🚀 go-pugleaf

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
news:N7WdnVXtRbQY5UjeRVn-rA@comcast.com: 

><l1cker@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:1138040169.904821.249410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Is GC2 still keeping the same open movment system as in GC1?  That is
>> is the entire galaxy a grid and you can move into any square (assuming
>> range allowances...)?
>>
>> I know its just my 2c, but that aspect of the game really annoyed me,
>> and I think it directly contributed to problems with the AI, it
>> certainly made it more difficult for the AI to deal with various
>> different threats, and spawned a ton of cheese.
>>
> 
> As much as I enjoy systems like Master of Orion, I prefer (obviously)
> having an open ended system.
> 
> I think you're going to get "cheese" no matter what. The best solution
> to cheese IMO is having developers who hear about it and update it. 
> After all, MOO2, one of my favorite strategy games of all time, usually
> ended with a genocide run.
> 
>> Again, my personal preference, but a worm hole system either ala MoO3
>> or SEIV would seem to make AI decisions simpler by cutting down on the
>> amount of 'space' that the game has to keep track of.  Of course a
>> change like that would also change the way that you handle sensors and
>> range and ship speeds, but it should improve the AIs ability to focus.
>>
> 
> Sure, it makes it easier for the AI but my concern has to be what's fun
> for the player, not what makes it easier for the AI.  And personally,
> when I think Sci-Fi I think Star Trek or Babylon 5 where ships can go
> anywhere (B5 has JumpGates but most of the good ships can form their
> own jumpoints). 
Maybe it's a good idea to go 3D? Open 2D vs open 3D is probably about the 
same for AI (just one more difference to square and add), but it would 
level field a bit by making it more difficult for the human player. I am 
not sure though that it would be more fun...

Alex.