This is the last statement I'm going to make about the game here:

I think your view of the game is distorted by the amount of time you have put in to it. Like ChickenHawk, you have invented a narrative about how the game plays that is far more nuanced than the game itself.

You are practically making my argument for me. Because of the timed nature of everything you can do in the game, you can more or less plan out your entire strategy before the game even starts. The only variables introduced by the game itself are your initial proximity to resources, which arguably just averages out over the course of a game, and whether you start near one of the other aggressive players. The latter is rendered pretty meaningless too, because of the "winner take all" nature of combat and colony killing. Either you build the bigger fleet and you win, or they do and they win.

I doubt there has been any protracted wars between the "serious" players. I think you guys play with this mentality of avoiding all conflicts you aren't guaranteed to win, on the basis of "mutually assured destruction." I think you would argue that there isn't actually anything worth fighting for in the game; the trick, as Raven posted all those weeks ago, is to just claim as much space as possible without pissing any other "serious" players off. The clueless chaff, like myself, you can just steamroll in to oblivion. I know that I have evidently wasted time in pointless battles when I should have just been looking for more empty systems.

Anyways, again, I concede that this game might not be for me. The experience is so homogenous that it becomes frankly boring. There are not enough interesting variables. It's like playing a spreadsheet. I think you will find that most players will come to the same conclusions. We're one month in, and the game has already been "min/maxed" by you and a handful of others. I really think most people are not interested in playing like that, but time will tell.