Terrain in space?

Give me a break. You already have your terrain in outer space. What's space's terrain features? Stars, primarily.

Secondary? Rogue planets/asteroids/comets, black holes, and the odd string/nebula of gas. Guess what those resouce points are?

Pu'lease.

The only way to get more significantly realistic without affecting the actual fun and gameplay, is to go to a radius effect zone from planets and starbases. Whee!

Stack combat? COuld be nice, but that will just turn into move the stacks around. Same thing as you have now, except the biggest stack with the biggest guns will always win. That's what all stack combat is. Only if you get into having some form of combined arms effect in a stack, do you transform the build bigger stack into build bigger stack with options (and only if that combined arms effect is balanced versus other options).

MoO3 turned out the way it did partly due to the fact that they tried to include so much, that the development time went past what their publisher would tolerate. The developers loved the series, were big fans, and talked to other hardcore fans on what would make MoO even more fun. Keep that in mind... I'd rather not see Star Dock "MoO3ize" GalCiv.

Howdy all. I still play Civ2 and Civ3, so obviously one-on-one combat is just peachy with me, but I have a couple of thoughts...

1) Some kind of fleet combat, but a very basic kind. Cap a fleet at, say, ten ships. Each ship still gets one shot/'round'. If a 10-ship fleet attacks a 5-ship fleet, each ship in the larger fleet gets 2 shots/round at each ship in the smaller fleet. If, say, a 7-ship fleet (Fleet A) attacks a 5-ship fleet (Fleet , 5 ships in Fleet A take a shot at the ships in Fleet B, and then the remaining 2 ships in Fleet A shoot at the most important targets (judged by attack/defense values) in Fleet B. That's one relatively simple possibility.

2) Adopt something similar to the combat in Call to Power 1 & 2. Two ranks of ships, front and back. Ships in the back/rear rank (lowest defense rating?) fire, but can't be attacked until ships in front rank are destroyed. Front rank ships can fire upon the ship directly in front of it in the opposing fleet's front rank. Some ships can flank, allowing them to shoot directly in front of them, or one ship to either side. Sorry I'm not describing this better, but here's a diagram:

Fleet A Fleet B

Fla Fla
Ra Fa Fa Ra
Rb Fb Fb Rb
Rc Fc Fc Rc
Flb Flb

R = rear, F = front, Fl = flank. Ra attacks Fa, Rb attacks Fb, etc. Fa attacks Fa, Fb attacks Fb, etc. Fla attacks Fa, Flb attacks Fc; if there are any ships in front of Fla or Flb, they can attack those.

Hmmm...seemed a good idea when I began this post, now it seems needlessly complex.

Regardless, these are ways to make combat 'meatier' without having to code tactical combat. Again, I have *no gripes whatsoever* with combat as it is now - simple and direct. I simply provide these ideas for players and designers to think about.

Thanks (again) to Stardock for their wonderful efforts. Go Stardock!

Aw crap. My diagram didn't post as I had spaced it. Oh well, I hope people can understand what I meant anyway...

Fleet_A=>*****Ra*Rb*Rc******
**********Fla*Fa*Fb*Fc*Flb**
****************************
**********Fla*Fa*Fb*Fc*Flb**
Fleet_B=>*****Ra*Rb*Rc******

And that's going to overcome the stack problem? Not in the slightest.

Ajbera, your idea is interesting. But I'd fill out my stack with scouts (as place holders), just to give my significant ships 2 shots to your lesser stack's one. And what you have just done is reduced the options the standard player will take in playing the game.

When you have stacks, you *must* use them. Because the AI surely is. How much fun would it be building a stack to go fight? If you limit the size of the stack (Which is an ridiculous thing to do in space, but may be choosen to help the under-dog have a chance at fighting... which it won't but I'll post about that later), then what happens is that you are constantly micromanaging your main combat stacks, rotating in your newer big guns into the stack. Sounds like fun to you? About as fun as peeing agains the wind, to me. But hey, different strokes for different folks...

As far as limiting a stack.. that is especially unrealistic in space. You don't even 3 dimensions to order the ships. Furthermore, that just means that instead of micro-managing one Uber-stack, you micro-manage a stack-pack... rotating in undamaged Biggest Guns from your reserve packmate uber stacks. Bleah.

That doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. If I want to manage stacks and worry about running to the right spots on the tactical combat screen, I'll go play Age of Wonders. Or maybe the board game Titan.

Duly noted, Star Pilot. I didn't think the idea would appeal to everyone, but I was trying to think up ways to expand space combat without making the coding too damn difficult. I rather enjoyed the combat in Call to Power 2, and wondered how many others here did so as well.

I know the perfect game for those wanting great tactical combat in a space conquest game, admittedly not turn based per se though. Star Wars Rebellion. No need to revamp GalCiv, Rebellion has it all. Keen graphics, research, diplomacy, espionage, heros, villians, troops, technologies, even a "terror star". (While I truly did like the game as unpopular as it was, I say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek)

IMHO, GalCiv is just fine the way it is, and it appears that is the consensus amongst most of the players on here. You can't please everyone. For those that don't like it, play a few times, trash it, burn it, whatever floats your boat. The game will suceed or fail not based on the fringe elements, but based the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the majority or the target audience, as is the case with all capitalist ventures. I'm personally glad to see a Strategy game that really shines on the strategic level vs. a Strategy game that tries to throw tactical combat in and suffers. I have noticed it to be fairly consistent that most really good games had a direction in which the developer wanted to take it, they stayed generally on that path, perhaps taking some user input into account and then sacrificed those elements or features which deviated too far from the goal. All games are about what can go into it, and what has to be left out.

To summarize my rather long-winded opinion, I don't believe that a lack of tactical combat takes anything away from GalCiv at all. It is what it is, and it is a good thing.



~SDC~

**
When two fleets engage in battle display a battle screen with ships on one side in a column on the left and ships on the other side in a column on the right. Each ship fires in turn at a specific ship on the other side. As ships are destroyed, they are removed from the screen. In this way, battles play out exactly as they do now except you can see individual ships. Don't tell me that it is impossible to implement or would drastically alter the nature of the game.
**

Huh.. that has to be one of the lamest ideas I've heard. This would increase the 'fun factor' in what way? It would add to the game how? Oh.. by increasing the game playing time by n'th to the 10th power of hours? yea, sounds really fun. :notsure:

When you played MOO2, you pretty much knew the outcome of the combat before you entered it. You might be able to save a ship, get a bit less damage with some neat combat tactics, but you knew what the result was going to be 98 out of 100 times before you entered combat. If you were unsure, you didn't engage.

Intead of trying to bloat GalCiv with features from previous 4x titles, they added features to make the game FUN on its OWN terms. And I for one love it.

Here is a clue.. if you love that combat.. go play Space Empires IV or MOO2. If this game isn't for you, wonderful! Don't buy it.. don't play it. Truthfully, I don't think anyone here cares one way or the other.

But trying to make this game out to be inferior because it lacks a feature you happen to like is rather lame, IMO. It has its OWN features that make it unique and very addicting. I VERY MUCH agree that strategy and logistics are the keys to this game, and I love playing it out as such. And IMO, the diplomacy rocks.

They are obviously NOT going to add a major feature like tactical combat in their completed game, both because it doesn't NEED it, they don't WANT it in there (so players can focus on strategy and logistics), and it would be neigh impossible to do anyways.

So if the game is obviously not to going please you without the features you want.. don't play it. Not rocket science. LOL

fleabitfox

I think there is already a lot of combat startegy in GalCiv. For example:

a) Fast, low HP ships (Corvettes) - I use em behind enemy lines to sabotage, destroy trade routes and run.
Slow but high HP and huge attack value ships (Dreadnaughts) - use them as a core of the attacking force. Always in the middle and they take care of especially well defended positions.
c) Meduim speed, high defence value ships (Battle Axe)-use them to either protect gained ground from counter attack or to protect any particular unit that took a big hit.
d) Fast with relatively strong attack and meduim HP(Frigates) - I always have them in big numbers when attacking. Thanks to their speed and relatively good attack they save countless number of times.

There are plenty more startegies when you combine all of this with StarBases and technological achievements. I therefore dont see much point for introducing a terrain like in Civ. As far as tactical combat is concerned, I really like it (thats why I always play Medieval:Total War) but I dont think GalCiv is the right game for it.

I think that a simple way to increase tactics (in a minor way) would be to make fleets work together. As it stands right now there are one 1 on 1 fights even if the ships are in a fleet. It seems to me that if you had 100 star fighters you probably could destroy a battleship, but right now you can't. I think that this could be a simple behind the scenes thing to implement. (possibly)

frogboy, I love the game keep up the good work. I have already started failing my school classes because of it.

I really don't want to see 100 starfighters destroy a Dread. I think of it as 100 spearmen (and equivelent technolgy) attacking a Tank. Sure, maybe once in awhile they *can* do it- I've seen a starfighter take out a crippled BB before, but I do NOT want stacks to combine in wierd ways that would throw off the AI's ability to adequetely use strategy against me.

~SDC~

Somebody up the thread might have already said this, but I just had a thought. I love the ground combat. Let me say it again. I loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove the ground combat. It's the -only- realistic ground combat out there. Why? because in real life you probably would drop asteroids prior to landing. Unless of course you wanted the real estate intact. This is the first game that really gives you decent and realistic attack options.

Why not extend that to space combat. You could have choices like
"Cee-Fractional Approach. +20 stealth, -20 maneuverability".
"Sneak Attack +20 stealth, -20 speed (higher danger of catastrophe if they detect you and blow you up without shields.)
..etc etc. Anyway, if you just picked a strategy and a roll modifier, and watched it play out it would mesh pretty nicely with the ground combat style, without requiring a real AI.

I'm gonna spam this into the suggestions area too. Meh.

Sessile.

I want there to be a a romance simulator that pops up between every turn, so I can roleplay being a stud emporer with a harem full of hotties in my zero-g jaccuzzi and stuff! This game sucks because it won't let me do that! I want nudity too! And the game should serve me free alcohol while I play! And PIZZA! This game is a non-starter because it doesn't do that!

--Beavis

"huh-huh-huh Yea, and like there should be hooters and stuff. huh-huh-huh"

--Butthead

heh YEA - that would RULE!

--Beavis

If I may add...
I NEVER played MOO anything. SOme of us bought GalCiv because of Galciv. And from what I've read, there still isn't a successor to MOO1 which appears to be the best of the 3.

I HATE RTS games. If this game had clickfest ship combat I wouldn't have bought it.

The combat as is DOES require strategy in how you use you ships...most of the people saying it doesn't appear to be playing on low difficulty where it's easy to get huge fleets on the spot and waste them at will.
PLUS there are combat modifiers...experience is added to ships abilites which has a big effect on combat.

A reviewer on PC Game Review www.pcgr.com gave GalCiv a 2 out of 5 with the following review. I'm posting it here because it expresses my sentiments exactly.

--Mrky from Novi Sad on 4/2/2003 5:54:12 AM (wrote):

"General/Summary: I don't know what's with these new 4x games. I mean, people out there are making masterpieces like Mafia for example (I realise it's a completely different genre!), and nobody seems to be able to make a decent 4x space TBS. I'm a system programmer myself and I know it's much harder to code other kind of games especially if you are developing a game from scratch (3d engine and all). I guess it's only easier to make an adventure game (you really only need superb artists to make that kind of game)). As other (much harder to make) games keep getting better and better, this genre is really getting worse. I believe this started with MOO3, which I haven't played (I probably will), but as I read many reviews trashing the product, I slowly get the picture of general dissapointment. I got GalCiv hoping that it would be something different and something new. I'm dissapointed AGAIN. Please have in mind that I'm a BIG fan of this genre (I'm very picky -> I like turn based slow strategy games preferably set in space and without any kind of magic stuff) and I played pretty much every game that looks like this one. I think that a game should be reviewed from a point of view of a similar BETTER product, and should not be given high score just because "the MOO3 game sucked much much more than this one"."

ROFL Leto. Read the guys next paragraph. The game is too hard for him and he couldn't beat it on easy. He wanted a push over and couldn't get it. He obviously didn't grasp the game play at all. I suck at Gal Civ, but it didn't take long to figure out how to expand quickly.

And his biggest complaint?? Not having a pretty planet view screen of the improvements. Something that would just be pure eye candy.

If you are going to post quotes...post creditable ones at least.

Heres the full review. Its actually quite funny to read if you have played the game. And the guy in question says he has played 10 hours. LOL

Whoops...here is the link http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/strategy/product_2028.asp

Here is my review of GalCiv on PC Game Reivew. I tried to be fair and honest, giving it a score of 2 out of 5 and warning other gamers that they might not like it.

Leto Silvermane from New Port Richey, Florida on 4/5/2003 9:40:29 PM (wrote):

General/Summary: Galactic Civilizations is Civ in Space. It's another dry 4x space game with weak graphics and sound that will appeal to die-hard fans but leave most people dissapointed.

Gameplay: Exploring the galexy is fun, with little rewards as you go. Developing the colonies is nothing more than supplying a build list. The improvements have no effect other than to change some numbers in the underlying model. For example +5% to research, +10% to morale. Trade is a little simplistic as well. While you get more money for far routes, you don't get any bonus for trading with different civilizations or trading from a variety of planets. While there are trade goods, you can't trade them. They simply give you a one-time bonus to one of your numbers, i.e. ship movement +20%. There is no ability to design or upgrade ships. Ships don't have weapons or defenses, just an attack number, a defense number, and a hit points number. Diplomacy is well done. The random events and United Planets edicts spice things up. The AI is well done, although the computer opponents send out colony ships at a frightening rate in the beginning of the game. The lack of tactical combat is the biggest gameplay problem.

Graphics: The graphics are appropriate for a game made in the 1980's. If you aren't a die-hard fan, you will be thinking, where is the fun? Where is the payoff for all this work? There are no flashy battles. No visual effects for different weapons. Heck, these ships can't even fire a missile or launch a fighter. The graphics are a giant step backward compared to other games.

Sound: The sound is unimpressive, but at least it isn't so annoying that it needs to be turned off.

Summary:

Overall: 2
Gameplay: 3
Graphics: 1
Sound: 2

LeeAbe

Attacking the reviewer is the reactionary, easy way out. Instead, try to understand what they are saying and either agree with it or disagree with it on the merits.

--Leto

Leto you so obviously missed this game completely. You just plain DO NOT GET IT. The concept of the game is way above your head. This is not MOO2 and is not trying to be it. It's a strong game on it's own that is deep and complex.

I was not following this game much. I am not a die hard fan of the 4x games. But I really love this game and think it does everything right. From what I have read most people would agree.

You want graphics and tactical combat. Fine, the game is horrible because it doesn't have that. Go play something else.

As far as the grahics being from the 80s, that's just silly. The graphics aren't going to blow you away, but they hardly bad. They do a good job and they aren't ugly.

As has been said redundantly, you can't please everyone. It should be noted that any number of positive reviews could also be posted where reviewers were happy with the game, thus supporting opposing viewpoints. Makes no real difference to me, reviewers really make a difference in my opinion of a game, they don't know what I like.

No one is arguing that you are alone in your opinion Leto, but it would appear you are not in the majority of opinions who are quite satisfied with the design and the direction the game is taking.

Who the heck is PC Game Review anyway? There's endless game review sites out there, as though these people have credentials that validate their opinions, and I'm not just referring to PC Game Review.

I have personally been gaming since before the term "old school" was invented, at a ripe old age of 39. I have played hundreds of games, many of which I have invested many, many hours. I don't feel anymore qualified to tell other people what they should or shouldn't like just because I have all that experience.

I personally hold nothing against someone, just because they don't like something I like. It's okay not to like the game, you don't need anyone's validation. But you have to expect that if you walk into a room of Slayer fans and tell them exactly why they need another guitarist, you may not get a warm reception.

Leto the review in question (as well as yours) shows someone who wanted a push over AI, graphicly amazing game. His review was actually comical. Yours was better, but again, I don't think you grasp this game and think you should be playing Space Empires IV. Oh wait, that game really isn't pretty. NM wait for MOO4.

Also did you notice the ranking of his review? Not to good.

It's also interesting that there were other people on that same site who gave the game 5 for gameplay, and overall positive reviews.

Good review? heh.. Leto's review is rather awful, I'm afraid. Graphics of 1? yea.. ok. I actually PLAYED game in the 80's, and no.. they are not even remotely similar. Games from the 80's: Star Control. Fun game.. horrible graphics, and of course, not even *remotely* close to this game. Nice try.. LOL

PCGamereview is just a site of user created reviews, nothing more. They and EB's user reviews are a laugh. They either praise the game giving it a high score, or bash it. 99% of the 'reviews' are not unbiased, fair assesments of games, they are either uber praising, or mega bashing. There are a few decent reviews.. but they are few are far between.

At least the user reviews at Amazon.com are a bit more mature. There, GalCiv is harboring a nice 4.5 of out 5 average. Right where it should be, IMO.

Also check the game sites where diehard, long time gamers hang out. For instance.. Gonegold.com. Some experienced gamers there. And they all love GalCiv.

So Leto is certainly entitled to his opinion, but I think his 'review' is quite lame in many regards *shrug*

And posting the gunk he posts here is just a way to stir up something. It isn't like anyone here is going to say 'oh wow, you are right.. what a horrible game!'.. and stop playing. LOL

This game is quite complex really. The diplomacy an AI are excellent. If you can't see this, or figure the game out, no need get all angsty on us.

Again.. this isn't rocket science. If you do not like the game.. don't play it. Ta daa! Problem solved. Unlike MOO3, this game is actually FUN to play.. I don't think you are going to convince anyone that your brilliant opinion on this game is the only correct one, sorry.

fleabitfox

I agree, fleabitfox. Copying/pasting his "review" is just more flamebait. Of course, who can resist such stupidity? I can't.

"Graphics: The graphics are appropriate for a game made in the 1980's. If you aren't a die-hard fan, you will be thinking, where is the fun? Where is the payoff for all this work? There are no flashy battles. No visual effects for different weapons..."

Leto, weren't you born in the 80's? How would you know what graphics were like? When you mature a bit you'll learn the value of gameplay versus worthless eye candy.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't you learn C++ and write the best game in the history of the world, a la Derek Smart? That way you can teach us all how very very smart you really are. Either that or take a hike, troll.