Oh man, what are YOU talking about when you're writing...
15-- Cities in Civ#x = Planets in GC2, no matter how much you spin it away from facts or interpretations.
19-- "i described", i must have skipped it somehow.
20-- What Trade idea, exactly? Tech trading in CivIV and GC2 work exactly the same. Techs, almost. But i'm going after Trade * (of everything, resources by Camels/Civ VS. nothing of that sort in GC2) *and* Diplomacy as a whole when i observe both games.
22-- GC3 needs tactical combat features to evolve beyond Civ4&5&6. Fine, YOU don't want it. We know. Life goes on. Sometimes, innovation hurts & changes are scary.
26-- Yep, but WHAT do you describe?
27-- No it hasn't & by far.
Before I reply to these, it is important to note something: this thread of conversation is supposed to be about how my ideas are intended to turn GC2 into Civilization. Which means that arguments not on that point are irrelevant. So:
15: Yes, it is an independently verifiable and irrefutable fact that cities in Civ and planets in GalCiv are analogus constructs: they are both the centers of resource production and consumption. However, my idea had nothing to do with cities in Civ. It did not involve the Civ analogy at all. It simply says that GC3 should make an effort to have more viable planets.
20: GC2 very much had trading resources. Not in a 1:1 manor, but establishing a trade route gets you money. And money is the foundational resource that becomes all others. Now yes, both sides benefit (trade routes magically create money rather than shuffling resources around), but it's still trade.
Furthermore, my idea had a clearly defined result, one not seen executed in any Civ game: mimick the "soft power" excercised in the modern day by trade. If one side is dependent on exports from another, they will be highly unwilling to go to war with that other side. Also, they will be interested in keeping that other side alive, so they will attack anyone who attacks their partner. Eventually, it may come down to a pre-WWI situation, where there is a network of trade pacts and alliances that ensures that, if you go to war with someone, then the entire galaxy goes to war in a battle of grand alliances.
22: This thread has clearly laid out arguments against tactical combat that have nothing to do with Civ. GalCiv doesn't need tactical combat to "evolve beyond Civ; having tactical combat doesn't make a game a priori better than a game without tactical combat.
26: Again, has nothing to do with the topic under discussion (that being how my ideas are supposedly pusing for a more Civ-like GalCiv).
27: I don't know what you're refering to here, but again, this doesn't have anything to do with the topic under discussion.