Ethical question: MAYOR SPOILERS

[bertipa]

Ad I was proposing elsewere the storyline should be more <flexible> so you already know more or less what will happen but the exact situation will be always different.

BTW writing this I had a really wild tought: what if in the middle of a game (maybe only if you are not doing very well) you will find out that YOU are the SAKATURI in disguise?

[Data]

Wild...or a descendent of them; not sure how soon we'll see something like this but flexible storyline definitly gets my vote now. Well thought, bertipa.

[Kayoz]

ORIGINAL: bertipa

Point is that when they show up they are not called Sakaturi and only the player know who they really are, not the Empire ruler Character.
When they show they real color they are sometimes too powerful.

But the basic point is that as is implemented the storyline push you in doing things that are out of character... OK, OK, If you are waging war to all the semisentient life you have meet you are not touched by this problem.

I understand your "in character" point, that it's a bit of metagaming to use your knowledge as a player. However, since you have spies which can get real-time fleet information, it's not much of a stretch that those spies can send back a copy of their elementary school history texts recounting their glorious cleansing operations in the galaxy of old. Calling your race by a different name is a pretty pathetic attempt to disguise one's true history. I don't think it takes a great leap of imagination to assume you've retrieved enough photographic records, old vivisections and such to raise the alarm bells that this "refugee race" is distressingly similar to the Shakturi referred to in the recovered archives.

Also, the information recovered from the old archives is difficult to discount as trustworthy in a game sense. Since each race recieves a bonus or penalty to their morale when the heroic or otherwise history of the race is revealed, it's implied that these records are unquestionably accurate. Were it not the case, then the Boskara player could simply refute the accuracy and ignore any morale penalty. But they can't.

Heaven forbid I wage war on all semi-sentient life. Not true! I wage war on all life equally, regardless of their level of sentience!

Yeah, that is my liberal/pacifistic until I can expand without trouble/bleeding heart problem.
After I knew who they were I just leaved them alone until they come to my side for the Grat War.

But that also is not exactly correct from an external point of view.

Well, when I'm playing a 4X game "in character", I look upon it as "what's best for my race". Winning or losing a war can mean the difference between your race spreading its seeds through the stars, or becoming nothing more than a taxidermist's hobby project for a bored alien conquerer. Given man's willingness to kill each other due to differences in skin colour, religious belief, political affilation and any number of excuses we've used historically, I figure that it's quite reasonable that questioning the morality of a conflict will factor into the political equation even less when one is eyeballing the resources that are being controlled by what one might see as nothing more than jumped-up cockroaches.

Of note, I've been playing with the Boskra a lot lately. Hard to beat their torpedoes! Where they're concerned, I propose that it's entirely "in character" to attack without reservation, anyone who has anything you want. Especially if they're sitting on a single planet with paltry defences, which would double your economy with one quick attack.

edit:
Just to clarify - I think Emperor Fred's views on other races is probably closer to the views races will have towards each other, than Gene Roddenberry's. Long live Emperor Fred!

[bertipa]

Let's defin esome priority here:

1. I want (WANT!) to enjoy myself playing the game.
2. I like to be "in character", roleplay my part in the game.
3. I don't like to play badly on in an inefficent way to get the two previous points.

If my spies get a wiff of whe the Sakaturi really are it is the game that should point this out.

I still point out that the Ancient Guardians are much more a suspect than a few poor refugees.

If I declere war on them on sight I will easily win and that is bad for point 1.

But knowing at the player level who they are makes it really difficoult to roleplay correctly and this is bad for point 2.

Well, when I'm playing a 4X game "in character", I look upon it as "what's best for my race".

When they come out I'm usually well on my way to win (and I have already anything that I could 'want') so I think that I have done well for my race but for the point 1 P.O.V. the final percentage points to get to victory are usually the most boring. A good end of game galactic war against a worty adversary is good.

Given man's willingness to kill each other due to differences in skin colour, religious belief, political affilation and any number of excuses we've used historically, I figure that it's quite reasonable that questioning the morality of a conflict will factor into the political equation even less when one is eyeballing the resources that are being controlled by what one might see as nothing more than jumped-up cockroaches.

Point is that colony spamming brings more money and resources than war and as war is about money and resources the reason to do it is weak (even a little psycopath) at best.

All that I ask is a good war for good reasons: defending the galaxy from the bad guys is a good war, robbing a planet from a potential ally for resources that I can get by colonization or mining without problem is not.

That said I'm just telling that maybe colonization and mining is too simple and that maybe there are too resources. On the other hand we are speaking about a galaxy here, there are limits about how much you can resonably limit resources.

P.S. I have not yet looked out what weapons my ships are using. Design and war has been left to the AI(just dubled the warp engines for the colony ships at the start of the game). To win at DW that seems a little pointless.

P.P.S. The most difficult part of playing DW is answering the advisor 'suggestions'. The wrong click and you have started a poitless war or at the least lost valuable relation points.

P.P.P.S. I'm using too much the word point.

[fix_account_please]

You mean I am not the sakatauri?

[Data]

You are not even yourself atm [:)]...no harm intended

[cookie monster]

The games called Return of the SHAKTURI!

It's pretty easy who the bad guys are.

Also yes the game is easy to win by colony spamming as the Humans on default level.

Try the same with Races native to Volcanic/Ocean/Ice planets and you will find most of the colonies gone.

Make the other races OLD/MATURE most of the colonies are gone.

Make the research cost high as in 600K and you will find you cant research the colonisation techs quick enough, and by the time you do it's too late to be useful. Only use is it increases development level for some other planets.

So yes on normal the game is easy, adjust the settings and make a more difficult game.

If you wanna difficult game take a look at my thread ''Generating a difficult game'' on p2 of the main page.

[bertipa]

The games called Return of the SHAKTURI!

It's pretty easy who the bad guys are.

Yup, the point was that it is too easy. More than that the point was that the Great War vs the Sakaturi is really entertaining and it is a pity that it becomes banal after a couple of time.
BTW I was not just a critic, I offered ideas on how to solve that (positive thinking!).

I will check your thread. But my point was not exactly that the game was too easy but that was winnable by a ripetitive, brainless strategy. For me that is a problem. I am posting ideas on that also (more positive thinking!).
I have no problem in winning easy, I'm playing more to roleplaying my civilization than anything else( when I want to go destroy the enemy I can just play chess, there you have no roleplaying to do, just destroy the enemy) but that does not mean that it should not be amusing.

To make myself clear: I rarely play Civilization at the maximum difficulty because to win there you have to optimize so much that it is not anymore a "simulation" of the world history but more a minimax of resources, an exercise in optimization. I refuse to guide a Civilization even more inhuman that the Soviet Union in their worst moment.
I come more from a role-playing game background (so I lost CIV 1/2 and MOO 1/2) and problems about morality and "out of character" situations are probably more important for me than for someone who maybe came from a more strategic background.

As i'm thinking about that I'm posting my ideas here, to see if there is anyone else who think the same.
More, think that if that limits of the game will be solved it will make a better game and the simulationists who want to make their game very difficult will lose nothing.

[Data]

As i'm thinking about that I'm posting my ideas here, to see if there is anyone else who think the same.

Aye, you're not alone. I like both sides: optimization and pushing the limits of the game but also (and even more) RPing and ethical dilemas. Games are not only fun, they are also tools for one's development (in whatever area he wants).