I don't understand the people who think mods available at release is somehow a bad thing or indicative of a larger problem.

The beauty of mods is that they give the players choice.  Maybe I don't like a particular design feature that the community or the devs love.  Mod it away.  Does that mean the underlying game is weak or poorly done?  No, it just means that my preferred gameplay is different than what the devs have in mind.  

The game that gets released stands on its own or it doesn't.  The existence of mods is irrelevant to that question.

In GalCiv you simply have to copy the mod folder to the Mods folder, and then select the mod from within the game. It's pretty straightforward.

On another note, I think the game might suffer in reviews because of lack of multiplayer. While I do not mind this at all, and if I remember correctly from the poll, half of us don't mind the lack of multiplayer, the reviewers tend to penalize that. I strongly support the idea of a focus on single player and strong AI, rather than investing in multiplayer. That's what made GalCiv 2 great. But hopefully the reviewers will understand the focus on a great single player experience.

I play AoW2. The game lives on multiplayer. There are a lot of mods. Each mode is 2.5 people. But a large Number of people play it in multiplayer patch. Where no "pink dragons", etc. Duel, the FFA and the game with the unions , what could be better?

AI will never be good in these games, there will always be exploits and methods easy game against him. 

I've used CivIV mods extensively, but I've also tested each executable with Kaspersky.  An executable is a very easy and thorough way to conceal viruses.  Much better to simply tell people in which directory to drag and drop a bunch of files: nothing is concealed, all the content can be viewed and even edited by the player.  Look at two of the most active and complex mods out here, now, by Heavenfall and SeanW.  See for yourself just how easy installation without an executable can be.

No, I don't know. But some people here think it is OK that the game comes out whatever and they can fix it with mods. I don't want Stardock to read that and feel the same. I had enough of that shit with NWN2 where without 2-3 mods the game was barely playable. Later with all patches done you still needed at least 1 mod.

What the fuck are you talking about, seriously. Point to one single post that says anything CLOSE to "it is OK that the game comes out whatever and they can fix it with mods".

EVERYBODY wants the game to be great without mods. NOBODY wants the devs to make a bad game that is very moddable.

AoW2 didn't have a singleplayer AI period.

There seems to be an expectation on the part of at least one or two people that Stardock is going to pull a Bethsoft, releasing games with the expectation that features users regard as flawed they, the users, will also fix.  I have seen no evidence indicating that this is even remotely close to reality for Stardock.  If I'm wrong about this, show me how, please.

Do you mean TBS games, in general?  Because there are several excellent ones out there with great singleplayer AI.

As for exploits: as long as human beings exist, they will always, in all times, in all places, in all civilizations, find ways to game the system.  Doing so in actual modern games is simply an extension of this.  But most players don't care about exploits, and as long as the AI does a very good job and provides a solid challenge, that's the main thing.

The only reason I am still here is because Brad Wardell is an excellent AI programmer and hires other great AI developers. It might not be equal to a human player, but it will be one of the best AI's in the history of TBS games. Given the complexity the game has, it is already doing very well. In fact, the major problems it has are mostly things that haven't been turned on yet, like strategic offensive spells.

Exactamente.

The debate was over whether or not reviewers correlate the number of mods with how bad a game is. 

Gal Civ 2 AI is still unmatched in the 4x world pretty much. So I have confidence we can get a just as good AI. But I doubt it'll be better than Gal Civ 2, FE is way more complex.

I find it difficult in English. But any good turn-based strategy has a lot of different game strategies, maneuvers and tricks. AI does not know how to do something unpredictable. In  game with ai you do not need a lot of scouts. No need to use half( i think much more but ok) of the game features. And the pleasure of victory... I do not get it in  game against  AI.

Русская версия ( более широкая )

 В любой хорошей пошаговой стратегии есть огромное количество возможностей, рычажков для достижения целей. ИИ никогда не научить действовать нелогично, рисковано. Очень важный аспект каждой тбс - разведка. С ии она не нужна, а это, на мой взгляд, очень важный и интересный элемент игры.  Играя против ИИ нет надобности использовать и половину возможностей игры, на самом деле даже больше. Что касается примеров хорошего ИИ - скорее всего это варгеймы, но и там не идеален, если углубляться в механику игру. Галактичискую цивилизацию как пример вообще не рассматриваю. Там все строится на бонусах для аи на сложных уровнях. А в остальном он также предсказуем.  У игры хороший потенциал. Но я жду мультиплеера. На моды для мультиплеера я не расчитываю. Основываюсь на собственном опыте - подавляющее большинство мододелов сами не являются хорошими игроками, некоторые даже плохо понимают формулы , особенно начинающие ребятки. Более того они сами не играют в свои моды, лишь тестят новые свои надбавки. Как-то так.