Leto,
There are 2 possibilities :
Either you're a troll,
Or you're an idiot - Don't take it too bad, but frankly what are you doing here discussing GalCiv ??
It's like if I did get some platform console game (which I *hate* mostly)and get to the dev board saying "what PoS, this game has no combat, no RPG elements, strategy is absent" ...
Well, I'm becoming idiot myself, losing my time ..

He's entitled to his views. Using silly forum buzz words like Troll doesn't change that.

To me Galciv is Civ in space. It doesn't try to do anything else. I loved Civ, I am enjoying this.

I'm still waiting for a proper sequel the best tbs space game Moo2. Moo3 was absolutely aweful. I might have a look for that Space Empires IV game, but can't seem to find any mention of it over in the UK.

Some people say the game is good enough the way it is. That's a valid position. Some people think tactical combat would ruin it. That too is a valid position. I think the developers took some really bad shortcuts when implementing this game and ducked the tough issues. On the GalCiv home page it says:

"When you buy Galactic Civilizations, not only do you get the game in the box, but long term development to add features and enhancements to it long after release."

So, what I'm doing here is making a forceful feature request for tactical combat like Master of Orion 2. If that inflames some people, then too bad. If the developers aren't up to it or the majority of players don't want it then so be it. Most of the people on this forum are fans who have already bought the game. If they want to create a successful game franchise then they need to listen to people who don't buy the game or who buy it and return it.

Stevious

I was born in the 60's. And the ships in games had different graphics effects for different weapons. Some even fired missiles that tracked their targets. I already know C++ and have tried to create worthy successor to MOO II. Unfortunately, I don't have enough skill in 3D graphics programming and art to do it alone. It's not about how smart I am. It's about getting the glaring inadequacies in GalCiv addressed by the developers. I realize that's probably not going to happen, but I can't control that. What I can do is post my views on this forum.

Cheers,
Leto Silvermane

ok i under stand what your saying and sure tactical combat would be fun somtimes but it would seriouly lag the hell out of some pplz computers and with that i would also want an extremly advanced 3d ship costemizing engine that i woun't need to know all sorts of programing and 3d grafics at to use and had litteraly millions of differnt pick and choose slot parts for the ships. but since that would cost way to much and be way to hard on some computers i think there a good resion not to have it. Gal civ is a great game and i didnt buy it couse the combat part i did cause i like manageing an empire in space and trade and treats not for battle grafics.


btw way did you buy the game before you had a chance to play it anyway if your all picky i played it at a freind house before i when out and got it.

Leto, we all know now that you don't like/want the game, that's clear to us, and it is clear to you that what you want is NOT coming. You are right that most people on this forum have bought the game, but alot also have not yet. And further, the fact most of us bought the game doesn't have to mean they like it. The MOO3 forum proves that. If you are disappointed (I was also many times in the past), that's it, accept it and hope for a game release that suits you better. We galciv buyers are apparently SOOO HAPPY with the game and the fabulous support, that there is not need for us to complain, on the contrary, this forum has many, many threads of praise. Galciv = Galciv, not MOO, not Space Empires, not whatever, it is what it is, you either like it or not. The way you behave is childish (what was that again you mentioned yourself about 14 years olds): "I don't get what I want and therefore the game sucks. And now that I know they will not change the game in the way I want it, I write a bad review". And it is indeed a "bad" review because the only thing that really bothers you is that you miss tactical combat. That is what you should have written in your review.

Well from your review Leto, you made the game sound horrible and not worth anyones time because of graphics and no tactical combat.

And again, this is not a tatical game. It is not trying to be MOO at all. The sooner you accept that, and move on, the better. And I think Stardock realizes that some people want tactical combat. Flaming the game because of that is not going to help your cause. I don't know why you think they took a "shortcut" by not putting tatical warfare in the game. The game was never planned to have it I bet. The game is strategic, not tactical. You are supposed to be concentrating on the grand scheme of things.

And the reason you have been called a troll is that you came out at the start in a harsh tone, and have continued to dig the whole deeper.

This maybe be very poor forum etiquete and please erase it is, but Dave Mills was wondering about SEIV. Heres the www.shrapnelgames.com. Probably the best MOO clone there is.

This forum needs an edit post option. I guess I better start proof reading my posts. Sorry for the spelling and bad grammer.

Allright, I apologize for the harsh words above. I think I was victim of sleep deprivation when I posted that. It's all Stardock's fault, you see?

I hope you understand that "...making a forceful feature request...", that being an unreasonable request, and especially being a minority in your views won't get you anywhere. This will continue to be viewed as flamebait for some. I know I took the bait.

Now come on - 80's graphics? Why don't you download MAME and play a refresher course of Pacman? That ought to put things in perspective. LeeAble is absolutely correct. From the design phase, tactical combat was left out, to make room for more useful features, like kickass AI. About your quest to write the perfect game, let me help you out there - most of GalCiv is 2D graphics. So hurry along now, get started. The world is waiting to see what you can do.

Again, sorry for the rudeness earlier. Let's just say I was kidding, OK?
.
.
.
Or was I?

~SDC~

Edit: LeeAbe, not LeeAble

~SDC~

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

Or, just counter attack, that's what we learn in Galciv. See the new review by a galciv lover:

http://www.pcgr.com/reviews/strategy/product_2028.asp

"There is no ability to design or upgrade ships."

Not entirely accurate. There's no ability to design ships, but ships upgrade automatically as you research better tech, as you find anomalies that increase your statistics, or as they gain levels via surviving combat.
So the ships are upgradeable, just not as directly as you'd obviously like them to be...

~SDC~

Most of the critics of this game slam the graphics. They are not fancy and they are not 3D, but they are clear, functional, and not at all "bad". I think they are better than Civ3's (which is not saying they are spectacular). Civ3 earned strategy game of the year from several major magazines, so evidently those graphics were more than "good enough". Killer graphics CAN add to the atmosphere of a game, but honestly...most of that "gee-wiz" effect wears off after you have played the game a while anyway. So the way I see it, at most you are losing 5-10 hours of saying "gee-wiz" to yourself by having only "ok" graphics.

--Soulfire

I guess based on Civ's graphics level, all GalCiv would need is an isometric graphical map and that would do it.

Problem solved.

I'm a huge fan of Medieval Total War. The switch from the strategic map to tactical combat is almost seamless. One does have the opportunity to retreat, abandon the province, or allow the AI to handle the combat. MTW is a great game.

Galactic Civilizations is also a great game. However, as someone who always plays on gigantic maps, tactical combat would take away from the overall effect of the game. GC is a strategic level game, in the tradition of Civilization I, II, & III. I've already found ways of simulating tactical combat on the map by careful placement of my ships. I want the first shot!

I really can't think of a good way to improve GC by adding tactical-level combat. I've already had turns in which 40+ combats took place. Doing a MTW-style tactical combat engine would make the game prohibitively expensive and very tedious, in my estimation.

One final thought, I have a state-of-the-art computer with 512 megs of RAM. In MTW, some tactical combats are still painfully slow and hard to execute. I don't want this to happen to GC.

Personally, I like the game without tactical combat. It lets me focus on what I find fun. I always found tactical combat a bit boring.

~SDC~

Agreed.

~SDC~

The only reason people want tactical combat is because there is always some way to trick the ai and almost always win, no matter the odds. Sometimes its so bad its almost like a cheat.

I've already fallen prey to the "one-more-turn" syndrome with GalCiv and tactically fighting every battle would only slow down the game's pacing and risk blowing the OMT syndrome. The biggest map i've played so far is a medium with only ocassional colonizable planets and there are tons of battles going on all over. I shudder to think how long a single turn would take on a gigantic map with tactical combats.

No matter how many times you tell some people that tactical combat just doesn't fit the top-down design philosophy of GC they just don't seem to get it. Let them rot in this isolated thread.

I wouldn't let the ramblings of one guy bother you. Try heading over to the MOO forum.. 'tis a resounding discordant rumble with a few lone voices defending the game. It is the opposite here.. obvioustly the vast majority who play this game like it on its own merits.

And for as supposedly intelligent as this Leto was, his review was just awful. A review takes into account the good as well as the bad. You can always spot a 'bitter' review with great ease.

A 'forceful' suggestion isn't going accomplish getting tactical combat into this game.. how ludicrous. This game is WONDERFUL as is. If you don't like it.. one more go here.. don't.. play.. it. See how that works? LOL

The posts from those who assume their game knowledge is greater than the devs, or that they know what the general public wants more than the public themselves always cracks me up.

fleabitfox

Oh, I know all about the moo3 forum. I'm a member. I return there to periodically defend GC from attackers.

11

I actually don't agree on the battle tactic part but would love to see some animations box appear showing the devastating power of your newly researched weapon laying waste to your enemy. You could make it an option of turning these mini battle screens on or off in the option bar.
Whenever you select to go to battle, a box could appear in the lower or upper left corner of the screen showing the firing phases of battle. I guess you could have it to where left clicking in 'space' would skip the ordeal.

I do think that Galciv needs at least some rudimentary method for ships to work together. I would like to see some support ships which mimic the operation of a starbase module like a Repair Vessel which acts like a repair bay, or a shield generator vessel that acts like a shield module or a Carrier that acts like a Micro-Fighters module. I also think that there should be some kind of hoard offensive and hoard defensive bonus for ships attacking as a fleet, like maybe the ships in the fleet get 5-10% of the fleet's total attack and defense added to each ship's individual attack and defense to simulate the idea that ships in a fleet would be moving in formation and therefore would concentrate firepower and cover eachother.

I say that not all strategy games need tactical combat. Civ and SMAC never had it, and they were great games.

The guys at GalCiv have designed a game without tactical combat. There is still plenty of stuff to do within the context of the game.

And furthermore, there is plenty of stuff for the GalCiv programmers to do in order to fix and improve the current game. Creating tactical combat would take a lot of work for them without improving the game.

So I vote NO to tactical combat.

While I agree with the No vote, I think any vote was precluded by the fact that Frogboy said there will be no fleet (read tactical) combat in GalCiv. He was very direct in his response, not leaving any room for interpretation.

~SDC~

What are you talking about? There is tactical on the galaxy screen!!! I use tactical all the time, just could the move spaces between me and the comp and reposition my ships so I get to shoot first :/ And dont tell me thats now what Moo2 tactical was all about. Cuase I played it and I hated it. One ship killing 50 ships, yeah right give me a break.

~SDC~