Na, no good. Theoretically speaking it is reasonable that Colonising a planet is more than landing a ship, it is a way of 'claiming' a planet as your own. The minimum possible number of passangers allowed on a colony ship that is launched from a planet, is the minimum possible population alien civilisations will accept as a true colony(theoretically speaking).

If a nation places a fort on an island and claims it for their own, then (in the "old days" of history) that island is theirs. And they stay there long enough, a town develops, and eventually a city. I tend to apply the same logic to this: the crew of the survey vessel sets up a base on the planet, and they live out their lives there and have children and create a city and so on.

Besides, (in game terms) any right-minded player would wanna buff up the population of their new planet, especially if it's starting pop is 1, so that would follow along the lines of what I was saying: the government tells the survey vessel to establish a fort, and they ship off colonists to fill out the planet (or, ship off prisoners and the like, such as Britain and Australia).

Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion. My above written is how I interpret the logistics of building a blank and refitting it in space. Your mileage may vary, of course.

You didn't understand at all... i meant that 'how' the technology was obtained is irrelevant. Time travel or no time travel the Technology is obtained and becomes availabe to use as is what happens in the game.

Being that the point of the cheese is *how* the parts get to the hull, I don't exactly see what you've accomplished with this...

My understanding of the term 'cheesy' is somthing that gives a player an unballanced advantage against the AI. From your own words, you proove yourself to be wrong.

Given that, as you said it yourself, this is *your* interpretation of cheesy, and that I explained my view on it, I don't see how this makes you right...

Funny, you seem to think you have a point that prooves my car analagy wrong? You may as well say i'm wrong because there's a tree outside and a dog walking past!

I was telling you that your car example had nothing to do with what was being discussed, whih you should have figured had you read the whole thing. Like I said, it's not about the cost I was talking, but the upgrading away from a supply depot and with no means to transport parts. But you're pulling the discussion to what you want to discuss...

I hate to add fuel to this fire... but didn't Star Trek have "replicators"? Did they, or did they not, get parts out of mid air?

Oh yeah, but when did you see them replicate a colony module, or the most part of a spaceship? The rest of your post just assumes this, so there's nothing there to reply to.

Umm how about the litoral combat ship. one hull four modules. they can be changed in the middle of the ocean. Granted there has to be another ship present to accomplish this but think of that as the 1-4 week delay.

So you just told me I'm right basically, and still replied. Heh, funny. Of course, you'll tell me the cargo ships are "virtual" or something, and they're already built and stuff   

The blank cargo hull, build it up as a survey vessel, if you send one of those out, find a nice planet, and refit it into a colony ship, it colonizes the planet with a population of 1.

The point was to upgrade a cargo hull (large) to a colny ship on the spot, not upgrading a survey vessel (medium hull!!!) to a colony ship. Maybe you should read it first?
Also, colony ships create a Initial Colony, with research and manufacturing capabilities, it's hardly tents and parachutes and emergencty gear.   
Suspension of desbelief, right, that's the last resort excuse, which is used for everything that you can't explain   

Gah. The parts come from Galactic Corp... you pay for it for heaven's sake. You even get to choose which company does the upgrade as there are more companies to choose from. Galactic Corp, your Corporate "friend..." let us assume they do have the means of transporting stuff, albeit with a 1-4 week delay. Stuff is different from people and can be send at a whollotta gees into space. People turn into mushie-mush, but stuff does not.

Does that solve your problem? Of course we all want shipyards in order to upgrade ships, much more fun.

Stuff is different from people and can be send at a whollotta gees into space. People turn into mushie-mush, but stuff does not.

Have you even tried to calculate how many times the speed of light *HyperDrive* actually is? And that's the basic engine. People don't seem to mind. Now as to "a whollotta gees", does that even make any sense to you after thinking about it? Oh, GC just has some even (much) better engines, huh?   

My understanding of the term 'cheesy' is somthing that gives a player an unballanced advantage against the AI. From your own words, you proove yourself to be wrong.

@Mystikmind:
Yeah? Guess who posted this in the exact same day as the quote above, in another thread:

1.3 isn't that bad! It does have a much higher 'fleet' advantage than 1.4 if you can get the 'first strike' attack high enough, you won't loose any ships or take any damage in 1.3. This is admitedly a bit 'cheesy' but how they fixed it in 1.4 has other 'cheesy' consequences. Let me explain... in 1.4 when high end weapons are around, you can have a fleet of 10 super dreadnaughts at 100% strength, attack a lone 90% damaged frigate, and unless you had specialised your defence, you are guarranteed to loose one of your dreadnaughts every time. If you took just one of those dreadnaughts by itself and attacked the frigate, you would win with no casualty.... this is serious CHEEEESE.

So what exactly is your concept of cheese?

I was telling you that your car example had nothing to do with what was being discussed, whih you should have figured had you read the whole thing. Like I said, it's not about the cost I was talking, but the upgrading away from a supply depot and with no means to transport parts. But you're pulling the discussion to what you want to discuss...

Speaking of reading the whole thing, try reading all my earlier posts in this thread. you know, the ones i posted 'before' you came along and think you own which topic is being discussed!

So what exactly is your concept of cheese?

Ah yes, good point.

Cheese of course is a slang term which i got from reading other peoples posts on this forum. I guess it has to mean what the majority of people think it means, which from what i have seen so far, is that it is somthing a player can do to get an unbalanced advantage.

Speaking of reading the whole thing, try reading all my earlier posts in this thread. you know, the ones i posted 'before' you came along and think you own which topic is being discussed!

I did, there's only one, #2, and it says nothing. Your point?
BTW, if you were replying to my comment, then you should stick to what I commented (as OT as it was), or do you also have a different opinion on how issues are discussed?

Cheese of course is a slang term which i got from reading other peoples posts on this forum. I guess it has to mean what the majority of people think it means, which from what i have seen so far, is that it is somthing a player can do to get an unbalanced advantage.

So you should get your own facts straight, because saying something now and another thing later (I quoted you above so there's no confusion) doesn't do any good to one's credibility. But I'm starting to see this is recurrent in your posts (cheese, realism, etc).

I did, there's only one, #2, and it says nothing. Your point? BTW, if you were replying to my comment, then you should stick to what I commented (as OT as it was), or do you also have a different opinion on how issues are discussed?

Ok let me walk you through it... i had two points to comment on, upgrading a ship when not at a starbase and upgrading costs verses buying outright... ok you got it now?

So you should get your own facts straight, because saying something now and another thing later (I quoted you above so there's no confusion) doesn't do any good to one's credibility. But I'm starting to see this is recurrent in your posts (cheese, realism, etc).

Guess what... that's a majour function of this forum, to help people get their facts streight.

Yeah, I was trying to add fuel to the fire but I really wasn't looking for someone to aim a flame thrower at me in a threatening manner. With that said, let me respond in kind... I will first begin with the opening to my last post...

I hate to add fuel to this fire... but didn't Star Trek have "replicators"? Did they, or did they not, get parts out of mid air?

This is rudimentary, and anyone who knows anything about Star Trek would know this. Your initial response is good and has merit...

Oh yeah, but when did you see them replicate a colony module, or the most part of a spaceship?

The rest of what you had to say led me to believe you did not read my entire post.

The rest of your post just assumes this, so there's nothing there to reply to.

Just in case you missed it the first time... allow me to reiterate.

No, maybe not creating an entire colony module but... Lets say the freighter "blank" is carrying several thousand people, (being as big as they are)all they would really have to do is create the things they would need to land on the surface of a world capable of sustaining life... and flourish.

I think this is very self explanatory. I really do believe, that a replicator in Star Trek, could not possibly replicate an entire colony module. However, I do believe it can supply the appropriate items needed for a small crew to build an outpost and flourish... blah blah blah, so on and so forth.

The blank cargo hull, build it up as a survey vessel, if you send one of those out, find a nice planet, and refit it into a colony ship, it colonizes the planet with a population of 1.

Na, no good. Theoretically speaking it is reasonable that Colonising a planet is more than landing a ship, it is a way of 'claiming' a planet as your own. The minimum possible number of passangers allowed on a colony ship that is launched from a planet, is the minimum possible population alien civilisations will accept as a true colony(theoretically speaking).

I believe that minimum number would be.... 1

The point was to upgrade a cargo hull (large) to a colny ship on the spot, not upgrading a survey vessel (medium hull!!!) to a colony ship.

I believe if I took a blank cargo hull (large) added some engines and the survey module... I could call it a survey vessel if I so desired... Survey vessels do not have to be just medium hulls. Well this has been great fun guys but I have to say I really think PizzSKat summed it up rather nicely with this enlightened remark...

Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion.

** Begins frantic dodging and ducking of possible incoming flames from well armed foes **   

I believe that minimum number would be.... 1

It is? i thought it was 1 million, i forget?

Well this has been great fun guys but I have to say I really think PizzSKat summed it up rather nicely with this enlightened remark... Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion

True, I think it is good to test personel opinions with vigerous debate... see if it takes me in the direction of re assessing my opinion or just thinking somone is a dufas (not mentioning any names) hehehe

It is? i thought it was 1 million, i forget?

I believe it is, on the slider it looks like 1, (meaning 1 million) on the planet screen it looks like 0.01 million. In which case.. I do believe, it would be the same if you retro fitted a cargo hull into a colony ship, and then land it on a planet.

I may very well be wrong on this point because I have not actually tried this. At any rate, if it is truly only 1 person, you should never get an increased population on this planet, unless of course that 1 person is A sexual. I would really want to reinforce the population on that planet with a second colony ship either way.

Edit: To clarify I mean a colony module holds 500 million each. You can put 1 out of 500 on a colony ship and launch it. Which I believe would be 1 million.

I used to use colony ships with the minimum possible number of people in Galciv1 for the purpose of improving my civ's ethical alignment.

I would go and colonise crappy worlds - anything above 11 will still grant random events. I would pick the good option and then destroy the colony, at which point it would ask me if i really wanted to destroy the colony of 1 million citizens.

@ ToS Iceman

You are discussing a pc-game, with no relevance to science (which still holds to the idea that FTL travel is a tad difficult), with make-believe Aliens based on the concept that most of them share a somewhat common build, and yet you continue to argue as if everything should adhere to science and common sense. You argue about cheese whilst it is game-mechanics, intentionally added by the game designers. Realism and games need not go together... what is real about Chess, for example? No army would ever attempt to fight an opponent in the open, on exactly equal footing, but nobody complains about that either. Not to be a spoil-sport, but the game has SOUNDS, in SPACE. Its a game, and its not real. Any comparison with real life or attempts to justify "cheese" where it is part of game design and thus condeming those who use this "cheese" as people who are actually cheating is inherently flawed as you play a game within the rules and setup build by the development team.


"In space no-one can hear you scream..." remember that next time you enter a space-battle in GALCIV II, and be glad the designers deceided to ignore that particular part of reality as well.

You are discussing a pc-game, with no relevance to science (which still holds to the idea that FTL travel is a tad difficult),

Hmm, excuse me, but it's a *sci-fi* game, hence saying it has no relevance to science is somewhat absurd.

with make-believe Aliens based on the concept that most of them share a somewhat common build, and yet you continue to argue as if everything should adhere to science and common sense.

Everything? I just made a comment, and it was

This is an excellent trick, but it's a bit cheesy that the game allows upgrading outside of a space yard...

After that I just defended my opinion, which is just that, IMO it's a bit cheesy that the game allows it.

You argue about cheese whilst it is game-mechanics, intentionally added by the game designers.

Maybe it is, maybe it wasn't supposed to be but someone exploited it. Happens all the time, and in this game it's common. Look at the speed issue. That was intentional too?

Realism and games need not go together... what is real about Chess, for example? No army would ever attempt to fight an opponent in the open, on exactly equal footing, but nobody complains about that either.

I'm sorry, but this is the worst argument I've ever heard about games and realism.

Not to be a spoil-sport, but the game has SOUNDS, in SPACE. Its a game, and its not real.

And? In game terms, it *must* have sounds, or the reviews would kill it. In real terms, depends on what sounds you're talking about. The bridge of ships has sounds. The firing of weapons, which I suppose it's your point, does not necessarily take place in an airless (or any other means of propagation) environment - thus it *can* produce sound. Explosions in space, while there is air blowing out of the hull (for there *is* air inside the vessels), there'll be a flash and sound will be produced - you may not get to hear it, inside another vessel and all, but that's a detail.
Yes, games are just that, but if they're not *believable*, they lose in the end. Like movies or books. There's is a maximum to suspension of desbelief.

Any comparison with real life or attempts to justify "cheese" where it is part of game design and thus condeming those who use this "cheese" as people who are actually cheating is inherently flawed as you play a game within the rules and setup build by the development team.

Again, I didn't condemn anyone for using anything. Read it again. I said I think it's a bit cheesy you can do that in the game. Quite different. Only when you do not want to see that do you think it's the same.

"In space no-one can hear you scream..." remember that next time you enter a space-battle in GALCIV II, and be glad the designers deceided to ignore that particular part of reality as well.

This is another of those stupid (no offense intended) things to say. If you wanted to hear someone scream in space, you'd actually have to be *out* in space. If you are, you'll surely not hear anything. Try using a radio, and then let me know if it works or not.


@Quixen

Yeah, I was trying to add fuel to the fire but I really wasn't looking for someone to aim a flame thrower at me in a threatening manner.

In a threatening manner?! This?

Oh yeah, but when did you see them replicate a colony module, or the most part of a spaceship? The rest of your post just assumes this, so there's nothing there to reply to.

Whatever. I can only read one thing into your interpretation...
Anyways...

Lets say the freighter "blank" is carrying several thousand people, (being as big as they are)all they would really have to do is create the things they would need to land on the surface of a world capable of sustaining life... and flourish.

Carrying several thousand people where? No cargo containers, no nothing. And in this game (and one of the reasons for me to call it cheese) you need vessels with modules to transport *everything* (*people*, troops, trade goods, whatever). And about the things they need to blah blah, I already made a comment about tents and etc .

Really, at this point, it's just an argument of personal opinion

Yes, and mine, again, was that... don't have to say it again, do I? Now, I do have an opinion, and I believe in it because I think about stuff before opening my mouth. I don't go around changing it like underwear. In the same day. I tried to reply as best I could to everyone telling me I was wrong, without turning this into a novel. English is not my native language, so maybe something came out the wrong way, and I apologize if that's the case. Yet, I was not the only one to say it's cheese, whatever interpretation is given to the word. It's just a word, people seem to take offense in it. If in fact the game allows it by design, then it's MO that it's a cheesy design decision for the reasons I stated already. If it's not, FC had alreay explained the trick in another thread, and maybe it gets looked into.
Now, what would be nice to avoid this type of situation was that people would actually think things through before making silly comments. Not aimed at anyone in particular, but by this reply you should get my point.



edit: I intended to leave this thread alone, but just couldn't without defending myself of some "accusations" which I consider to be misplaced. Now I'll drop the issue.

No, in fact it is not. Science fiction is Fiction about Science. Normal Fiction is Fiction about real life. Science Fiction bears no actual relevance to Science, no matter how much we'd all (me included) would like to think so. It is an extrapolation of thought. I like the way you argue, but nobody can hear you scream in space. I did not say there is no sound in space, merely that you cannot hear it ;o)

At any rate, you have your opinion and I have mine, and we'll leave it at that and get along nicely. Your arguments were quite nifty, and you seem like a nice guy For me a game need not be believable (what's believable about tic-tac-toe?), as long as it is fun and challenging. Games should offer escape from real life, and not some extra part of it

@Iceman

I would like to respond to a couple things real quick and then I will get into the meat of my post.

Hmm, excuse me, but it's a *sci-fi* game, hence saying it has no relevance to science is somewhat absurd.

Yes, it does have everything to do with science but... the rest of the word there is "fiction". So yes, the game is based around Imaginative Science.

Carrying several thousand people where? No cargo containers, no nothing.

Well.... DUH! We are using replicators from Star Trek why can't we teleport as well!!!

Seriously, I am just kidding. I did not mean to insinuate that you were the one actually pointing a flame thrower at me. I was just trying to be somewhat colorful in my post. I Didn't mean to offend you. With that said, all I was trying to do was respond to this...

The rest of your post just assumes this, so there's nothing there to reply to.

I was trying to say that I did not assume anything and that there was more to my post than what you made it out to be. You compose your replies very well for someone whose native language is not English.

Again, I was just trying to be a bit entertaining.

For me a game need not be believable (what's believable about tic-tac-toe?), as long as it is fun and challenging. Games should offer escape from real life, and not some extra part of it

This is a critical point you make. However it all depends on what kind of realistic notion is being challenged.

For example, no one want's to see a movie like 'Conan the Barbarian' and then see
Arnald Schwarzineggar (however you spell it)check his watch! Of course we all know the movie is not real but such a thing would spoil it anyway.

Some things which are not realistic in games, can really spoil things, and other non realistic things add to the fun.

My point is that we cannot just give up and say 'well who cares about realism as long as it's fun'. Realism can be crutially important, not so much to make a game fun, but to prevent from being a problem. A problem from just a simple little tiny nigling irritation, hardly noticable to a massive big fat spoiler.

I think Mm's Conan example says it all. Also, a game will be that much easier to learn and master if it is as logical and realistic as possible, as opposed to having to memorize hard caps and nerfings and all that. And we all know that people nowadays just don't like to read manuals...
Anyways, in regards to the "definition" of sci-fi, guess what separates good sci-fi from crappy sci-fi?   

Anyways, in regards to the "definition" of sci-fi...

...do you know the difference between 'hard' sci-fi and 'soft' sci-fi? In hard sci-fi the story is focused around and dependent upon some scientifically plausible object, event, etc. without which the story would not take place. On the other hand, in soft sci-fi all of the science is merely just eye candy without which the story could still be told, albeit in a different setting. 99% of popular sci-fi is served up soft. Star Wars is just a glorified western. Star Trek, a soap opera for geeks. And Gal Civ nothing more than tribes fighting over oasises (oases?) in the desert. Make no mistake, I'm a fan of all three. Heck, there hasn't been a sci-fi movie, TV show or game in the past decade that I haven't at least heard of. All I'm saying is that while arguing a point solely on the basis of realism or plausibility can be fun, it's ultimately frivolous.

Call it what you will, if it is based on science, it's sci-fi. If the fiction part is relatively solid (as much as fiction can be), then, like I said above, it's good sci-fi. If not, then it's crappy sci-fi. I agree with what you said about SW, ST and GC (the latter having merely a sci-fi varnish), and I do think the same way. But I do like things to make sense, and lots of details. Or I might just as well play solitaire or mahjong or whatever - they're just games too, and also provide entertainment.