Today I would like to ask you guys some questions about strategy games.

 What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

I remember on random event from Civ 1 or two where a city  on the other side of the world decided to join my empire.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

I usually have periods where I don't play for a week or two.  Because of this If a game goes longer than 400 to 500 turns I won't finish it and will start fresh with a new game

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good and another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most

One where the end game still challenges me

1. The more contextually specific, the more gratifying.  Anyone can code a "Trade / Go to War With / Surrender" option for their humdrum diplomacy slider.  In a few 4X games they manage to go above and beyond with diplomacy options that tailor themselves specifically to what's actually happening.  That's incredibly valuable to me.  For example, player could request / respond to: "We've noticed your intake of Elerium has gone up pretty high and you're getting your shipments from the Yor.  We can undercut them by 2bc a week to make it worth your while... that is, if you'd like a chance to trade with a people who aren't inherently evil."  That would be way past cool to see, and it's one of those hallmark moments that draws attention away from normally vacuous open-world games and injects it with a narrative.  One stroke and a paradigm shift.

2. A ridiculous number of turns.  GalCiv2 gave us a lot of nuance with the tech tree, which also helped disguise how long it took to refine weapon research (for example).  That was pretty well done, though I think in GalCiv 3 my expectations have risen.  One thing I can't abide is a 4X game that is either narrow or, above all else, short.  If I'm in the mood for a game to kill an afternoon, it won't be a 4X title (nor one of my favorites, incidentally).

3. A good 4X game rejects immediate gratification, but disguises its epic pace.  A good strategy game gives us the opportunity to focus our efforts, but doesn't demand it.  A bad 4X game rewards spamming one fundamental function faster or more recklessly above others.  Build more troops faster should not be the concept by which "strategy" is associated.  And truly the best 4X games feature "Things can go bad fast" in their titles. 

My favorite save of GalCiv2 was when the Jagged Knife event spawned and the Allied Systems Chairman had to abort an already-extraneous invasion on the Yor Collective and Drengin (who had formed a sort of Axis dynamic up there).  Alluva sudden my certain victory over these insidious foes was yanked away - my allies (an admittedly weak but advanced Torian) were devastated within a few weeks by the Knife, my traditional enemies had begun to launch their own counter-invasions, and my budget required a 100% withdrawal from all clandestine services.  Systems were privately designated as "collateral" before they knew it, and my fleets begrudgingly circled their wagons to put up a defense.  

For years this conflict exchanged blows, and we struggled up every last step against the Jagged Knife, throwing off our Axis villains where applicable.  In the end, I'd spent ten times my starting fleet's cost simply reclaiming what was once mine, and I would never get the chance to liberate my Torian friends... but I did get some revenge.  Embittered and not at all content with fighting with a higher purpose anymore, the Chairman ordered construction of a Death Star, and aimed it at the Drengin homeworlds.

Basically, I want you to (re)make that game.

1. I hate when the AI gangs up on the human. They should have reasons for who they ally with and who they hate... Even irrational ones such as xenophobia or conflicting playstyles (2 expanders go to war, two turtlers might ally and share resources)

I dislike trading. Almost never reach a good agreement with AI.

2. Newer games are more like 75-150 turns, MoM and MOO2 were probably 300-600, maybe 1000 tops. I basically just conquer all neutral monsters, level up units, get good or best gear and then go and crush AI opponents. Sometims i just rush and finish game early too. 

3. I like that in MoM there are tough battles even when you are maxed out, 4+ sky drakes is no joke. In both MoM and MOO2 there arr many ways to play based on faction, tech focus, and play style. Variety and customization are king. AoW and newer games get stale because of limited customization and there being only one efficient way to play (aggressive conquerer usually).

Tactical battles are paramount to enjoyment. Kings Bounty games are great because the units are well designed and balanced. I really liked how in MoM some battles were super one sided due to immunities lifesteal and other strong abilities. Players get all the same tools monsters and ai do!!!!

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

All the hate directed at civ 5 is wrong. You just cannot be the village bicycle, aka friends with everyone. You have to learn how to get along with people, and know who is the local schemers. And who is just pretty down chill. If you start murdering people, you are a warmonger. Just stay in ur lands and suck it up until the AI somehow realize it's impotency. Or make inroads into its territory to make it wake up quick.

In my own experience, AI will be generally your friends until the end of the game if you get along very great. End of game as in you're about to win the game in few turns unless you get stopped somehow. And even then, its basically pretty much up to how much the AI really likes you overrides it's desire to win the game as well. I've seen last minute backstabs and I've seen friendly AIs just sit down and let me win the game.

And best part of diplomacy.. that declare war button which forces AI to walk the talk or fail.

I have to say diplomacy in civ 5 is the best out of all TBS games i've played.

I better list so u know what I'm talking about.

Civ3,4,5.

Aow 3.

FE:LH.

Endless Legend.

Endless Space.

Pandora First Contact

Warlock

Out of all games listed above, Civ 5 is pretty well done, a lot of actions have influence on diplomacy. And even when your ideals align on everything, the AI won't just roll over and fall in love with you. That reflects the reality decently. And sometimes, the AI will be feeling that plain old Lebensraum which you can do nothing but discourage it in a refreshing battle or two.

Most epic lebensraum attempt i've ever seen from the AI happened in Gods n Kings from Hiawatha civ. I set population unhappiness from 1 to 0. Hiawatha flourished. Fielded biggest naval fleet I have ever seen in my whole life of playing tbs games. It made three attempts on me. All was blocked but holy. Third attempt was it's most powerful. It tried to just take over netherlands so it could finally have close borders with me at last to make war easier for him. I stopped that. But not without the cost of my 100-200ish warships being sunk. Hiawatha tried to conquer the entire world. It smartly decided on me as it's biggest target. I was the second toughest dude on the block after hiawatha.

I like the ability to call the AI out on it's sins by denouncing them. Its satisfying. Especially when you know they're a huge hypocrite. I'm looking at u Siam.

Another great thing about diplomacy is having meaningful trades. I noticed in Galciv2 that only thing you really trade is techs and that was it.. nothing interesting. Civ 5 could have you set up trade routes with them, and force u to keep it safe from pirates. And then civ series in general have luxury trades. Research pacts. Something that makes you feel like you're getting along with that particular AI. Strategics.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

Uh if I really like a map, i generally play it to completion even when it takes me a month but generally 300-500 turns in civ 5.

AoW3 is very different game, its very fast paced. 100 turns in aow3 is considered a very long game. And it is that! Even on extra large maps, it will be finished by about turn 200 unless fortunes didn't go your way. Out of all games, I lose fights against the AI the most in AOW3. The ai in there just kicks my butt due to it's fast paced nature I'm no good with speedy games.

I generally play up to 50-200 turns to determine if a map is fun to play on or not, if it is fun, I keep playing on, if not, i abandon and restart. Reasons could be because I think my starting zone looks ugly. and uh thats basically it.

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?

A strategy game is good if it can suck you in and make you forget about the sense of time passing. Even now, I still remember Sengoku Rance very well. Spent a good two years playing that one before I realized two years has passed. Its Nsfw so don't blame me.

Interesting units, armies, and characters can greatly add to a strategy game's flavour and make you want to play everything instead of just one favorite. Not very many games succeed at this one particular thing.

Very poor diplomacy can make playing strategy game very painful to dull experience, this is quite the case in warlock game. I pretty much ignored diplomacy and killed everyone. What, all you can do is, trade mana, gold, and something? And dow/peace. Its too boring to play for me.

Developers need to understand that diplomacy is the only way the players can talk to other AIs. Neglect that and the game becomes more of a war game. There is no way around that. That is why I like diplomacy in civ 5, it has most stuff out of all games I've played.

All I remember of civ3/4 is that terrain was pretty much inconsequential and annoying SODs that determined victory by numbers alone. I had so many accidental cultural victories while I was attempting domination back then.. pretty much of the 3/4 of the ais would have bruised portraits but in love with me even when i beat them up <.<

Civ 5 managed to strike that decent number of units/terrain difficulty for traveling/ zoc. Best of all, no sods.

FE:LH has that SoD but managed to stop it somewhat through powerful spells and time to amass units. I find myself spreading my armies out to avoid getting nuked by falling stars.

Endless Space is stupid, create glass ships ?? Profit. Just put 100 missles on ur ship and ur done and call it a day. It pissed me off that defense modules were pretty much worthless and waste of time. Is bad. Disappointing.

Endless Legend.. not sure, still in early access, will determine what I feel as it goes live in like two days?

Pandora first contact is kinda alike to Civ 5 surprisingly even with sods. AI still needs work but is brand new game.

Best part of Pandora is it's tanks. And Colonial troopers. They look awesome. I think it's ships look horrible and ugly except for the destroyers version. Thats the barracuda watercraft. You want to spread out your units because of nuclear missles and mini blackholes.

I guess this is it

I seriously doubt that I can answer any of your questions; at least not as they were posed.

1. "Traditionally", I have yet to find a Diplomatic AI that I liked; as I have yet to be able to truly converse with any of them.

2. I have yet to actually keep track of the exact number of turns.  I tend to get so far and then start over; as things become over whelming.  Which turn that happens on depends on which strategy I attempted and how things proceeded.  I believe Axis & Allies (both versions, although the original was far better than the newer one) and Strategic Command are the only turn based games I've actually finished (over and over again).

I take that back.  Now that I think about it; I did finish M2TW: Americas (at least once) as the Apaches (maybe even as the Spaniards).

The thing is though, I don't really want a game that I finish!  But, it seems that games have to end (unless they are MMORPG's that you keep paying to play).  I guess there has to be a victory; but I just want to build a thriving civilization (or whatever) that stands the test of time.  If the Universe is truly endless, then there should be plenty of room for all the less aggressive civilizations to live in harmony.

3. I really have no idea what differentiates a "4X" game from any other.  If that has to do with graphics...  ..well then "whatever!"  If it has to do with the AI; well, from what I've seen, they're still stupid (and still cheat)!

4.  So, as I said: I can't really answer your questions.

1. Diplomacy has to have more than one screen on interaction with the AI. Just accepting or not, is not an option that I like. Being able to ask or type something other than select from a list of which doesn't always have what you want for making some point in negotiating. In CG2 these were good, much better and lots more fun than most others including Civ1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. As I have played them all. The best I like is form GC2. But then it has limited interaction with negotiating with the AI. Another point, that I think would be fun is an Alien race translating into English and it does not always mean what it shows - where the translation is not so good. This could make the player then think what does the AI mean exactly. This could be fun.

2.  In CG2 and Civ4, which are the best. My games last for hundreds of turns spanning months. With hundreds of units in combat In various locations. Civ 5 cant do this and Civ 4 was a pain due to global warming. Spoiled a really good game they did. I think in Civ 4 my turns were over 600 in a good lone game. Normally they would be around 350 to 400.

3. A good game is. Stacked units, and ability to move groups of units at the same time. Creating a diverse military using hundreds or even thousands of units (that would be so nice). Being able to build and expand economies with a good auto function for ease of use. Being able to give orders to units that can be changed as and when the demand needs. Detailed info on everything. Very high level AI. Being able to trade and control certain trade items and fix prices when you have captured certain types and numbers and quantities of resources. Capturing resources and preventing others form getting them other than to buy form you. (Cool). High detailed graphics. Good back ground sounds and music. High quality sound effects and explosions.

A bad game is having less. Less of control over game play. Less ability to move grouped units. Less control over units. Less game play details - info. Less detailed graphics. Less AI players. Less maximum units. Bleeps and bangs for sound effects. Poor explosions.

I think that about says it for my games.

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

 What I like the most: Trading for specific Tech and resources is always good. Making sanctions against opponents. Mutual aggression and non aggression pacts. What I would like to see is,,  POPULATION TRADING?!? Weather for resources or money, they could be pilgrims or slaves perhaps depending on what type of races are doing the trading.  My biggest complaint is simply the BI-polar attitude the AI can get as far as all of a sudden he don't like you anymore because your power ranking is so much higher or lower than hers/his with the exception of domination being the only winning peramiter set for victory conditions. With that being said, the above been beaten to death by strategy/4x games.

My favorite diplomacy in a game hands down would have to be how Romance of the Three kingdoms worked, speaking specifically of ROTK 8 and 11. It work just like any other game diplomacy but In ROTK there was one piece of realism that most game diplomacy lacked which is interpersonal interests. Different generals or officers of your faction had ties with others of apposing faction. Weather it be my blood relation or just simple friendship. You could even bribe other governors of an apposing faction to "open the gates for your army" or hand over his governed province. Sending a general with a low loyalty toward you could be a game changing mistake.  A good real life example could be like Benjerman Franklin schmoozing it up with the French. Maybe adding random diplomats or something like MOO2 style could accommodate the possibility of adding that dynamic into diplomacy. Maybe governors can fill that role.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

I cannot be specific because most of my old saves from my other computer are long gone, also there really hasn't been any turn based games that have come out in the past 10 years worth allot of turns with the exception of , Gal civ2 and romance of the three kingdoms 11. You guys make a great 4x game,"the closest to Moo2 addiction" and I wish you got that Moo2 copyright because war gaming having it makes me want to  .

 On a side note I did play a MOO3 game that lasted almost a whole year but the old acer PC died on me and I lost everything. Four hours average a day.

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?

Well my favorite games would have to be Moo2 and X-com apocalypse. I have played thousands of turns when I had the time and played those ones allot since 1999 till the current day.

 I cant put my finger on it but MOO2 just never looses its addictive attraction. You can destroy planets , rebuild em, take a subterranean race and double a planets capacity with a surface dwelling race. Create a custom race. Random leaders and officers. Some games in MOO2 you can never even see some techs because no race thought of em per-say. Some games you never see a certain leader, maybe he was assassinated or died defending a planet from the Antarans. It seems very sand boxy and never the same grind twice. X-com apocalypse is another gem I can grind till it crashes but thats not really a 4x game but has the good open endlessness that lets a player play how he wants to if he tries hard enough. "aliens were not the problem in the latter days, I was  "

Moo3 was an OK game, the learning curve was not really steep per-say but awkward. The feeling of not having control over everything really made that game disliked among most Moo fans. It was the game you had to acquire a taste for but lacked any real player ingenuity capabilities. With 4x games I believe the key is keep it simple but make it deep and open ended.

On a closing I think you guys have a really great game, I came across Gal Civ 2 at target one day for like $5 in the old game bin, I read the back of the cd sized package and thought to myself, "hey this looks like Moo2 2.0"  Ship design was a big selling point for me and I'm happy I found your game. The only thing that I wish you game had was planet creation and destruction capability's. Enslaving races and using their unique ability's to complement your empire. To me that adds a whole new dimension to the master plan and possibilities causing my turn rate to double. The 100 opponent excessive map is really getting me anxious to have a nice long game to remember that has its own history.

Wow, here are pages of essays on what makes a good 4X strategy game. Good job everyone! I won't write an essay, but I will try to answer the questions briefly. 

1) I prefer diplomacy that is as interactive as possible. I like it when other leaders come to me with good ideas or challenge something I am doing (especially if it is not obvious, like amassing troops on a border). Having pages which give players some idea of other races' relationships is also helpful. Preferably, espionage should be required to learn more detailed information. I also appreciate it when opportunities for manipulation arise (X asks Y to help or harm another civilization, or possibly break off a mutual aid treaty with a race friendly to Y). 

2) I usually like 4X games to last 100 turns or so, but my preference varies considerably from game to game. Having multiple victory conditions which may enable me to aggressively pursue a victory is very important to me. The design of the end-game tech tree substantially affects enjoyment of the last game turns in my opinion. If the end-game techs are nothing but improved lasers and shields that gets boring quickly. If there are  new toys, wonders, and social buildings that require a lot of research points to unlock, that makes the end game more interesting. An end game super-weapon is also a great goal to build towards. 

3) I usually rate 4X games based on their strategic depth and replayability. Gal Civ II and its expansions were remarkably deep. In all the hours I spent on them, I felt like I never stopped discovering new features and ways to modify or improve my strategy. One factor that harmed replayability in the expansions particularly was the difficulty of balancing the game's many features (particularly race, improvement, and resource bonuses/penalties). Improvements in AI intelligence greatly increase replayability in games oriented towards single players.

One particularly memorable aspect of the Sid Meyer's Civilization series and Gal Civ II was the lore and technology descriptions. I understand Stardock is working to streamline the 4X experience, so these things may become less prominent. However, I think that lore and clever writing should remain an important part of any 4x gaming experience.

The post above is 375 words . . . It looks like I could not get away without writing a short essay, either. 

<<

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?>>

1.  In all honesty I've not been that great of a fan of diplomacy because the AI seemed to always fall into the following patterns:

-I get a technology, and suddenly all the AI's want to trade for that piece of tech, often with the same tech in return

-AI will often turn on you for lack of military (I for one sometimes prefer to keep an opponent in place as a buffer against another enemy on the other side of them)

-AI will be friends with me but then turn on me for no discernible reason

The one part I remember most was on GC1 when I smashed one opponent, sued for peace, smashed them again, sued for peace, and the AI caught on to this, even saying they they won't accept peace only to be immediately attacked.  Brought a smile to my face.

2.  I never kept in track of turn counts although I would note that it feels like the first 50 turns of a game can drag because you send out your first colony ship, then next turn next turn next turn, followed by select next technology, next turn next turn next turn next turn.  That next turn button gets bashed way too many time in the early going.  I know that for the larger galaxy sizes, I just don't have the time for them since I could probably blow a good 30 to 40 gaming hours easily on such large maps.

3.  A good strategy game is one that is fair (no AI cheating).  The game has to have character and atmosphere.  The first two MOO games had that character to them that gave MOO its own unmistakable identity.  GC also had that character and atmosphere to it that helped give it its identity.   One fond memory was on MOO1, when I encountered Orion and that guardian.  Frustrated the heck out of me until I rallied a fleet to take it out. My other fond memory was playing Moo2, where there was that tension in the background where you're hoping that your number doesn't come up and the Antaran forces come storming for someone's blood.  My great memory was finally rallying a force that was strong enough to take the fight back to the Antarans and was so awesome laying the beat down on the Antarans.  A good strategy game doesn't allow for stupidly cheap victories.  I think Lucky Jack posted something a while back about games ending too quickly.  I had that happen before on MOO2 on the impossible level where the game ended *FAST* with a victory for my side.  The only reason I won at all was I happened to establish an alliance with the right groups and somehow won the election early.  My first thought when that occurred was "that's it?  That's what impossible was all about?"

But most 4x games I played have a hard time sticking the landing, and by that I mean the mop up phase.  It's must like the game of Monopoly. We know you're supposed to play that game until everyone else is bankrupt, but there comes a point where you know the opponents are beaten.  Usually people just resign and call it good.  Unfortunately, you have to go scorched earth most of the time with the 4x games until you hit a victory condition, or until the game time boxes you.

One idea would be to allow surrenders to "save face" (which GC to some degree does).  If you fight and get wiped out, your score might be 1000, but if you surrender you might get 1250 whereas a victory would give you like 3000, but you get the idea, at least have it to where if you know you're beaten or if the AI knows they are beaten with no hope of winning, allow them to surrender to end the game.

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

Hmmm.... I love when the AI are real powergamers for their own good. Quick shifting Alliances, backstabbing but also calling traitors out and a sense for reputation. Among all turnbasedgames out there so far EU4 did it the best. 

In EU4 you had a full range of nice tools, marriages (some kind of sign of friendship), Alliances, Coalitions against a specific nation, Vassalization etc. Also there is a reputation system and backing out off treaties is punished by becoming quickly infamous.  

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favourite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I don't know in Civ4 I only play marathon and that is often still too quick for my taste. So maybee 4000+ turns with mods? Never tracked that. 

And yeah, I want the games to be epic  

Unfortunately I often abort much earlier because I'm so far ahead that I've basically won but I don't want to tidy up.  

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?

In general, good strategy games on pc should have:

- a good AI (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), nothing kills the single player experience faster than an inept AI unable to keep up with the human player on even the basics of the game.

- not overly decisive, it's win / lose should not be decided by just one thing. A win should result from a chain of good decisions. 

- rich amount of worthwhile choices, with that of course comes the need of balance. If certain approaches / strategies universal stronger than the rest it basically sucks the life out of the game.  

- fluid gameplay: a good interface and not too much busy work

Bad strategy games:

- the opposite of that what makes a good strategy game

- overly sacrificing depth for accessibility

- giving seemingly a lot of options but either they have no influence on the game outcome (lack of impact) or one options is vastly superior than it's alternative (lack of balance)

- lack of vision: just slapping together a lot of features that barely fit together, with low interaction, just to have something to write for the PR-page of the game  

Examples of good games:

- Alpha Centauri, my all-time favourite. Why? Overall lot's of interesting decisions: which faction to choose? On what basis shall put my economy (industrial, green economy, or going native?); which technologies to research, going wide in a lot of areas or rather beelining a specific scientific path?

- Master of Orion 2: great detailed unit builder and intense tactical combat.

- Civ4 Mod: Dune; I'm quite a big f quite similar in its aspects like Alpha Centauri: which faction to choose? Which kind of economy to pursue, how aggressive shall I expand? Honorable Mentions: Civ4 itself, other excellent Civ4 Mods like Fall from Heaven or History of the three Kingdoms. Oh and Civ4 is the best moddable 4X game that so far ever existed. Another big plus.

- Heroes of Might and Magic (3 and 5): more of a light-strategy game. But rich in content and the game was all about deciding on the most efficient farm route. Tactical combat in HoMM5 is a blast. Lots of different abilities that impact the game. Honorable Mention: HoMM6 (had partly an atrocious mission design), King's Bounty (love it and have every sequel).

- Jagged Alliance 2 & XCom:EnemyWithin: very intense tactical games. Very fluid gameplay without sacrificing the need of good decision making to prevail   

- GalCiv2: Although over it life cycle it suffered from a bit of feature creep that didn't tied too well in with each other and especially the AI struggled a lot after GalCiv2s second expension, but what makes GalCiv2 stand is that at it's core it's a very focused war game that plays very fluid yet also offers an intense arms race. It ties both Micro- (Planet-) and Macromanagement (Fleet movement) well together and stays even after so many years fresh. 

- Battle for Wesnoth: very focused game design but motivates with a very good game balance. Evetry unit is quite useful and you want to have a very wide range of different units to be flexible. Another plus point is the awesome unit leveling system in the game. Also it's absolute FREE and open-source

Examples of mediocre games:

- TotalWar: Rome 2: nice eyecandy, but greedy DLC bullshit, defunct AI and insane waiting times makes this game just unappealing 

- Age Of Wonders 3: i think some people will call me out for that, but what kills AoW3 for me is the crazy strength spiralling, very quickly it's only about who can produce most tier4 units, totally destroys any strategy

- Warlords Series: very focused gameplay, which is ok, but suffered a lot from a very stupid AI and balance problems.

- Elemental:FallenEnchantress: the importance of cities and also the lack of settling spots leads very quickly to situation that after conquering 2 or 3 cities from the AI, the game is basically over. They will never match the production and science output the human player amassed already. I think I never finished one fallen echantress game because basically I won pretty fast but tiding up would last forever. Also overall the tactical combat was halfassed. Not much opportunity of combined arms. It was just: get the biggest weapons and the biggest armor and go stomping. Also the AI is pretty bad. 

Let's not talk about the bad strategy games. Their names shall never be called and may they be forgotten forever. 

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

Bare with me as I'm going to ramble just a bit here.

My two all-time favorite diplomacy setups were in GalCiv 2 and in Alpha Centauri. GalCiv 2 had a nice combination of entertaining banter (almost too silly for its own good at times though haha) and a nice overlay screen clearly showing what everyone had available. Things could be flip-flopped around until a trade seemed satisfactory for both sides. The lists could start getting pretty clunky though, especially with piles of technologies, planets and starships at different points during the game.

I also enjoy being able to see positive/negative impacts on a relationship, mainly so players can see clearer results of diplomacy and will know where they did well or screwed up. If I remember correctly, Civilization V removed that at launch and there was a backlash from people thinking the AI wasn't noting these things. They were still factoring all of that in, but it was hidden from the player in a attempt to make diplomacy feel more "natural" and in the end it made it too difficult to judge why an AI was happy or unhappy with the player.

While mechanically I enjoyed GalCiv 2's a lot, I remember have the fondest memories of the Alpha Centauri approach. While there was too much stock conversation bits, diplomacy felt a lot more dynamic since it was presented as more of a conversation (discussing, actual diplomacy!) rather than simply a bunch of charts. Conversations were fun, but at the same time you couldn't really make complex offers or counter-offers. Presentation is what I want to emphasis though - they could have added much more/better conversation variation, but the way they presented it felt immersive.

The best of both worlds for me would probably be somewhere in the middle of that. I would enjoy more dynamic conversations so it feels more like both sides talking, rather than just the AI getting all of the clever lines. Say an AI sends a trade offer that's skewed 20% in their favor. Here's some random examples of a list of responses that could show up for me:

Player: "That's a terrible offer, I would never accept that!"
AI: (AI then responds with something clever, such as saying it's a mistake or maybe even being polite and thanking them for their consideration)

Player: "I'm tempted, but it's a tough decision."
AI: (AI can then offer more, double down on what it is by "convincing" the player it's fine or can threaten to drop the offer - continued rejection might cause them to close out the offer)

Player: "That offer is good, but it would be great if you could one more thing in..." (player modifies trade offer)
AI: (AI then responds to the modification. If it's reasonable, they will accept. If it's close enough to be worthwhile, but favors the player, the AI might remember how stingy the player is if it happens too much).

Player: "This seems fair to me, I can accept those terms" (player accepts offer)

This leads into some more thoughts. Diplomatic relations could have an impact on these conversations. Of course to avoid extreme complexity, there can be only so many variables, but there might be "good", "neutral", "bad" and "threatened" (risk of getting attacked by the player) in terms of how they view their relationship with the player. If they're on good relations, they might offer more leeway on the player's response, but may also note it as a negative if a player tries to take advantage too many times. If relations are bad, there'll be less leeway on negotiations and they may end a trade entirely. If relations are bad but they feel threatened, then they're more likely to do what the player wants.

And choices during the conversation may impact diplomacy, much like real world diplomacy. If you say something rude in response to their trade offer, they will remember that. If you act nicely to them if they're rude to you first, they'll also remember that and may ease up on it. Or they may lose respect for you being a "softy" in talks. I'll re-iterate that the conversations wouldn't need to be complex in how they branch out (unless you really wanted to devote extra time to it). The main variability would be in lines to say in response to different things, while keeping the conversations quick so it doesn't drag out. It's basically a flavor thing. Alpha Centauri handled it well, keeping it simple while still making it feel more interactive. Keep in the spreadsheets, but allow the player to engage in the conversation a bit better by having some options of how to respond.

Adding an alternative direction for this, it would be interesting to just have a separate conversation option entirely that isn't directly connected to the complex trading system. Even if we can't get a more dynamic talk in connection with our spreadsheet trade exchanges, being able to call up someone and just chat a bit would be fun. Usually "talking" to the AI in games results in getting a boxed "I hate x person" kind of thing, which doesn't seem natural at all. And that same information is usually shown elsewhere anyways so the conversation is redundant. Conversations could be a way to present some back-story on races (maybe they'll ramble about their past) or they might offer up a special trade offer, give a gift, ask for a favor, etc. Or vice versa, if you bug them too much maybe they'll get angry and declare war if you're not careful. These little conversations can help or hurt a relationship to some degree, based on what you say. If you listen to their sad backstory and say something supportive, they'll respect you a bit more. Or if you say something rude, they'll get upset. The fun is in the ability to have a little personal choice within the conversation.

One last note: since this is an open discussion involving more than GalCiv games, the upcoming Civilization: Beyond Earth is adding something along the line of "favors" as a trade option, so you can help out someone else early on if they don't have anything to give, and eventually you can fall back on that favor when you need something later (and vice versa if you need an early favor). I think it's a cool idea and I wouldn't be against something like that being added.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted. 

Game lengths are really variable in terms of what I enjoy. Sometimes I just want a shorter session I can sit down and finish if I have a free evening to play. A couple hundred turns or 4-5 hours can still be satisfying. Other times I enjoy gigantic endless matches, that I may or may not complete, and don't mind working on the same game for a few weeks. I can't really give super specific turn quantities since I've never really noted it down, but I enjoy having flexibility in game lengths and the ability to disable certain victory conditions to ensure the game wont end too easily. When in comes to GalCiv, usually I use map size to control the length of the game. This is why I'm excited it's 64-bit only, because I'm going to use ridiculous map sizes occasionally to play multi-week games. Long rounds of any 4x game are usually most fun with AI and short games are most fun with players. The option for both is important.

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good and another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?

Tricky question. A good 4x game is one that's able to be immersive first and foremost. If I feel like I'm watching a game, and not really "in" the game, then it's much harder to enjoy. Clunky mechanics or an ugly UI can be distracting. Complexity in games is a good thing, because it allows you to feel more in control. There's an extreme to either spectrum. Too "streamlined" makes for a game with little flexibility where you feel you're just watching the game. Games with hundreds of different sliders to adjust can get a little ridiculous. All of the games I've played from Stardock have always done good balancing those factors, and GalCiv 3 is already looking great.

"Hero" type units are always pretty fun to use and are also more engaging. Same with units that are upgradable and such. You become a lot more attached to your units and the game when you actually care about some of them. There of course needs to be plenty of cannon fodder for a good fight (one doesn't want to get upset over every unit loss!), but this is why "hero" type units are fun: there's very few of them, but they are valuable to sustain and you grow attached to them because of that. Basically, the 4x games that suck me in the most are those that make me care about the units, the cities, the planets, etc in some way. It comes down to: if I don't care about this empire I've created, then there's no much incentive for me to keep playing the game.

Another factor is replay-ability with 4x games. Eventually you'll figure out certain AI habits (GalCiv 3 may at least partially solve that issue it sounds like though), so variability within the game itself are the main way to keep things interesting and changing. This is why GalCiv's event system is a lot of fun. It adds some flavor and variation regardless of if you use the same starting strategy. It's these dynamic decisions (much like my rambling about diplomacy) that makes other factors of the game fun too. Map variables help a lot with that too: if there's a lot of different things that may or may not be there, in different forms, then it's less predictable on how you should react to your environment. Pirates/barbarians/etc that attack anyone they want help with that also. Some of the more stale 4x games are one where there's simply not much difference in what's going to happen.

This is why "competitive" RTS games (different genre, but point is held) are less fun for me than "casual" ones because competitive ones have very strict limitations to ensure everything is fair and consistent with everyone. Even maps may be a perfect mirror, which is fair but not fun...unless you're playing competitively. For a competition that's fine, but it becomes repetitive since what you can do and what your opponent can do is much more limited. Starcraft II, even being an RTS, is a newer example of what I don't want to see in 4x games. It was built entirely around being competitive, to the point where there's just not a lot of variation in what happens - the most fun I get out of that game is from the modding community.

Lastly, and this is something I noted in my diplomacy ramble also, is flavor in general. Not everything needs a raw mechanical purpose. I remember the throne room from older civilization games. Mechanically they didn't matter at all, but it was fun to customize and such. It added a personal touch to your empire in the making and progressed as you did. An idea would be to add a special satellite structure that can be seen orbiting only the capital planet, which changes in look and can be grown as your empire grows. Maybe on the diplomacy section, a throne room area will show up behind the player/AI, which is the area that they've customized. It would be fun to see something like that in a expansion or DLC, but it comes down to whether it's worth the resources and time to add it versus other features. Flavor-wise it would add to the immersion of the experience though.

And a last note on variability, I like it when the AI surprises me. Whether it's diplomacy, combat or otherwise, it's fun when they do something clever, self-profitable or maybe even something nice I didn't anticipate they would do. AI that do too many stupid things is not very fun though - I've had my moments with Civilization V AI where they do something that's clearly suicidal and it doesn't seem fun to get an edge on them that way.

1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most?

A smart AI with a distinct personality, motivated self-interest, and a long memory.

While I’m not completely satisfied with the diplomacy in my current favorite 4x game—Civilization V with the Brace New World DLC—I do like that some leaders are just not going to like you or work with you no matter what you do.  Bribes help a little and for a short time, but are not a long term solution.  I also like knowing whom I can trust in an alliance, provided we are both benefiting from it (However, it wouldn’t be betrayal if you didn’t trust them, right?).  The fact that relationships between Civs can change throughout the game based on who a player is friendly or allied with or at war with is also a good, though not fully explored, aspect of Civ 5 diplomacy.  I like the ability to hover over a Civ in the UI and see what factors are benefiting or hurting our relationship.  Finally, tying in the espionage system to diplomacy so I can get a hint how they’re going to vote or if they’ve sent an invasion force my way while they’re smiling at me on the diplomacy screen adds real value to espionage.

In GC 2, I could eventually convince every civilization to like me, to have a research and economic treaty with me, to trade tech (if I had that option selected), and to ally with me (if I wanted).  It makes diplomacy too easy, and frankly, forgettable.  Worse, one way to conquer another civilization was to ally with them and then use influence star bases to convert their planets.  All the benefits of invasion without the mess.  An AI should be smart enough to realize when a relationship isn’t in its best interest and sever that relationship.  Using an alliance like I just described should not only cause the civ to end the alliance, it might even be a reason to declare war.

2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number of turns the game in Question lasted.

1000+  (I like big maps, lots of civs, and a slow research pace.)

3. Consider all The 4X strategy games that you have ever played. How do you define what is a good strategy game or a bad one? To you what makes one strategy game good fand another one bad? Consider different memories you have of those games can you remember the parts that made you enjoy that game the most?

One of the best diplomacy systems I’ve seen is not from a 4x game.  Have you ever played the game “Rise of Venice”?  Talk about a diplomacy system that is hard to master!  As you gain in power, the AIs become increasingly hostile, sabotaging your businesses, trying to ruin your reputation, convincing port authorities to temporarily revoke trading privileges, etc.  To make it more interesting, you need their support in order to progress through the political ranks, so simple retaliation is not always the best option.  It is very challenging and keeps the game interesting well into late game.

Bad leader AI is one of the biggest turn-offs (for me) in a 4x game.  There comes a point—well before the game is finished—that I just know I’m going to win.  Once I hit that point, a game becomes boring and I often will just start a new game.  Almost every 4x game is like this, even my favorites: Civilization (from 1 to 5—Yes, I’m that old), Galactic Civilizations, and the newcomer Horizon.

Civ V with the Brave New World DLC comes closest to a good leader AI in a 4x game for me.  Horizon tried, giving leaders the ability to break alliances and treaties, and change attitudes as alliances and treaties changed throughout the game.  However, in both games, I can generally isolate a hostile AI through diplomacy and take it down while keeping others happy, afraid, or at least bribed.  This is too easy in Horizon, a little harder in Civ V.  I already talked about diplomacy in GC 2 in answer to Question 1.

One thing that seems to be missing from 4x games is the idea of AI motivated self-interest (“Rise of Venice” captures this very well in diplomacy but fails in overall strategy, which is not the topic you wanted us to discuss).  If one civilization (including the human controlled one) begins to gain a dominant position, other civilizations should recognize that and either ally with it for protection or to dominate weaker powers, or should join an alliance against it to “bring balance to galaxy again.”  (Sabotage, pirates, and the like could be good proxy tools for waging an undeclared war against a rising power).  One reason I can reach the point of I’m-going-to-win is that I know the AIs won’t gang up on me.  Once I am powerful enough to take on the single most powerful AI, then I’ve effectively won.

To keep the game interesting well into late game, AI leaders should always act in their own self-interest.  They should want to win, no matter what situation they find themselves in.  They should follow the strategy they believe—consistent with their philosophy—will eventually lead THEM to victory.

As always, my opinion.

1) I like feeling like diplomatic interlocutors are characters that exist in the world and have a coherent personality.  An example I remember long after player would be interactions with other races in Starflight.  Starting from first contact the way you interact with them can make other aspects of the game go more smoothly or create obstacles (and sometimes both).

2) The question doesn't make much sense, but I'll try (a single number from plural sources is well...).  JA2, one of my favorite games, usually lasts about 140 game days for a complete play through.  For something like Civ V it is usually between turn 270 and 310.  Really though, most stategy games are over long before that.  Civ V or Eador are won well before turn 100 (or 30 game days for JA2), the rest is just shaving turns off of time to win or score inflation (or having fun playing or wasting the player's time, depending on perspective).

3) A good strategy game to me is one that has variety, asymmetry and balance and where the AI is capable of playing.  There are lots of ways for a strategy game to be bad, but the two most common seem to be incompetent AI and deterministic outcomes.  HOMM3 or Titans of Steel would be good strategy games according to that definition, while Eador or Civ V are bad strategy games.