I don't like being accused of lying. I may be an asshole, but a liar I am not. You accuse me of cherry picking your sentence. Ok, I'll analyze the whole post. Here is it:
Pretty much my experience as well. Ya you'll probably need to restart and spam pioneers til you have 4 or 5 cities.. if you lose the pioneer spam contest at the beginning and don't have a min/maxed Sov you'll likely lose the game and may as well start over.
You'll quickly learn the game is all about the meta game.. and not about the game. Or you can do like me and shelve the game.. whatever works for you.
Pretty much my experience as well.
This is because you're a very poor player. The game has problems and original poster is a new player. You claim to be a beta veteran, but you also claim that you cannot expand in the beginning, and that one needs to "restart and spam pioneers til you have 4 or 5 cities.."
As I pointed out multiple times since, this is untrue. I pointed out my latest play through, where I could not build more than two cities because the other spots were too close to dragons, slags and obsidian golems. Even the two safer spots later stirred dangerous beasties. The game worked out just fine. I notice that you conveniently ignored this part in your next few posts.
if you lose the pioneer spam contest at the beginning and don't have a min/maxed Sov you'll likely lose the game and may as well start over.
Absolutely not true up until Expert difficulty. Once someone has bothered learning to play the game, the AI can be easily rolled with your trained troops. Yes, if you lose the initial expansion, you have to switch your research to war footing, and make plans to ramp up production. But a good player is not one that sticks to his plan when circumstances change. A good game does not have to allow you to win by sticking to a plan once the first step did not work out.
On Expert this changes, but the OP was not talking about Expert.
Then you say "You'll quickly learn the game is all about the meta game.. and not about the game." This to me means that the game is not winnable within the game. Metagaming means to go beyond the ruleset, to game the game, to go outside the game's lore and sprite in order to win. You have been making this claim in many posts. You're not worth the time for me to look it up, I will go by memory. You claim that unless one plays a minmaxed/operpowered side (which can be seen as metagaming) one has no chance.
Nonsense. In other threads, I pointed to playthroughs of mine where I take standard sides to victories on ridiculous. My Procipinee experiment is also positive proof that the game can be won by the rules, even with a poor start.
And finally
Or you can do like me and shelve the game.. whatever works for you.
To any reasonable person, this means "As far as I'm concerned, the game is not worth playing, and I advise you to shelve it". Not being a reasonable person, I read it as "I'm a poor player, I failed to adapt to the game, and my fragile ego will be spared if I make other players give up like me"
And finally, yes, I can minmax, I enjoy minmaxing, and I enjoy beating the game on ridiculous with a minmaxed sovereign. I also can beat the game without minmaxing, and I have taken standard sovereigns to victory on ridiculous in 1.00. And I am not the only one.
You, Fistalis, are a troll. You are not trying to learn to play the game, you are not listening to advice, and you keep telling people that the game is worse than it is. You completely disregard anyone who points you toward ways in which you can improve your play, and you try to prove that the game requires 'dirty tricks' to win. It does not. You can't win, because you are inflexible, and probably not particularly bright, either.