[Mongoose]

Fair enough.

* Mongoose goes to blow some **** up

[TrashMan]

There is only one truth.

This way of thinking is the reason the world sucks.  Congrats.

1+1 isn't 2??? Oh noes!

There's your problem. If you discount GalCiv's and GalCiv 2's AI as poor you have serious issues in grasping reality. I'm not joking. That's not qualitatively wrong, it's quantitatively wrong. GalCiv II's AI is the best 4x AI yet put out. There are documented cases (really, you can probably find it, think it's PCGamer) where professional human players discover after the end of the game that they were never even relevant in grand strategy.

I could say the same for SoTS.

Now I agree that SotS is crap, mainly because they couldn't art design a paper bag much less out of one (I would rather watch Homeworld being played than this. It's truly that noxious in terms of art design; everything is cartoony and ridiculous), the interface is about as unfriendly as possible, the advisor voices leave you with a pathological need to kill the actors, the scenarios are designed by somebody who has no clue how to build an interesting scenario, the manual is poorly edited and actually totally useless when it comes to basic gameplay mechanics (seriously, they have like twenty lines on the realtime combat section that don't actually appear to be relevant to it ingame; the refueling mechanics are mentioned once, in a way that you could easily miss and that doesn't give them remotely the level of attention you'll actually need to pay to having a tanker about), and did I mention whoever designed the interface was a sadist?

I detect a complete and total lack of any objectivity whatsoever, or even an attempt at it. The wording itself is a testament to this.
SoTs sucks because the art sucks? It's cartoony? Wow. now there is a subjective statement if I ever saw one. It would be lime me saying that WoW sucks because it's art style is cartoony. Now, I personally may dislike that style but saying it sucks because of that?
The correct way of phrasing that would be "I personally dislike cartoony design."..and that's it.
Voices...same thing. You hate it, other people love it. A minor element.

Not that Sots as a cartoony design. The scale and proportions are realistic, the models are detailed - the only part that's "cartoony" are the colorful textures. They were made that way to make it easier to tell ships and section at a glance (the human ships would be the biggest offender. Honestly I prefer to play with a texture mod, but it's not an issue really). So that would make it colorful, not cartoony.

The interface itself is more than OK, I never had any problem with it, nor did other people. Perhaps you're just not very good at it?

Say what you want about Sins, but at least you could find your fleets and planets and monitor/construct across a large empire without dropping four hours on a turn obsessively clicking every point of light in the universe (several times because you lose track). The decentralized fleet construction and inability to set rally points complicates the game immensely and was an awful choice.  The "Whooo turn aroundsssss" tech interface is possibly the most annoying tech tree design I've ever seen.

 

Someone has never used the tabs...
Everything you say cannot be done, can be done.

Also, the CnC mechanic. It's bollocks. It sounds great but people have been commiting to the field forces larger than they can actually control since Alexander of Macedon and before. Most modern military doctrine conspicuously and openly acknowledges the fact that they cannot properly control the forces arrayed below a general or admiral in detail, that to do so would be counterproductive, and that a battle will be in the hands of the individual captains or squadron commanders.
Instead, SotS thinks "we can solve all problems of warfare command and control by committing our forces in very small groups!" an approach that has never and will never be adopted.

Someone also never bothered to read how command points work.
A SoTS battle is an approximation of weeks (even months) of manouvering. You CNC  represents your ability to coordinate and manouvre large fleets to effectively have the ships you want where you need them.
Realisticly, pushing deep into enemy territory in one massive cluster doesn't work, as your supply lines get cut.

And there's the whole thing of performance..you know, with detailed ship with physics calculations and all that jazz... IT's hte same reason we don't have BoE mission in FS.

[TrashMan]

Oh, smooth..Trying to de-value anything I say before I even say it (by throwing labels around). And lying trough your teeth while at it.

I am just stating what I have noticed in that other sots thread about the trailer. You have shown tremendous amounts of fanboism. I have no real reason to take your opinion about sots serious. Especially not when you are calling me a liar
That really kinda makes me angry and just makes me want to disregard everything you say forever.

And I am just stating what I have noticed.
You do not hesitate even one instant to call me a fanboy (in a negative context) and then act all insulted that I call you a liar?


So I'm a fanboy because I posted a trailer for a game I like on a sub-forums for discussing games? By that logic, everyone posting here is a deranged fanboy. Heck, we're all on HLP forums, doesn't that make us all FS fanboys?..Ergo, nothing we say about FS should ever be taken seriously?
Yeah, I like SotS. Yes, I like Kerberos (they have removed BioWare from the favorite developer list)

Does that mean I'm incapable of objectivity at all? That all fans are incapable? That if someone makes post like "FS sucks because you cannot double-fie missiles" that I shouldn't respond to that, because I'm a "fan"? And that responding to such a post makes me a crazed fan?

So I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're not a liar. But why would you say things that are not true then? Either you only played SOTS when it came out (without patches or expansion), OR you tried it for 5 minutes without even bothering to do research, OR you really did play trough it.
So the only logical conclusion I can come up with is that you're either misinformed (out-of-date data), lazy and ignorant, or downright malicious. Take your pick.

Looking at your posts there I see you've been there for a while..and after doing some searching and reading some stuff you posted..yeah, I think I can see what's been going on. You have been gushing so much on GalCiv and bashing SoTs so much that you ended up pissing off half the forums (repeatedly calling it shallow, claining that 4X games have no multiplayer value, etc...) Somebody's got a grudge.

I must say reading that thread is funny...and brings back memories. Now I recall you. And I recall that I used that same thread where you stomped off in a fit to pimp Freespace SCP.

 
And looking at the dates and everything... it seems like you quie the forums before Bob or AMOC or ANY got out.
So yeah..it's not *my* opinion being tainted that people should be worried about.


I'll do you a favor and not post a link to that thread.

Again..the very forums lack proof of that.

OF COURSE IT DOES. THEY *DELETE* THREADS WITH CRITISM. Just outright censor them. I saw it happen, just after release several threads just vanished because they had a negative tone. It's easy to say "there's no proof of them not taking critism well" when they just destroy the damn evidence.
But hey, its been many years now. Perhaps the devs on the forum grew up a little.

Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory. Now you called me a fanboy, stating that I shouldn't be trusted. However, that it's a double-edged argument.
Given that I know more about SOTS and spent more time talking to devs and other players, doesn't that make me more informed on both? In fact, doesn't that make my arguments more credible?
As I said...a matter of perspective.
And I haven't seen what you mentioned. Some posts were deleted, but those where clean ups (old, closed topics) or trolling/spam/add-bots. I have yet to see any post with constructive criticism deleted.

My problem is that I steamrolled the a.i. on my first game in Galciv II? aright.
Now I know I only played one game, but the a.i. did very little to oppose me, they didn't bond together to defeat my uprising empire, they didn't all massively declared war on me or anything. They just let me grow and grow and take over enemies one at the time. It's been a while and things may have changed in patches or something but I didn't see any of this brilliant a.i. that you speak of when I played

I think a lot of it is situational. From what I remember the AI in GalCiv2 was decent enough. It tried to answer your techs by researching couter-techs..stuff like that. Of course, the player will always be better.
Heck, AI in SoTS is excellent (considering it does NOT cheat. At all...except on hard difficulty), but I can still beat it. There are simply tactics that are incredibly hard to beat, in any game...even when playing against real players. All it takes is a little bit of luck and a good start.

[Spoon]

tl;dr
Trashman confirmed for retarded, will now be put on /ignore
No matter what I say will not get through your dense head anyway, so why bother.

[Hades]

tl;dr Serb getting angsty over his favorite game being ****

[General Battuta]

tl;dr Serb getting angsty over his favorite game being ****

Okay, that was both uncalled for and unwise. You've been warned to lay off the nationalist implications and warned not to be a jerk.

I can understand being angry but you weren't even involved in this discussion.

[Flipside]

Synchro-lockage!

I think this thread has run it's course anyway, and there seems to be something about SotS that brings out the worst in both sides of the argument.

[karajorma]

tl;dr Serb getting angsty over his favorite game being ****

Okay, that was both uncalled for and unwise. You've been warned to lay off the nationalist implications and warned not to be a jerk.

I can understand being angry but you weren't even involved in this discussion.

Isn't Trashman Croatian?


Anyway Hades, you're monkeyed. You weren't involved in the argument so you're obviously just posting to cause trouble.