[quote]I do not see a grander strategy under the hood. I obviously missed it, maybe because the demo is long enough for me to see it.Cheers,Teddy Bär[/quote] As best I can tell after several dozen hours of playing the full game trying to find it, it's just not there. I wish it were, and I think the main reason I still hang around these boards is because I really want to be missing something.
Give it six months. Demand is sky high right now because there's no major RTS release competing with this game. Once some major releases come down the pipe it'll settle down and you'll be able to find it cheaper. Oh, and don't buy a used copy. Stardock's registration system renders used copies unable to get content updates, or I'd just sell you mine.
Frogboy assured me that combat depth was the reason that the game is so lacking in empire management depth. Now people seem to be telling me that the game is lacking combat depth as a concession to empire management depth. Fascinating.
[quote]You can't just defend against a fleet with defense structures. [/quote] Sure you can. A handful of turrets and about 8 hangar bays (2:1 bombers/fighter) can hold, and in some cases completely wipe out, a fleet including a couple of capital ships. I guess late game (or in MP) that wouldn't work, but for the bulk of the game it's more than adequate against the AI.
[quote]If i'd been able to play the demo first, I wouldn't have bought Sins. [/quote] Ditto. I think a lot of 4X gamers that bought the game feel that way, honestly.
GalCiv2 Forums
My only problem with 1.03 is that the AI still plays like a lobotomized hamster, and the diplo system is still an unplayable mess.
[quote]Both AI and diplomacy are in "working order" but they could both be improved. Neither are broken or prevent you from playing the game[/quote] Obviously I disagree. I've never play this game without locked teams with the current diplo system, as it ruins the game IMO. The AI is a pushover, and renders the game dull and depthless as it requires at best minimal strategy to best it. They may not prevent me from playing the game, but they certainly prevent me from enjoying it, and wha
[quote]If it's not a good single player game, it's a waste of my money to buy.Are you saying Sins is not a good single player game? What game do you consider a good single player game?[/quote] At present, Sins is not a good single player game, no. I keep hoping that patches and mods will change that, but the commentary provided by Blair earlier and the patch schedule posted by Frogboy doesn't give me much hope. As to good single player games, I could provide you a list a mile
[quote]Why would I trust Ironclad enough to buy an expansion when they shipped this game with broken, unplayable...bla bla blaWhere have you been? Every major popular pc game ALWAYS requires patches to fix things. [/quote] They've explicitly said they won't patch the diplo, so that's irrelevant to the discussion. Ironclad has put forth a very aggressive patch schedule, that's admirable. They released a very polished game, that's also admirable. However, if the parts of the game I
[quote]You wouldn't last very long in a multiplayer game if you really stand by these absurd statements.[/quote] If that's true, then it's all the more an indictment of the single player experience (which is why many, I'd even venture most, of us bought the game). The two things that are most harming this game right now, and that should be fixed in a patch (not an expansion) IMO, are the unplayable single player diplomacy system and the preposterously weak AI. Unfortunately, I see that
[quote]This game is entirely RTS in my eyes. The tech tree is easily ignored, for the most part. Micromanagement wins the day in all the battles I've fought. You can get away with only building 1 or 2 types of units, even against hard AI. The Best strategy is generally to use your entire fleet as 1 unit, and not bother to split it up into sub fleets, in most cases. You acquire a planet, click 3 or 4 times, and then can largely ignore it until either the end of the game or it is attacked.[/quote]
[quote]Thanks Cari, hope everyone at SD is feeling better. There was mention in another thread of this being the last expansion because you "weren't going to be able" to put out more expansions. Could anyone clarify why that is? I know *I*'d pay for one... I can't say for certain, but Brad probably meant that there's diminishing returns on making additional expansion packs, the amount of work it takes to make an expansion pack vs the number of people who will buy it. It's not really t
[quote]I'm a single player and the game has pretty good AI.[/quote] That's... not a universally held opinion, suffice it to say. I'd say the AI is quite weak, myself, and I'm not a high level player.
Thanks Cari, hope everyone at SD is feeling better. There was mention in another thread of this being the last expansion because you "weren't going to be able" to put out more expansions. Could anyone clarify why that is? I know *I*'d pay for one...
Thanks for the update FB (and the imminent beta, for that matter). If I may ask, why are you going to be "unable" to make further expansion packs after this?
[quote]SOASE is very tempting though, I plan to try the demo when it's released and will probably get it. [/quote] Definitely wait for the demo on that one, it's a lot more like a typical RTS than its made out to be. The scale is bigger and the pace is slower, but there's still a "correct" build order and every game plays out the same as the last.
Congratulations, you and Ironclad made a very solid RTS. It may not be to my tastes (and it may not be accurately advertised/reviewed IMO), but it seems to have a sizable and enthusiastic fan base nonetheless.
I should probably add that when I say "depth" I mean empire building depth, not combat depth. I see that the counter system and whatnot is quite involved and that if one were inclined to micromanage every battle one might be able to derive more depth from the game play. I find that kind of micromanagement frustrating at best, futile at worse, and certainly not fun. With the AI the way it is, I've yet to see any reason not to simply build a diversified ball of units and hurl it at the enemy. I su
[quote]Instead of just picking up on that one point in my post, how about a response to the rest? I think the game has incredible depth. It just doesn't have as much complexity as a game like Galciv II.[/quote] I disagree, and honestly I didn't respond to the rest because I can't fathom the type of gamer you must be. I understand "playing the interface," but in the case of EU2, GC2, and Sins I spent about an equal amount of time learning the ropes. I think Sins' interface is arcane beyo
Let's try to stick to "what could be added to improve the game's 4X aspects," ok folks? I understand the frustration, but seeing as we're already invested it seems to me the best course of action is to try to encourage positive change in the game.
[quote]These people have apparently never played Go.[/quote] Don't count on it. This has been a productive thread so far, keep the pretension and the veiled insults to yourself.
This is turning into a really productive thread, which is fantastic. It's also helping me to really understand and articulate what I feel is missing from the game, and how the 4X elements of the game could be improved. My wishlist for a future patch or mod: Improved (ie fixed) diplomacy More research Alternate (non-military) victory conditions More impact from influence Generally better and more diverse empire building Now [i]that[/i] would be a 4X game in re
Emore, I agree with your assessment of my first two points. As to the purpose of the second two, I'd like to see greater "empire building" depth, and those points would be necessary for that IMO. This would, of necessity, involve adding some non-combat victory conditions. Otherwise you're right, if the whole game is just about flinging big groups of ships at big groups of other ships (as it is now) there's no point in more empire building depth.
Having just been informed that the bulk of the depth in this game is supposed to be found in micromanaging the fleet battles (something I've never done before, having not had an interest in it and seeing no compelling reason to do so), I too am now looking for realistic advice on the subject.
Frogboy, Good point about lack of tactical battles in EU, I retract the point. EU still has a greater empire-building depth, but I'll grant that that's not the only kind of depth a game can have. That does not change the fact that there's a lot of time where I don't need to be doing anything in Sins that could be given over to more options and greater empire building diversity, however. Any comment on my proposed changes in the first post, those are the only things I've said in this thr
Sins Forums