by ParticleMan
Shadrach wrote:
This is a straw man argument. I've never mentioned nor encouraged 'realistic' the idea we could even brain a 'realistic' galactic game is silly.
You typed page after page of criticisms of Eclipse being "gamey not themey" by listing all the ways it fails to achieve 'realism' with respect to what we imagine to be the realities of galactic civilization and conquest. This isn't a straw man argument, it's a fact. You're willing to forgive TI3 for all the places it unavoidably takes what would otherwise be impossible to simulate and turn it into a working game, but not Eclipse. Yep, that's called bias.
I'm certain someone reviewing TI3 could easily make the same kinds of criticisms, simply by raising the bar higher for what they accept in terms of game-friendly shortcuts taken when adapting an impossible simulation into a board game. If a galactic-sim board game existed which took, say, weeks to play, and we could measure TI3 against that, it would be even easier. What, then, is your argument? TI3 has the correct amount of gameyness, while Eclipse has too much? OK... why? It's totally arbitrary and subjective.
If you have a group that enjoys TI3 more and tolerates the longer playtime, play TI3. That's not the situation for most people, and it isn't the situation for me.
If you have real suggestions for how to improve the mechanics of Eclipse which you hate (which means creating actual solutions and explaining how and why they would actually work, not just saying 'X mechanic is wrong') then please offer them. I'm unsure whether individual tech pools or full-fleet movement like TI3 would work properly in Eclipse.