There is no ‘grand strategy’ because there is no meaningful strategy in how wars are conducted, or how diplomacy is pursued. You can’t have a functional grand strategy game where extrapolated warfare comes down to one number for each empire, and this number is compared against the other and the smaller then loses the entire game. Which is how doomstacks currently work in Stellaris.
Ignoring when the AI has a brainfart, losing a war generally means losing the entire game since rebuilding an entire fleet is nearly ruinous to any empire and certainly takes far longer than the mandatory ceasefire.
You keep saying that without substantiating your claim.
It would help if you had bothered to read my post before replying to it, which you clearly didn’t.
. You said earlier that “most people” thought it was terrible. Yet reviews, both professionally and on Steam, suggest otherwise. There is nothing anywhere to suggest that your opinion is anything but a minority one and thus your assertion is incorrect. Any point or opinion that you make is lost when you try to make up facts to substantiate a point.
‘Most people eventually agreed that it was pretty terrible upon release’. Being an arsehole and writing a polemic on how one opinion stated needs substantiation or an entire series of posts is discredited is one thing, but being an arsehole and not even reading the posts you’re replying to is another.
I clearly cannot survey most people, therefore I am extrapolating my experience outward. Which is exactly what you’re doing when referring to metacritic and steam reviews on a larger scale as representing a majority.
I’ll ignore that none of the glowing Stellaris reviews that I read at launch mentioned any of the clear and later acknowledged near-gamebreaking flaws at release, suggesting that the reviewers did not play the game for significant amounts of time, and I’ll ignore the huge outcry TomChick caused when he gave Stellaris one of only a handful of negative reviews suggesting an overinvested core community.
That that they are improving it does not mean that it was not playable or enjoyable on release. Otherwise, the same could be said about any patch or release.
They have substantially changed almost every feature that the game came with, including massive changes to several core mechanics. That does not suggest a good game at launch, nor a coherent game. Quite the opposite, though obviously it’s impossible to ‘substantiate’ that. You’re also conflating something being terrible with something being unenjoyable c.f. The Big Bang Theory.
That is a false authority claim which is a logical fallacy.
Now you just sound petulant. Stating that I’m using an example is not a false authority claim, unless you’re trying really hard to fit what I said to list of fallacies you had loaded on wikipedia at the time. You’ve demonstrated that you can’t manage to actually read an entire post, don’t understand what an example is, don’t understand the difference between a comparison and false equivalence, nor do you understand that fact <-> opinion lies on a continuum.
It’s particularly amusing that the two posts that followed yours were talking about Stellaris being functionally lacking at release.
