, complexity gives me an enormous wood. I love games like EVE, La Pucelle, Disgaea, some of the crazier Final Fantasy combat/advancement systems, SMT: Digital Devil combat (that one is surprisingly deep when you get into the details), M:TG, etc. See? It's like arguing religion. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Daeven on October 24, 2006, 09:12:07 AM I'd just like to point out that SE 5 has a big END TURN button on the strategic map, and the 'EVIL REAL TIME TACTICAL COMBAT' has an option to 'pause' at the end of every 'turn', just like SE 4 did by default.
*shrug* Carry on. All I know is I really like the fact that the Tech tree is so huge and diverse (unlike Gal Civ 2: Uber Energy Wapon +2 even smaller!) that you *can't* research everything. Unless you like getting squished by the more specialized races. (Stellar Manipulation for the Win!) Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 24, 2006, 09:51:50 AM My posts were really directed at Jain Za, not you Yegolev. (Also, of course I have played turn based games, unless FFT and Fallout [among others] are not actually turn based)
Also, did you just compare D2 to the IE? Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 24, 2006, 01:43:22 PM My posts were really directed at Jain Za, not you Yegolev. Whoops! FFT is turn-based by my reckoning. Also, did you just compare D2 to the IE? I think IE is the Baldur's Gate engine? Yes, I did. You just can't give orders while D2 is paused, and D2 is about ten thousand times more fun. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 24, 2006, 06:07:55 PM Pausing is D2 is a convienence. Pausing in IE combat is an integral part of the system.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Tebonas on October 24, 2006, 11:18:14 PM Quote All I know is I really like the fact that the Tech tree is so huge and diverse (unlike Gal Civ 2: Uber Energy Wapon +2 even smaller!) that you *can't* research everything. Unless you like getting squished by the more specialized races. (Stellar Manipulation for the Win!) On the other hand its hard to go for a tech victory if you can't research everything. It might be a game design you do not like, but its a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. That being said, some of the descriptions could be less boring and the names more imaginative. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Yegolev on October 25, 2006, 08:50:58 AM Pausing is D2 is a convienence. Pausing in IE combat is an integral part of the system. I am not sure what you are arguing here. Me might even be agreeing. Neither one of those systems is turn-based. Taking turns is an integral part of the system of X-COM combat. And GalCiv II. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Strazos on October 25, 2006, 09:22:01 AM Well, ok then....I see the IE as being "turn-based enough" for me.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Daeven on October 25, 2006, 09:22:55 AM On the other hand its hard to go for a tech victory if you can't research everything. It might be a game design you do not like, but its a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. That being said, some of the descriptions could be less boring and the names more imaginative. You are correct there is no direct 'tech victory' (as in, I researched everything first so I win). There is the 'my tech is so advanced I brush aside all opposition like gnats' victory though. so. There you are. And Yes, I know it was a deliberate choice with GalCiv2. Don't get me wrong, I love GalCiv, and have played the hell out of it. IMO the SE series is just as good, for completely different reasons. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Morat20 on October 25, 2006, 01:20:32 PM On the other hand its hard to go for a tech victory if you can't research everything. It might be a game design you do not like, but its a deliberate choice rather than an oversight. That being said, some of the descriptions could be less boring and the names more imaginative. You are correct there is no direct 'tech victory' (as in, I researched everything first so I win). There is the 'my tech is so advanced I brush aside all opposition like gnats' victory though. so. There you are. Colonize every tiny island or bit of land I hadn't bothered with before, and land entire armies all over the map and crush a few foes before I won. I tend to be fond of the Big Uber Vessel in GC2 as well. Not that I can't do swarms -- and have -- but I seem to prefer to win through superior tech, not superior numbers. Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Tebonas on October 25, 2006, 01:32:21 PM I'm a sucker for playing weapons dealer for everybody else and keep them fighting each other. The best wins are those why I don't have to fight a single shot myself.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Sky on October 26, 2006, 07:58:24 AM I liked playing Gaian on SMAC and getting the ability to capture swarms. Just keep moving them around deep fungal areas and fighting (or recruiting) random encounters until they're massive boils and then send them against my enemies when I have a couple dozen. I've got to load that game up again, it's one of my favorites.
Title: Re: GalCiv II: Dark Avatar delayed Post by: Morat20 on October 26, 2006, 12:03:51 PM I liked playing Gaian on SMAC and getting the ability to capture swarms. Just keep moving them around deep fungal areas and fighting (or recruiting) random encounters until they're massive boils and then send them against my enemies when I have a couple dozen. I've got to load that game up again, it's one of my favorites. Too bad SMAC doesn't play well with NAT. A friend and I tried to load up some games to play, and found that it was a chore to attempt to even play head-to-head through routers. I could have packed up my machine, driven to his place, and hooked into his network and played fine. Or we could have set our DMZ's to our own machines (and thus hosed our respective spouses ability to use the net) -- or we could spend a few hours toying with port settings and the like trying to get the damn thing to work.Alpha Centauri is bad about it. I'm still fighting with Age of Empires and Age of Mythology over it. Directplay fucking sucks. |