🚀 go-pugleaf

Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal Civ
1 + the expansion.

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>Back a couple of years ago there was a great deal of discussion on Usenet 
>with regards to the GalCiv I AI.  Most people thought it was pretty good but 
>others felt the military tactics were bad.  That while the AI provided a 
>challenge, it mostly was able to do so because it was more effective at 
>managing its economy/industry than the typical human and thus could 
>essentially "win" through brute force.
>
>In general, my view was that the AI worked pretty well but militarily was 
>disappointed. The main issue was its lack of coordination in projecting 
>military power into a given quadrant.  The result was hat looked like the 
>age-old "Death train" (That's where units uselessly throw themselves at a 
>wall dying with no purpose). There simply wasn't enough analysis on putting 
>units together and using them effectivley.
>
>A lot of this came down to being restricted to CPU light algorithms.  GalCiv 
>I was a sprite-based game -- no hardware acceleration.  So the graphics were 
>CPU bound.  Even though the AI is, and continues to be, multithreaded, there 
>are still very real limits on how much time can be spent generating 
>multi-turn strategies.  GalCiv II, however, is 3D-accelerated which has 
>freed up the CPU a great deal.  This has allowed for greatly expanded 
>algorithms during military endeavors without raising the hardware 
>requirements (in fact, on the typical PC, GalCiv II will run better than 
>GalCiv I did ironically despite immense graphics improvements and 3D 
>engine).
>
>A lot -- A LOT -- of work has been going into the AI of Galactic 
>Civilizations II in order to not just make it "challenging" but to make it 
>play intelligently.  There were significant chunks of the GalCiv I AI that 
>were scripted.  That is, the AI is programmed to do certain things due to 
>play-testing over and over.  This time around, we're trying our best to make 
>the AI build strategies based on analysis and not rely on scripts.
>
>The improvements in the AI have led to a lot of changes, probably the 
>biggest one being the elimination of the infamous "The AI knows where the 
>good planets are" issue that GalCiv from the OS/2 days on up to the 2003 
>release of GalCiv.  GalCiv II's AI has to build scouts and look for good 
>planets just like everyone else.
>
>To get an idea of what is involved in debugging such an AI, I chronicled one 
>such game.  Mind you, we're now doing several of these types of games each 
>day to tune the AI, to find flaws, etc.  The idea being that when the game's 
>released, the difficulty levels will determine how smartly the AI plays 
>rather than age old "Here's some money (or less of)" way that strategy games 
>have used as a crutch.
>
>Anyway, here's the URL to the AI debugging session entitled "Human/Drengin 
>wars".  I through in flavor text as well to make it more interesting to 
>read. ;)
>
>http://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=98513
>
>Brad

"Bateau" <Bateau-is-a@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
news:hnt8t19fffcl03sk2itb1fbs64e8jh3g15@4ax.com...
> Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
> slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal Civ
> 1 + the expansion.

I just hope it doesn't come with that Stardock Central thing

"Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message 
news:11t9063mftegcf1@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Bateau" <Bateau-is-a@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hnt8t19fffcl03sk2itb1fbs64e8jh3g15@4ax.com...
>> Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
>> slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal Civ
>> 1 + the expansion.
>
> I just hope it doesn't come with that Stardock Central thing

Yes, that was confusing.  Plus, I still can't seem to get it entirely 
uninstalled.

I'd like to buy one game, please.  No, no fries thankyouverymuch. 

Interesting and thanks for the report over here Brad.

One question though...

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.

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.

You would also lose the junk collection by the science ships (or
whatever they were called), but that was also kind of annoying to me.

<l1cker@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1138040169.904821.249410@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Interesting and thanks for the report over here Brad.
>
> One question though...
>
> 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).

> You would also lose the junk collection by the science ships (or
> whatever they were called), but that was also kind of annoying to me.
>

You don't have to use them.  Some people like them.  Civ 4 has huts.  You 
don't have to go and find the huts but they're there.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com 

"Mr. Limpet" <nobody@nothanks.not> wrote in message 
news:XLidnYzEnt2ujkjenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message 
> news:11t9063mftegcf1@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Bateau" <Bateau-is-a@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hnt8t19fffcl03sk2itb1fbs64e8jh3g15@4ax.com...
>>> Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
>>> slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal Civ
>>> 1 + the expansion.
>>
>> I just hope it doesn't come with that Stardock Central thing
>
> Yes, that was confusing.  Plus, I still can't seem to get it entirely 
> uninstalled.
>
> I'd like to buy one game, please.  No, no fries thankyouverymuch.

A lot has changed with Stardock Central in the past 3 years.  It was pretty 
"bleeding" edge when it first game out.  But it's matured quite a bit since 
then.

You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just for 
updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made were 
spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if it sees 
a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you don't even 
have to really mess with it.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

> 

"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.

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in message 
news:ONSdnUNl26eU5EjeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Mr. Limpet" <nobody@nothanks.not> wrote in message 
> news:XLidnYzEnt2ujkjenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message 
>> news:11t9063mftegcf1@news.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "Bateau" <Bateau-is-a@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:hnt8t19fffcl03sk2itb1fbs64e8jh3g15@4ax.com...
>>>> Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
>>>> slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal 
>>>> Civ
>>>> 1 + the expansion.
>>>
>>> I just hope it doesn't come with that Stardock Central thing
>>
>> Yes, that was confusing.  Plus, I still can't seem to get it entirely 
>> uninstalled.
>>
>> I'd like to buy one game, please.  No, no fries thankyouverymuch.
>
> A lot has changed with Stardock Central in the past 3 years.  It was 
> pretty "bleeding" edge when it first game out.  But it's matured quite a 
> bit since then.
>
> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
> for updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made 
> were spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if 
> it sees a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you 
> don't even have to really mess with it.
>

I really really hope you meant to say:

"You load it up, if it sees a new version it'll tell you and provide the 
option to download it. (You can set an option to automatically download 
updates.)"

l1cker@hotmail.com wrote:
>Interesting and thanks for the report over here Brad.
>
>One question though...
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>You would also lose the junk collection by the science ships (or
>whatever they were called), but that was also kind of annoying to me.

And you would lose exploration of resource points and shit. They're not
trying to remake Master of Orion.

Bateau <Bateau-is-a@man.invalid> wrote:
> And you would lose exploration of resource points and shit. They're not
> trying to remake Master of Orion.

Which is in some respects a pity:  I'd pay good money for a
*real* remake/sequel to MOO.  Or MOM, for that matter.

Brad:  looking at some of the screenshots I'm getting the impression
you may be using scalable fonts this time.  Is this so?  One of the
big barriers to enjoyment I had with the first Windows version of
Galciv (yeah, I bought the OS/2 version too) was that the fonts were
very very small.

That may seem like a minor detail, but it makes the difference
between a game I can enjoy and one that I'll find immensely frustrating.

Oh, and will there be a demo of Galciv2 released at some point?

Matt

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message 
news:Xns9754BCEEFC17sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.211...
> "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...

Did you ever play Star Control 1? It had a 3D map and you had to rotate it 
around to do things.  It looked great.  But as long as we're playing these 
games on 2D displays, I'm not sold on trying to make the player play on a 3D 
map.

Brad

>
> Alex. 

"Kilgaard" <Kilgaard@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:43d58d25$0$9239$6d36acad@titian.nntpserver.com...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in message 
> news:ONSdnUNl26eU5EjeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Mr. Limpet" <nobody@nothanks.not> wrote in message 
>> news:XLidnYzEnt2ujkjenZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:11t9063mftegcf1@news.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Bateau" <Bateau-is-a@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:hnt8t19fffcl03sk2itb1fbs64e8jh3g15@4ax.com...
>>>>> Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
>>>>> slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal 
>>>>> Civ
>>>>> 1 + the expansion.
>>>>
>>>> I just hope it doesn't come with that Stardock Central thing
>>>
>>> Yes, that was confusing.  Plus, I still can't seem to get it entirely 
>>> uninstalled.
>>>
>>> I'd like to buy one game, please.  No, no fries thankyouverymuch.
>>
>> A lot has changed with Stardock Central in the past 3 years.  It was 
>> pretty "bleeding" edge when it first game out.  But it's matured quite a 
>> bit since then.
>>
>> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
>> for updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made 
>> were spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if 
>> it sees a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you 
>> don't even have to really mess with it.
>>
>
> I really really hope you meant to say:
>
> "You load it up, if it sees a new version it'll tell you and provide the 
> option to download it. (You can set an option to automatically download 
> updates.)"

Yes, the option to download it.  Not automatically downloading.

Brad

>
>
>
>
> 

"Matt McLeod" <matt@boggle.org> wrote in message 
news:3snga3-68d.ln1@zim.its.unimelb.edu.au...
> Bateau <Bateau-is-a@man.invalid> wrote:
>> And you would lose exploration of resource points and shit. They're not
>> trying to remake Master of Orion.
>
> Which is in some respects a pity:  I'd pay good money for a
> *real* remake/sequel to MOO.  Or MOM, for that matter.
>
> Brad:  looking at some of the screenshots I'm getting the impression
> you may be using scalable fonts this time.  Is this so?  One of the
> big barriers to enjoyment I had with the first Windows version of
> Galciv (yeah, I bought the OS/2 version too) was that the fonts were
> very very small.
>

Yea, this time they're true type fonts.  GalCiv I had bitmapped fonts that 
we made. Very painful.

> That may seem like a minor detail, but it makes the difference
> between a game I can enjoy and one that I'll find immensely frustrating.

It's also resolution independent.  So if your LCD screen is native at 
1280x1024, no problem, it will scale intelligently.

>
> Oh, and will there be a demo of Galciv2 released at some point?

Yep, after release.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> Matt
> 

<snip>
>
> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
> for updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made 
> were spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if 
> it sees a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you 
> don't even have to really mess with it.
>
> Brad
> --
> Brad Wardell
> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>
>>
I'm sorry to hear this. I think Stardock sucked, and regardless of the 
improvements made, it still is something I don't want that I will be forced 
to load and use. I only am interested in GalCiv, not Stardock. There is a 
good chance I will not buy GalCiv II because of Stardock.
John

> 

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
> <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.

Personally I like the way Stars! handles it: you can go anywhere, but
you mainly want to go to the planets. That's where the big battles take
place.

On problem with GalCiv1 is that I have to move every ship six squares
further each turn, but planets tend to be 6 whole sectors away. This
can get pretty tedious. Ofcourse you can do a lot with autopilot and
stuff like that, but they rarely take the optimal route, and they
don't wake up if they accidentally come close to an enemy ship. So
every turn I have to check if every ship's autopilot route is actually
safe.

Also, on the AI tactics level, they could be a bit smarter about
defending their planets. I like them leaving orbit in order to kill
transports (it's the smart thing to do), but recently, the Arceans
left orbit to fly toward my transports, but they couldn't reach them
(because i'm not stupid and keep them out of range), and left their
planet undefended. So my faster transports fly around him and take
the planet. Basically, they need to defend (or even abandon) the
planet if it can't be saved, but should counter attack when they
can do it and it actually helps -- they kill transports, and
preferably make it back to orbit again.

>> You would also lose the junk collection by the science ships (or
>> whatever they were called), but that was also kind of annoying to me.
> 
> You don't have to use them.  Some people like them.  Civ 4 has huts.  You 
> don't have to go and find the huts but they're there.

Maybe and option to turn it off? I like them, although after a while,
I turn on the auto-survey, and that's not very smart. Sometimes it
prefers to fly to the other side of the galaxy instead of picking up
something nearby. And it would be nice if they only explored wormholes
when there's nothing else nearby. I think less worm holes would be
nice too. Or perhaps wormholes that can be used by other ships, but
that may be too hard for the AI to take proper advantage of.


mcv.
-- 
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
                                        -- Joss Whedon on his new film

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Mr. Limpet <nobody@nothanks.not> wrote:
> "Jeremy Reaban" <jer@connectria.com> wrote in message 
> news:11t9063mftegcf1@news.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Bateau" <Bateau-is-a@MAN.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hnt8t19fffcl03sk2itb1fbs64e8jh3g15@4ax.com...
>>> Ooh a sequel. I played the first one, and right now I am tediously
>>> slogging through Arcanum so I can uninstall it and start playing Gal Civ
>>> 1 + the expansion.
>>
>> I just hope it doesn't come with that Stardock Central thing
> 
> Yes, that was confusing.

I've never really had any serious problems with it. Well, once, but
I think killing and restarting it fixed it. I find Stardock Central
moderately useful (easy for getting updates, in any case), but I'm
probably a minority.


mcv.
-- 
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
                                        -- Joss Whedon on his new film

In article <Xns9754BCEEFC17sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.211>, 
QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca says...
but most of the good ships can form their

> 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...

There are other issues than difficulty.  At higher dimensions the 
volume of space near a given point increases.  What that means is that 
either you have an inordinate number of stars/planets/cities, or else 
most of those you own are on the border of your empire, encroaching 
closely on enemy-occupied ones.  You don't have the split between 
homeland and border territory that one expects in a 4X game.  

- Gerry Quinn

Well it is your baby, I don't expect to change your mind, jus to voice
my own opinion ;)

I do think that the hybrid star lane/open space system of SEIV (or
ascention sorta) would be a decent compromise.  That way you at least
have choke points (the entry/exit points of the starlanes) which are
somewhat easier to defend, and can take some of the pressure off of
always just defending planets.  This would also allow you to keep the
specials in the systems.  In fact you sort of do this with your
quadrents, but of course there are not single entry/exit points.

I do appreciate your dedication to making a solid SP game though, and I
wish you the best in getting there, even if its not my 'holy grail'
game ;)

As an aside have you looked at MoO3 lately with all the mods and user
patches to it?  I doubt you really have time for it now, but I think
that there was alot of potential in the MoO3 system (yeah I expect to
get flamed...), but horrible implementation (for whatever reason, lets
not go into that...).  Anyway, alot of the big issues have been fixed,
and that game can be very entertaining now, certainly some of the
features give it an incredible depth.  I've been playing it again,
while following GC2s development and cannot help but to think how much
I would enjoy some combination the features in the two.

"John A. Mason" <jamas@ream.net> wrote in message 
news:11tc7uitcrnhub0@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
>> for updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made 
>> were spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if 
>> it sees a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you 
>> don't even have to really mess with it.
>>
>> Brad
>> --
>> Brad Wardell
>> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
>> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>>
>>>
> I'm sorry to hear this. I think Stardock sucked, and regardless of the 
> improvements made, it still is something I don't want that I will be 
> forced to load and use. I only am interested in GalCiv, not Stardock. 
> There is a good chance I will not buy GalCiv II because of Stardock.

That doesn't make sense to me. It's like not buying Civ 4 because you don't 
like the Civ 4 website. You don't even have to deal with Stardock Central 
from what I just read.

> John
>
>>
>
> 

Craig Swanson wrote:

>That doesn't make sense to me. It's like not buying Civ 4 because you don't 
>like the Civ 4 website. You don't even have to deal with Stardock Central 
>from what I just read.
>  
>

I have in fact foregone some games because of a website problem.  The 
fact that some required I navigate through a site full of java script 
(that's script, not java) to play the game meant that I could not even 
do so (and so several games I probly would have bought were dropped), 
since I refuse to turn on script for those losers (there is nothing that 
script can do that can't be better done otherwise, and script IS a 
hacking danger - nevermind the flames, I've heard it all before).

I played galsiv 1, and I recall problems with stardock, and now that 
this reminder has come up I will make it a point to avoid galsiv 2 
unless they clearly and publicly separate themselves from all that sort 
of crap.  I want games, not a takeover of my life or my computer.  I pay 
for games (I just paid full price of Civ4), I do not pay for trouble.

Of course, maybe there are enough suckers out there?

-- 
Godwin is a net-nazi
Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
news:lPGdne-1FZUILkjenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com: 

> 
> Did you ever play Star Control 1? It had a 3D map and you had to rotate
> it around to do things.  It looked great.  But as long as we're playing
> these games on 2D displays, I'm not sold on trying to make the player
> play on a 3D map.
I did, but I can't really remember much about it. Making true 3D strategy 
game would probably be quite an exploration. I can't think of anything that 
has been done. UI is probably the most difficult issue. 3D could be good 
for the strategy though. In 2D you have deal with weird problems like 
having travel huge distances over populated space to get out in the wild. 
In 3D interception would become much harder too. So it would be more 
realistic in sense that one would have to defend his star systems rather 
than vaste amounts of empty space.

Alex.

"John A. Mason" <jamas@ream.net> wrote in message 
news:11tc7uitcrnhub0@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
>> for updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made 
>> were spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if 
>> it sees a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you 
>> don't even have to really mess with it.
>>
> I'm sorry to hear this. I think Stardock sucked, and regardless of the 
> improvements made, it still is something I don't want that I will be 
> forced to load and use. I only am interested in GalCiv, not Stardock. 
> There is a good chance I will not buy GalCiv II because of Stardock.
> John

John, Stardock is NOT Steam, and it's not that big of a deal either. The 
option to turn it off is there, it's not forced down your neck like Steam 
and all in all is pretty harmless. It just presents an option, nothing more.

Ceo- 

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in message 
news:lPGdne-1FZUILkjenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com...

<snip>

> Did you ever play Star Control 1? It had a 3D map and you had to rotate it 
> around to do things.  It looked great.  But as long as we're playing these 
> games on 2D displays, I'm not sold on trying to make the player play on a 
> 3D map.

It did? No way, I didn't think Star Control 1 even HAD a map? It was just 
the Melee combat yea? Star Con 2 had the RPG element introduced and that 
wasn't 3D. Could be wrong about SC1 I guess.

And AS it was mentioned I can now plug Star Control 2, The Ur-Quan Masters! 
A modern remake of SC2.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

Will run on all modern machines no worries.

Ceo- 

In article <Xns9755D07F6FD71sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.211>, 
QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca says...
> Making true 3D strategy 
> game would probably be quite an exploration. I can't think of anything that 
> has been done. UI is probably the most difficult issue. 3D could be good 
> for the strategy though
> 

Give me a holographic laser 3D display and I'll consider it. On a flat 2D 
display it's just a major pain in the arse. The only time 3d modelling sort of 
worked for me was in Elite - everything else I tried could be summed up as 
'lost in space'. I can handle Ender's "There is no up and down in space". But I 
am not that good in getting a 3d representation from a 2d display, and no sir, 
I will not wear silly red and green glasses.

-P.

-- 
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

"Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet> wrote:
>It did? No way, I didn't think Star Control 1 even HAD a map? It was just 
>the Melee combat yea? Star Con 2 had the RPG element introduced

Starcon1 had a 3d map. It rotated about its vertical axis, like the
Earth rotates around its vertical axis. The map was made up of dots -
star systems - connected to each other by lines (representing
wormholes). The rotation helped you see the connections. I think
posession of systems allowed you to build ships. You moved your fleet
between systems. When it encountered the enemy fleet, it switched to
melee to resolve the battle.

--
Lucian

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com> wrote:
> "Ceowulf" <ceo@NOSPAMii.ATALLnet> wrote:
>>It did? No way, I didn't think Star Control 1 even HAD a map? It was just 
>>the Melee combat yea? Star Con 2 had the RPG element introduced
> 
> Starcon1 had a 3d map. It rotated about its vertical axis, like the
> Earth rotates around its vertical axis. The map was made up of dots -
> star systems - connected to each other by lines (representing
> wormholes). The rotation helped you see the connections. I think
> posession of systems allowed you to build ships. You moved your fleet
> between systems. When it encountered the enemy fleet, it switched to
> melee to resolve the battle.

Did Star Control have possession of systems? As far as I can remember
(it's been a while), it just had combat. Or is there another game with
the same name? This description does remind me of Ascendancy, though.
That also had a 3D map with starlanes or something like that.


mcv.
-- 
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
                                        -- Joss Whedon on his new film

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Quaestor <no-spam@my.place> wrote:
> Craig Swanson wrote:
> 
>>That doesn't make sense to me. It's like not buying Civ 4 because you don't 
>>like the Civ 4 website. You don't even have to deal with Stardock Central 
>>from what I just read.
> 
> I have in fact foregone some games because of a website problem.  The 
> fact that some required I navigate through a site full of java script 
> (that's script, not java) to play the game meant that I could not even 
> do so (and so several games I probly would have bought were dropped), 
> since I refuse to turn on script for those losers (there is nothing that 
> script can do that can't be better done otherwise, and script IS a 
> hacking danger - nevermind the flames, I've heard it all before).

Four years ago, I would have agreed with you. Javascript has been abused
for all sorts of horrible crap. But a good browser can ignore stupid
javascript without disabling useful javascript, and security shouldn't
be a problem either. And unlike 4 years ago, there are sites that make
very good use of javascript. The classic example is maps.google.com.
Without using javascript to get the content, it would be a lot slower
and use a lot more bandwidth. But there are a lot more examples of good
javascript use. (I'm using a browser-based CMS that couldn't possibly
work without javascript, for example.)

> I played galsiv 1, and I recall problems with stardock, and now that 
> this reminder has come up I will make it a point to avoid galsiv 2 
> unless they clearly and publicly separate themselves from all that sort 
> of crap.  I want games, not a takeover of my life or my computer.  I pay 
> for games (I just paid full price of Civ4), I do not pay for trouble.

Then GalCiv shouldn't be a problem. You can play the game without ever
using Stardock or looking at any website. But if you want updates,
Stardock will make your life a lot easier. I hope the updates will
also be availlable through the website so Stardock-haters can get them.


mcv.
-- 
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
                                        -- Joss Whedon on his new film

Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com> wrote:
>Starcon1 had a 3d map. It rotated about its vertical axis, like the
>Earth rotates around its vertical axis. The map was made up of dots -
>star systems - connected to each other by lines (representing
>wormholes).

Screenshots:

http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc1/sc1scr/game2.jpg
http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc1/sc1scr.shtml

--
Lucian

mcv <mcvmcv@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>Did Star Control have possession of systems? As far as I can remember
>(it's been a while), it just had combat.

Yes, it had possession of systems. You could mine them or fortify
them. And if you possessed a system, then it built ships for you.
Here's some strategy guide describing what to do:

http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/sc1/sc1_guide_page5.shtml


Remember the starting screen? You could select each player to be "AI"
(fully computer controlled), or "CYBORG" (computer does strategy while
you do melee), or "PSYTRON" (computer does melee while you do
strategy), or "HUMAN" (you do both).

--
Lucian

On the 24 Jan 2006, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:

<snip>

> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just for 
> updates.

I hope that you're planning on also supplying the updates/patches as
separately downloadable files, otherwise I'll have to pass. My PC isn't
actually connected to the internet, and even if I could be bothered to
set a connection up and spend ages doing Windows Update and everything,
it would be connecting via dialup.

-- 
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

"Quaestor" <no-spam@my.place> wrote in message 
news:11tdqtl20ue4r4e@news.supernews.com...
> Craig Swanson wrote:
>
>>That doesn't make sense to me. It's like not buying Civ 4 because you 
>>don't like the Civ 4 website. You don't even have to deal with Stardock 
>>Central from what I just read.
>>
>
> I have in fact foregone some games because of a website problem.  The fact 
> that some required I navigate through a site full of java script (that's 
> script, not java) to play the game meant that I could not even do so (and 
> so several games I probly would have bought were dropped), since I refuse 
> to turn on script for those losers (there is nothing that script can do 
> that can't be better done otherwise, and script IS a hacking danger - 
> nevermind the flames, I've heard it all before).
>
> I played galsiv 1, and I recall problems with stardock, and now that this 
> reminder has come up I will make it a point to avoid galsiv 2 unless they 
> clearly and publicly separate themselves from all that sort of crap.  I 
> want games, not a takeover of my life or my computer.  I pay for games (I 
> just paid full price of Civ4), I do not pay for trouble.
>
> Of course, maybe there are enough suckers out there?

If they called it happy fun updater would that make it better?  If the 
program were required to play the game I would understand. From what I've 
just seen, it is what they use to let people updates to the game. I don't 
see how that can be thought as a bad thing.  I guess I don't understand the 
problem.

-Craig

>
> -- 
> Godwin is a net-nazi
> Learn about spam: http://www.seige-perilous.org/spam/spam.html 

Hi!
>  If the  program were required to play the game I would understand.
For playing GalCiv1 you need to install Stardock Central. The game
needs DLL (I know for at least one) in order to run. Though you don't
need SC to play GC1.
BR,  Iztok

"John A. Mason" <jamas@ream.net> wrote in message 
news:11tc7uitcrnhub0@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
>> for updates. And it works really well nowadays.  Much of the changes made 
>> were spawned from feedback from Usenet.  For instance, you load it up, if 
>> it sees a new version it'll tell you and start downloading it. So you 
>> don't even have to really mess with it.
>>
>> Brad
>> --
>> Brad Wardell
>> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
>> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>>
>>>
> I'm sorry to hear this. I think Stardock [Central] sucked, and regardless 
> of the improvements made, it still is something I don't want that I will 
> be forced to load and use. I only am interested in GalCiv, not Stardock. 
> There is a good chance I will not buy GalCiv II because of Stardock.
> John

You don't have to use Stardock Central unless you're purchasing it 
electronically.  If you buy the game at retail, you can download 1.x updates 
from the website like any other game.  Stardock Central is just an option 
for users who find it convenient.

I know some people have had problems with it back in 2003, it was literally 
rushed out for the release (which I think was obviously a mistake in 
hindsight). But no one ever had to use it.  Even today you can go to the 
original galciv.com site and download the 1.2 "patch" OR use Stardock 
Central.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
>>
>
> 

"Graham Thurlwell" <NOSPAM@jades.org> wrote in message 
news:913976ef4d.jades@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...
> On the 24 Jan 2006, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You don't need Stardock Central to play the game or anything, it's just 
>> for
>> updates.
>
> I hope that you're planning on also supplying the updates/patches as
> separately downloadable files, otherwise I'll have to pass. My PC isn't
> actually connected to the internet, and even if I could be bothered to
> set a connection up and spend ages doing Windows Update and everything,
> it would be connecting via dialup.

It'll be just like GalCiv I.  You can use Stardock Central OR download 
traditional patches.  It's always been this way.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> -- 
> Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
> The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
>
> nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address! 

<iztok_bitenc@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1138360598.452760.22230@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi!
>>  If the  program were required to play the game I would understand.
> For playing GalCiv1 you need to install Stardock Central. The game
> needs DLL (I know for at least one) in order to run. Though you don't
> need SC to play GC1.
> BR,  Iztok

That's not true at all.  ONLY if you purchased it electronically for 
download.  If you bought the boxed version (CD version).

I feel like we're getting tarred with some of the Steam stuff.

1) Stardock Central uses NO DRM.

2) It doesn't spy on you.

3) It is simply a way to securely talk to our servers so that you can get 
updates.

4) If you buy the actual physical CD, you never even have to use it.

5) The game has NO COPY PROTECTION whatsoever.  No CD check, no DRM, 
nothing.

6) Even if you buy the CD. You can OPTIONALLY use Stardock Central to 
download the full game even years later. I don't know of any other system 
that lets you do this.  So you can literally throw away or lose the CD and 
still download the entire game.

The worst problem you can have with Stardock Central would be some error on 
downloading or something which is no different than what you'd get from a 
web based system that required you to have a UserID and PW to make sure you 
are who you are.

The angst on the program really mystifies me because the thing is designed 
as the dream program for Usenet people.  No DRM, no copy protection, no 
spyware, integrated chat, integrated forum discussions.  It's used by over a 
million people each month (mostly on the non-games).

The technical issues that some people have had are related to the sheer 
download size -- people redownloading the full copies.  Even iTunes doesn't 
allow for redownloading.

Heck, half the specs for it came from comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

> 

<snip>
>
> You don't have to use Stardock Central unless you're purchasing it 
> electronically.  If you buy the game at retail, you can download 1.x 
> updates from the website like any other game.  Stardock Central is just an 
> option for users who find it convenient.
>
> I know some people have had problems with it back in 2003, it was 
> literally rushed out for the release (which I think was obviously a 
> mistake in hindsight). But no one ever had to use it.  Even today you can 
> go to the original galciv.com site and download the 1.2 "patch" OR use 
> Stardock Central.
>
> Brad
> --
> Brad Wardell
> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>

Brad,
Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I will reconsider my 
viewpoint going forward. I appreciate your honesty in mentioning that 
Stardock was 'rushed out for the release'.
I very clearly remember significant problems with Stardock, and I just don't 
want to have to deal with it at all. I also appreciate the other comments 
you've made about how the program was designed with Usenet users in mind. 
However, we don't need another way to do 'anything'... forums, downloading, 
etc.; are all established practices. I, for one, am not looking for another 
way to do these things... just my opinion.
Your interest in your customer's concerns and ongoing dialogue with them do 
you (and GalCiv) great credit.
Regards,
John

"John A. Mason" <jamas@ream.net> wrote in message 
news:11tpfq632cqf851@corp.supernews.com...
> <snip>
>>
>> You don't have to use Stardock Central unless you're purchasing it 
>> electronically.  If you buy the game at retail, you can download 1.x 
>> updates from the website like any other game.  Stardock Central is just 
>> an option for users who find it convenient.
>>
>> I know some people have had problems with it back in 2003, it was 
>> literally rushed out for the release (which I think was obviously a 
>> mistake in hindsight). But no one ever had to use it.  Even today you can 
>> go to the original galciv.com site and download the 1.2 "patch" OR use 
>> Stardock Central.
>>
>> Brad
>> --
>> Brad Wardell
>> Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
>> Stardock - http://www.stardock.com
>>
>
> Brad,
> Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. I will reconsider my 
> viewpoint going forward. I appreciate your honesty in mentioning that 
> Stardock was 'rushed out for the release'.
> I very clearly remember significant problems with Stardock, and I just 
> don't want to have to deal with it at all. I also appreciate the other 
> comments you've made about how the program was designed with Usenet users 
> in mind. However, we don't need another way to do 'anything'... forums, 
> downloading, etc.; are all established practices. I, for one, am not 
> looking for another way to do these things... just my opinion.
> Your interest in your customer's concerns and ongoing dialogue with them 
> do you (and GalCiv) great credit.

Thanks.

What happened in 2003 was essentially this -- GalCiv I was originally 
supposed to come out on February 21st 2003.  But Atari asked us to push our 
date back 1 month so that we didn't come out at the same time as MOO 3. In 
exchange they put a GalCiv flyer in the MOO 3 box.  So GalCiv I came out at 
the end of March instead.

However, Stardock Central was originally slated to be finished by end of 
April 2003 and when the GalCiv date got pushed back, there was the 
temptation (which we obviously took to) to bring out SDC a month early so 
that we could launch both.  SDC had been working great in beta for our 
non-games stuff such as WindowBlinds (www.windowblinds.net) and other Object 
Desktop stuff.  So we rushed it to 1.0.

However, while SDC worked great for non-games, it was a whole different 
story downloading a game with thousans of files and hundreds of megabytes. 
A desktop enhancement might have 50 files and be 10 megs. No biggie.  But a 
game like GalCiv was 500 megabytes and thousannds of files and it was 
clearly not ready to handle that kind of load.

But a lot has changed since then -- 3 years.  But we still look at it as an 
optional item, not something anyone would have to use.  I personally love 
using SDC because it's much more convenient.  But at the end of the day, it 
has to center around the game, not the delivery mechanism.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

> Regards,
> John
>
> 

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>The angst on the program really mystifies me because the thing is designed 
>as the dream program for Usenet people.  No DRM, no copy protection, no 
>spyware, integrated chat, integrated forum discussions.  It's used by over a 
>million people each month (mostly on the non-games).
>The technical issues that some people have had are related to the sheer 
>download size -- people redownloading the full copies.  Even iTunes doesn't 
>allow for redownloading.

I know what... HTTP does allow for reloading! You could distribute
patches via HTTP as well! That way we could download the patches using
OUR OWN resumable download-managers, we could burn them onto CD, and
we could be in possession of our own software which we have already
paid for, and we wouldn't be forced to have yet another pointless
piece of software installed.

HTTP patches also have no DRM, no copy protection, no spyware.
MSN/AIM/IRC are better chat programs. Forte Agent is a better piece of
forum software. HTTP is a better resumable-download protocol. In all,
stardock is forcing us to put up with second-best in every area it
serves. Hence the angst. No mystery about it.

--
Lucian

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>You don't have to use Stardock Central unless you're purchasing it 
>electronically.  If you buy the game at retail, you can download 1.x updates 
>from the website like any other game.

Ah, in that case, sorry for my previous post! My memory of stardock
was from when Galciv/win32 first came out, and my memory then was of
having to use it to get the patches, but maybe I was wrong.

--
Lucian

"Lucian Wischik" <lu.nn@wischik.com> wrote in message 
news:kedqt1db4bu96bd691ifuo9t1egavkl0hk@4ax.com...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>>The angst on the program really mystifies me because the thing is designed
>>as the dream program for Usenet people.  No DRM, no copy protection, no
>>spyware, integrated chat, integrated forum discussions.  It's used by over 
>>a
>>million people each month (mostly on the non-games).
>>The technical issues that some people have had are related to the sheer
>>download size -- people redownloading the full copies.  Even iTunes 
>>doesn't
>>allow for redownloading.
>
> I know what... HTTP does allow for reloading! You could distribute
> patches via HTTP as well!

We do. We always have and we still do on patches.

>That way we could download the patches using
> OUR OWN resumable download-managers, we could burn them onto CD, and
> we could be in possession of our own software which we have already
> paid for, and we wouldn't be forced to have yet another pointless
> piece of software installed.
>
> HTTP patches also have no DRM, no copy protection, no spyware.

Yes, and there's the catch.  On redownloading the full thing -- i.e. the 
full game, there needs (from the developer's point of view) to be more 
control IMO.

> MSN/AIM/IRC are better chat programs. Forte Agent is a better piece of
> forum software. HTTP is a better resumable-download protocol. In all,
> stardock is forcing us to put up with second-best in every area it
> serves. Hence the angst. No mystery about it.

So which retail games are you running that you can currently just redownload 
the entire thing via HTTP?  If I blow away my Age of Empires 3 CD or 
Civilization 4 CD, can I go to their site and simply download the whole 
thing again?

We at least give you the option and all the user has to use is a fairly 
small program to do so that's pretty easy to use and has resume and all 
those other niceties.

For patches/updates, users can either use Stardock Central OR they can 
download the patch from the web just like every other game.

The mystery I have with the angst is that here we're doing something that 
few if any other publishers are doing -- letting you get the entire game 
electronically -- even if you bought it at retail 3 years before. And rather 
than people going "Hey, that's cool, I remember when I lost my Total 
Annihilation CD, would have been nice to be able to go and redownload the 
whole thing and burn that to a CD for backup or whatever -- for free" we get 
"BOO! You require us to install a 5 megabyte download manager you scum! Your 
mother was a hamster!"

Well, not including the hamster part that is..

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> --
> Lucian 

"Lucian Wischik" <lu.nn@wischik.com> wrote in message 
news:1kdqt1lrpgma44cd1nhu8r0vm5b51682fo@4ax.com...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>>You don't have to use Stardock Central unless you're purchasing it
>>electronically.  If you buy the game at retail, you can download 1.x 
>>updates
>>from the website like any other game.
>
> Ah, in that case, sorry for my previous post! My memory of stardock
> was from when Galciv/win32 first came out, and my memory then was of
> having to use it to get the patches, but maybe I was wrong.

No problem. I was wondering in your last post whether we were talking about 
the same thing.

So to be clear:

Downloading updates/patches users get two options
1) Download it the traditional way
OR
2) Download it via Stardock Central

That's how it was for GalCiv I. You can still go to the GalCiv I site, click 
downloads and get it either way 3 years later:

http://www.galciv.com/download.asp

What Stardock Central does is give ONE additional option: The ability to 
download the ENTIRE game, no matter where you bought it.  So if you go to 
CompUSA, buy GalCiv II and then, 3 years later, you lose the CD or it gets 
ruined somehow or whatever, you can load up Stardock Central, and use your 
serial # to download the entire latest/greatest version of the game as a 
giant ZIP file which you can then burn to CD,  put on your laptop, etc.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> --
> Lucian 

In article <mYqdnTnWfZ5_p0DeRVn-sQ@comcast.com>,
Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>
>The mystery I have with the angst is that here we're doing something that 
>few if any other publishers are doing -- letting you get the entire game 
>electronically -- even if you bought it at retail 3 years before. And rather 
>than people going "Hey, that's cool, I remember when I lost my Total 
>Annihilation CD, would have been nice to be able to go and redownload the 
>whole thing and burn that to a CD for backup or whatever -- for free" we get 
>"BOO! You require us to install a 5 megabyte download manager you scum! Your 
>mother was a hamster!"

I will hazard a guess as to why you perceive this response.

First, the people who don't like download managers are very vocal, so
you're definately going to hear from them. (I personally don't mind
them if they're done properly. It's product activation I can't
stomach.)

Second, the software itself (Stardock Central) really wasn't very
good. I know I had a lot of trouble with it and I understand others
did also. This would serve to mute the already traditionally quite
silent crowd of people who don't have a problem with download managers
and who might even have thought it was a neat thing.

I would add that I never really saw the attraction to having forum
software, web client, etc., inside the download manager. As others
have pointed out, people prefer to use dedicated software for these
things. You are unlikely to be able to compete with the big players
for any of those functionalities so why waste resource on it?  That
said, it surprises me a bit that people bitch about this rather than
just silently do what I did and ignore the functionality altogether.

Cheers
	Bent D
-- 
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
                                    powered by emacs

"Lucian Wischik" <lu.nn@wischik.com> wrote in message 
news:1kdqt1lrpgma44cd1nhu8r0vm5b51682fo@4ax.com...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
>>You don't have to use Stardock Central unless you're purchasing it
>>electronically.  If you buy the game at retail, you can download 1.x 
>>updates
>>from the website like any other game.
>
> Ah, in that case, sorry for my previous post! My memory of stardock
> was from when Galciv/win32 first came out, and my memory then was of
> having to use it to get the patches, but maybe I was wrong.
>

IIRC they released *beta* patches for GalCiv on SDC, and then released the 
proper patches on the website some time (one to two weeks) later. If you 
"needed" the latest beta patch then you had to get it through SDC. If you 
could live with waiting till the proper patch was released your could get it 
either via SDC or from the website. 

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message 
news:Xns9755D07F6FD71sfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.211...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
> news:lPGdne-1FZUILkjenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> Did you ever play Star Control 1? It had a 3D map and you had to rotate
>> it around to do things.  It looked great.  But as long as we're playing
>> these games on 2D displays, I'm not sold on trying to make the player
>> play on a 3D map.
>
> I did, but I can't really remember much about it. Making true 3D strategy
> game would probably be quite an exploration. I can't think of anything 
> that
> has been done. UI is probably the most difficult issue. 3D could be good
> for the strategy though. In 2D you have deal with weird problems like
> having travel huge distances over populated space to get out in the wild.
> In 3D interception would become much harder too. So it would be more
> realistic in sense that one would have to defend his star systems rather
> than vaste amounts of empty space.

Homeworld (while not a 4x game) used a 3D map, however 90% of the game ended 
up being played in a 2D plane. This was partly because all the maps were 
basically created as 2D maps, but also partly because players had real 
difficulty getting situational awareness on a 3D environment.

Some of the strategy aspects of 3D did managed to present themselves, like 
the increased cost of having to defend against an area of attack, rather 
than just a single line, and the ability to "flank" in any direction, not 
just 2 sides.

I also have a vague memory of a 4X game from back in the 80's that used a 
static 3D map, where it was presented as a 2D plane, and then elevations out 
of the plane. It didn't really add anything to the game though, except to 
make it harder to tell which planets were close enough together to be able 
to jump between them. 

Hi!
>> For playing GalCiv1 you need to install Stardock Central. The game
>> needs DLL (I know for at least one) in order to run. Though you don't
>> need SC to play GC1.
>
> That's not true at all.  ONLY if you purchased it electronically for
> download.
I'm sorry, Brad, but from my point of view (and from POV of thousands
of your customers who only have the downloaded version of GC1) it IS
true. If I want to transfer my copy of the game to another computer I
need to install SC there to get that DLL. So please don't say I'm a
liar, just because I don't know how the boxed version of the game
works.

BR,  Iztok

"Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
news:hLqdnZszb_Cu8kHeRVn-uw@comcast.com: 

> The angst on the program really mystifies me because the thing is
> designed as the dream program for Usenet people.  No DRM, no copy
> protection, no spyware, integrated chat, integrated forum discussions. 
> It's used by over a million people each month (mostly on the
> non-games). 
Many people (especially not particularly technically inclined) don't 
understand the difference between SC and Steam. Also, when GalCiv was 
released, SC was too fresh and not very stable.

Alex.

On the 29 Jan 2006, "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:

> "Graham Thurlwell" <NOSPAM@jades.org> wrote in message 
> news:913976ef4d.jades@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...

<snip>

> > I hope that you're planning on also supplying the updates/patches as
> > separately downloadable files, otherwise I'll have to pass. My PC isn't

<snip>

> It'll be just like GalCiv I.  You can use Stardock Central OR download
> traditional patches.  It's always been this way.

OK, good. If a patch is particularly large, I usually get my Dad to
download it at work.

-- 
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.

nospam@jades.org /is/ a real email address!

<iztok_bitenc@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1138610384.314563.23470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Hi!
>>> For playing GalCiv1 you need to install Stardock Central. The game
>>> needs DLL (I know for at least one) in order to run. Though you don't
>>> need SC to play GC1.
>>
>> That's not true at all.  ONLY if you purchased it electronically for
>> download.
> I'm sorry, Brad, but from my point of view (and from POV of thousands
> of your customers who only have the downloaded version of GC1) it IS
> true. If I want to transfer my copy of the game to another computer I
> need to install SC there to get that DLL. So please don't say I'm a
> liar, just because I don't know how the boxed version of the game
> works.

You can download GalCiv 1 to machine A. ZIP it, take it to machine B, unzip 
it and play.

Stardock Central doesn't provide any DLLs that GalCiv needs.  It's just a 
download manager.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> BR,  Iztok
> 

"alexti" <QQalextiQQ@videotron.few.useless.chars.ca> wrote in message 
news:Xns975BD808CBCFAsfjshTTalextiFJFsdsi@24.70.95.211...
> "Brad Wardell" <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote in
> news:hLqdnZszb_Cu8kHeRVn-uw@comcast.com:
>
>> The angst on the program really mystifies me because the thing is
>> designed as the dream program for Usenet people.  No DRM, no copy
>> protection, no spyware, integrated chat, integrated forum discussions.
>> It's used by over a million people each month (mostly on the
>> non-games).
> Many people (especially not particularly technically inclined) don't
> understand the difference between SC and Steam. Also, when GalCiv was
> released, SC was too fresh and not very stable.

I agree.  This is why there's a need to provide people with a way to 
download updates the traditional way too.

Brad
--
Brad Wardell
Project Manager: Galactic Civilizations II (www.galciv2.com)
Stardock - http://www.stardock.com

>
> Alex. 

Brad Wardell <bwardell@stardock.com> wrote:
> Stardock Central doesn't provide any DLLs that GalCiv needs.  It's just a 
> download manager.

Having lately found myself using Windows a lot more, I decided it
was time to renew my Object Desktop subscription.  SDCentral seems
to be pretty solid now, so I'm not sure why people are complaining
about it.

The one thing I think's missing is some way to archive or restore
multiple apps in one go.  The selection stuff seems to only allow
one at a time.

Matt