Expansion will fix...

from Stardock Forums
I think I am not the only one who hopes that the Expansion Pack will fix the following inexplicable nonsensical elements of GalCiv. Of course, there is MORE but even if this limited list of nonsensical things were fixed in the X-pack the Galactic Civilizations would become the supreme game and a standard setter for years to come. Moreover, it would become actually playable and enjoyable!


I. Ships and invasions:

1. Transports the size of planets? One BILLION troops per transporter? Come on. 50 million (though it is still pushing the limits of believable) is more like it if you rack-pack soldiers in stasis pods.

2. On a planet with a population of 10 billion EVERYONE is the defender? Think a second: on our Earth with population pushing 7 billion, subtract elderly, handicapped, pregnant women, infants and young children, and otherwise noncombatant civilians and IF all governments work in unison we would be lucky if our planet could put together half a billion of combat ready troops. The GalCiv math would work out just fine: Say, on a 10 billion planet there are some half a billion soldiers, so 10-15 transports (see #1 above) would suffice to attempt an invasion.

3. It is bullshit that invader has the advantage. It does not work like that UNLESS the invader has 10 times the technological superiority. Defending troops are fortified and well entrenched and they know their turf. The defender, therefore, should have the advantage.

4. Planetary defenses, such as missile bases, ground batteries, fighter garrisons and such will be added. Players will be able to, but not required to keep fleets in orbit for planetary defense;

5. Bombers. How come there is no ship capable of bombing a planet? There WILL be bombers in X-pack.

6. When player sends transports to invade a planet he WILL have an option to ABORT the invasion if (upon reviewing that gorgeous invasion options screen) he decides that his forces are insufficient. Yes, players will have this option in X-pack.

7. Star bases, considering their insane cost and unreal time required to build and upgrade, WILL have the ability to install defensive guns and missiles modules. Players will no longer have to keep huge fleets for star base defense. Star bases will NOT be completely invulnerable, but a pair of lousy corvettes will NOT be able to annihilate a star base. While the star bases will be vulnerable to a group of battleships, it will hold its own against a bunch of flimsy Starfighters (!)

8. It is well-known, that it is much worse to be outnumbered than outgunned. A swarm of weak attack units can easily overwhelm a single Hulk of a unit (remember Black Hawk Down?? Our super soldiers were clubbed to death with sticks and stones). A single Dreadnaught will NOT be able to destroy 50 corvettes with impunity and suffer 3 points of damage or no damage at all.

9. Ship repair will be FIXED. It should not have to take 20 turns to fix a ship especially with Repair ability at +60% and especially if it takes around only 8 turns to build that ship from scratch (!) Ships will be repaired much FASTER if stationed on a planet with a shipyard as opposed to being stationed in deep space.

10. Once new technologies become available, players WILL be able to UPGRADE and REFIT existing sips (at planets with shipyards) faster than it takes to build a new model of the same ship!

II. Economy, Diplomacy and Morale:

1. Galactic economic events will NOT affect civilizations which are not relying on interstellar trade (!). If I am NOT in contact with any alien civilization and I am doing ZERO trade what does my economy care about some recession going on at the opposite edge of the universe?

2. If I am not trading with anyone I will not benefit from -their- economic boom nor will I suffer from their economic problems.

3. Establishing Trade Routes WILL require entering into a Trade Agreement with a civilization. Why should I have to trade with someone I don’t want to trade with just because they send their freighter to my planet without asking my government’s permission? Torians, for example, will no longer be able to trade with me (unless I sign a trade agreement with them) to improve their economy just to attack me 10 turns down the road (!)

5. If a civ has colonized 3 out of 4 star systems in the same sector, they have ownership of that sector and to colonize the fourth system there the other civs will have to ask permission or look for planets elsewhere. Otherwise, trespassing of this sector and colonizing the fourth system will constitute an act of aggression and or war.

6. AI will no longer know where everything is. An algorithm WILL be included which would force the AI to explore space in random directions and begin building/dispatching colony ships or constructors ONLY if its scouts/explorers find a colonizable planet or space resource (!)

7. Morale WILL be fixed (!) and will appropriately reflect cultural aspects of different civilizations. For example: Good civs will suffer a morale penalty if their government begins a war of aggression; Saintly civs will suffer even a greater penalty to morale. By the same token, a good civ will see a surge of patriotism and a morale boost if attacked. The opposite will be true for evil civs. Neutral civs will have to attempt to stay out of conflict and do everything possible to end any conflicts they are involved in or suffer a morale penalty. Finally, 5000 channels of entertainment which takes 10 turns to build will improve morale for MUCH LONGER than 3 turns (!!!)

8. All diplomacy options will be available at ANY time. The probability of success of establishing an Alliance will, of course depend on how good our diplomatic skills are but the option WILL be there. We can ask, right? Chances are our proposal will be refused but WE CAN ALWAYS ASK (!) There WILL be other reasons for alliances except being “CLOSE” with a civ. Example: Arcean are annihilating everyone. Torians are my neighbor and are “warm” toward me but the Alliance option is not available since it requires being “close”. What kind of bullshit is this? We have something more important in common than “closeness” we are both being annihilated. We WILL be able to establish a defensive alliance even if we don’t like one another very much (!). Finally, if I am allied with a civ I WILL be able to use its planets as refueling stations to extend the range of my ships (!!!!)

III. Technology and Research and Production:

1. My entire civilization is researching Battle Armor (???) WTF is this nonsense? There WILL be sliders allowing me to allocate a % of research resources to each of the research fields so that research is going on in all areas but at different speed depending on my STRATEGIC and TACTICAL goals.

2. Autobuild will work for Social production as well. This way planets will have the ability to specialize. Being able to say: “Sol V, Autobuild research facilities” would be nice.

VI. Documentation:

1. Detailed descriptions of technologies, game options and features WILL be available on the web site for viewing or download. Players will no longer have to guess what exactly this or that does.



~SDC~
1,314 views 57 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
I think somebody needs to go get a nice stiff drink. Almost everything that I bothered to read up there is whining about stuff that we know is not going got be changed (e.g. defender gaining the advantage, more than one research goal with multiple sliders, recessions affecting you, etc.).

You seem to want Galactic Simulations, not Galactic Civilizations. Go try some other Space 4X game because this one is never going to suit you desires.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
Of your items, I find 6 items desirable (I: 5, 6, & 10; II: 1 & 2; VI: 1). The remainding 14 of your "demands" I would see as a step backwards, making the game worse. Not easy for the developers to choose stuff that we will all like, is it?
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Funny thing is: I:10 is instantaneous and already in the game (unless by "same model" he means "ships of completley different models"); I:5 we already know is in the expansion pack; IV:1 we already know is in the expansion pack.

I:6 is debatable - with espionage (or even just a peak at the domestic screen) you know your relative tech to the defender, and you can always compare relative numbers, you should already know your relative chances in an invasion so if you find yourself in a bad situation, you really have no one to blame but yourself.

II:1&2, who bloody cares, it affects everyone equally. It's a game element, not an economic simulation. There's a lot of game balance reasons for keeping these as is, and few reasons to change it other than letting the sim purists feel better.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Actually I agree at least to some extent with most of what 'Papa' has to say, with a few reservations. He is certainly entitled to his opinion.



For I1 (and all ships in general including colony ships), I see them as an analogy to a fleet of transports/ colony ships. Afterall ships are not the size of a planet either, which is how they are shown given the limitations of the display :). However I also think that Colony ships etc should be much more limited in their capacity these huge numbers are just too unrealistic (IMO). This would address the fact that you feel that the defenders should have an adavantage. If you can only attack in smaller numbers per ship then that reduces that issue, perhaps...



To Code monkey: True GC is not a pure sim but it has many sim elements as well as elements of other genres. Plus, part of its success is that it seems to appeal to many types of gamers and ages etc.

It won't beome a sim just by making some of the existing features more realistic. I am all for evolution of all aspects of the game as long as it remains balanced and enjoyable. Given that the devs have a huge number of ideas from the public already and the improvements already added, I am pretty sure that they can select the changes they think are best and keep most of us happy to stay up all night playing the game.


~SDC~
[Message Edited]
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
Evolution where it improves gameplay is one thing, evolution for the sake of realism is almost never a good idea. In fact, the only time change for the sake of realism is a good idea is where it happens to coincide with better gameplay

As an example, how about his very angry critique of attacker having the advantage; there is a reason why the attacker is given the advantage: do you want to need to strip 4 systems of their population just to take one enemy system? Didn't think so. Games would last centuries purely for the sake of realism (that or we'd just stop with military campaigns and use culture to win

Unlimited colony ships, again, it (as even you point out) is an abstraction for game play reasons

If people want to experience real world constraints in their time killing, we've got that in spades: it's called a job ;)

br>

[Message Edited]
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
He's entitled to his opinion, but doesn't have to be a jerk about it. Oh wait, I get it! He's role-playing the Drengin empire *smacks forehead*

CM, on the ships I do believe he meant one should be able to upgrade ship type X to ship type Y (with a shipyard) faster than one could build Ship type Y from scratch. Not certain I agree, but I believe that is what he meant.
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
If this is what he meant I second to that :)

~SDC~
Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top
And, by the way, they don't need to rewrite game code to make most of the changes I suggest. All they need to do is change some values in the existing code...

Also, despite of what some posters said, GalCiv is a simulation, a lowsy one at that at this moment...
Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't agree with that, Papa.

If you design a non-abstract game - wether it's a roleplaying-game or a strategy-game - you have to decide how much you value the three parameters:
- realism
- fairness/balance
- playability

This factors contradict each other to a certain degree:
A game which is as realistic as possible will become so complex that it is not very playable (at least for people who are not in to hardcore simulations), and it's probably not balanced because, well, reality isn't fair, and so on.
So you have to set some prioities, depending on what is most important for you: Do you want a realistic, very detailed simluation? Or a game that is easy to understand? Would you introduce an additional rule that makes the game more balanced, but more complicated, or leave it simple? etc...

Stardock obviously have made their decision: They wanted to make a game that was easy to understand and fun to play. They didn't make the game for people who were looking for very realistic simulations - they never claimed, in fact, that galciv IS a simulation, they labeled it as "turn-based strategy game" and that is, I think, a big difference.

Basicly, if you were hoping for a realistic simulation I can understand your disappointment. But you simply looking at the wrong place. Now you blame galciv for not being something it never was supposed to be, and you do it note by stating your opinion or making suggestions, but by making demands in a way that I find close to rude.

Anyway, I hope you'll enjoy the expansion pack for it will include some of the features you're looking for.
Reply #11 from Stardock Forums Top
Friend, you say:

"Do you want a realistic, very detailed simluation? Or a game that is easy to understand?"

If you say this game is easy to understand you must have an IQ of Einstein or better. Don't get this wrong, I am not trying to gloat here, but I, with my 144 IQ, find this game incomprehensible in many aspects.

In my post above, I am not talking about rewriting the game. I am suggesting some easy-to-implement tweaks.

What’s wrong with being able to abort a planetary invasion at the last moment? All that is needed is a “Cancel” button.

What is wrong with being able to refuel at your ally’s planet?

What is wrong with enabling a star base to install a gun or two to make it a bit less vulnerable?

What’s wrong with being able to bomb a planet from orbit to undermine its infrastructure without sending in ground troops?

Why is ship-to-ship executed in the way that it is? You have a fleet of 30 battle cruisers and the enemy has one dreadnaught. What happens? The dreadnaught is pitted against one battle cruiser at a time and in the end all your 30 ships are gone but the dreadnaught is alive and well because one on one it can kill an infinite number of battle cruisers.

Why does it take me 3 times as long to repair a damaged ship than to build a new one?

Etc., etc., etc..

This is what I am talking about. Fixing these things will NOT make the game harder to understand, it will NOT degrade the gameplay, while any resulting potential balance issues (though I don’t see many) can be fixed by adjusting a few values here and there in the existing game code.....
Reply #12 from Stardock Forums Top
At the end of the day, the question is, are you playing a game with some space civ/sim flavor, or are you trying to play a space sim with some game aspects.

This is first and foremost a game, not a sim.

Second, in your rebuttal above, you demonstrate that you don't know much about the existing system.

* We are getting bombardment, it's been announced and even discussed and debated, so, point is moot.

* You can already repair ships in just a few turns (put it in orbit), you misunderstand the game.

* Fleet combat (or not, depending on your viewpoint) is deliberate as is and isn't going to be changed. It's been explained several times why on this board by the lead designer himself. It's a tradeoff, allow the system we have now, and sure, you've got the issue of one big ship taking out huge numbers of little ships. The alternative is the ability to make the unkillable stack. Brad made a choice: game balance over realism.

So, learn to play the game that's here before you go making the absolutely offensive post you started this thread with. There's room for improvement, but most of your points, at least the ones that aren't already in the pipeline, aren't them, though.
Reply #13 from Stardock Forums Top
* You can already repair ships in just a few turns (put it in orbit), you misunderstand the game.
End of quote


Not quite - it still seems to take a couple of turns too many.

My statement includes the fact that the designated defender is always the one with the highest Att+Def, even when the ship with that highest value has only 1% hitpoint left.
Reply #14 from Stardock Forums Top
1. Galactic economic events will NOT affect civilizations which are not relying on interstellar trade (!). If I am NOT in contact with any alien civilization and I am doing ZERO trade what does my economy care about some recession going on at the opposite edge of the universe?


Really? Great depression? Every recession since? Global in nature. Not a stretch to think it will be Galaxial in nature. Some always fare a little better than others, but all are usually affected at least a wee bit by a recession Your economics are unsound


1. Transports the size of planets? One BILLION troops per transporter? Come on. 50 million (though it is still pushing the limits of believable) is more like it if you rack-pack soldiers in stasis pods.



Is it so really difficult to accept that 1 transport is actually an abstraction for a unit of them. Meaning it's a whole group of them rather than just one? Picture the total tedium of actually having to build 200 of em just to take one planet.


7. Star bases, considering their insane cost and unreal time required to build and upgrade, WILL have the ability to install defensive guns and missiles modules. Players will no longer have to keep huge fleets for star base defense. Star bases will NOT be completely invulnerable, but a pair of lousy corvettes will NOT be able to annihilate a star base. While the star bases will be vulnerable to a group of battleships, it will hold its own against a bunch of flimsy Starfighters (!)

Umm put 2 or 3 defense modules on a starbase now and 50 corvettes will pound themselves into submission on it. It will be level 10 by the time they are done. They are and remain vulnerable to the capital ships, but that wasn't in your complaint.


8. It is well-known, that it is much worse to be outnumbered than outgunned. A swarm of weak attack units can easily overwhelm a single Hulk of a unit (remember Black Hawk Down?? Our super soldiers were clubbed to death with sticks and stones). A single Dreadnaught will NOT be able to destroy 50 corvettes with impunity and suffer 3 points of damage or no damage at all.


That's because Soldiers are armorless, and shieldless. I'm sure if the soldiers aboard that dread tried to take everyone of those starships by hand to hand ship to ship combat with only a few soldiers going at a time, beaming right into a pack of aliens they'd be chopped to pieces also.
Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top
==>> That's because Soldiers are armorless, and shieldless. I'm sure if the soldiers aboard that dread tried to take everyone of those starships by hand to hand ship to ship combat with only a few soldiers going at a time, beaming right into a pack of aliens they'd be chopped to pieces also.

That's the whole point. Ships don't fight one at a time, it is not like Corvette one goes vs a Dreadnoughght while Corvettes 2 through 50 are sitting there and watching what happens. This does not make any sense. There is maneuvering, some Corvette may concentrate on outflanking the big ship and concentrate on its engines to render it less mobile and thus lover its defence and offence capability... Regardless, ship to ship (notwithstanding on the "rationale" behind it) is done very poorly and makes no sense.
Reply #16 from Stardock Forums Top
Mr. Troll needs to think about the value of mobility and intelligence in combat. Defending a fixed, known location against an armada that could smack you from light-seconds away and pick any location or locations to invade wouldn't be easy.
Reply #17 from Stardock Forums Top
Papa, having looked at it again, I beleive your point about being able to convert ship type X to Ship type Y is not valid. I also think this goes against your strong preference for realism.

Why? What happens today for real sea going ships? You cannot convert a mine sweeper into an aircraft carrier, destroyer etc. Old ships get decomissioned. It is easeier/quicker/cheaper to build a ship from scratch following the plans than trying to convert an existing one.

Since we cannot decomission old ships in the game (perhaps its an idea for the future), we can however sell them or give them away to the aliens for goodwill, which is what I tend to do.



~SDC~
Reply #18 from Stardock Forums Top
Man, you misunderstood. Look what happens with F-16s, for example. The platform is almost 30 years old but the planes are kept in service by constantly upgrading avionics, weapons, etc.

I am talking about this: If I have a battle cruiser with 25 hitpoints I should be able to send it to a planet with ship construction facilities and replace its current armor with a better one once it has been researched to give it 30 hitpoints instead of 25. The same would apply to replacing obsolete weapons with newer ones.

I wonder if any of those who criticize my game improvemement suggestions ever played Master of Orion 2, Pax Imperia and other titles of this Space-based strategy genre... They all included elements I mention and yet they were much easier to understand, plan your strategy... and most game features there made sense, yet there was balance, realism and excellent gameplay.

GalCiv is vastly different in concept, but inclusion of the things I suggest would not make it a MOO 2 clone or anything, would not infringe upon the original concept, but I would simply make the game better, easier to understand and more fun to play.
Reply #21 from Stardock Forums Top
Papa, it's very hard to take you and your 144 IQ seriously on this. Many of the things you mention have been very clearly explained by other responders as being better in their current form, and you even list some things which make no sense.
As PontiusBruinPilot points out, you CAN mount guns on starbases. They aren't called guns directly, but this game focuses much more on the abstract concept than on the detailed and specific made-up technobabble. Put a few defensive upgrades on your starbase and watch all the fighters your opponent sends at your bounce off as if they were made of paper.
As for your comment about the F-16s... No, YOU misunderstood. Every time a new technology is developed that improves the effectiveness of your weapons or shields, it automatically and instantaneously applies to every ship you have out in the field. You can't retrofit a ship from one ROLE ( type ) to another, but your ships are all continually improving as your technology improves.
It seems like the bulk of your problems with the game seem to be with an inability to accept that many things in the game are simply icons, abstract representations. The troop transports is a prime example of this.
Some of the interface tweaks you mention, like the ability to abort an invasion, might be useful, but you can tell how many people are on a planet before invading it anyway, and you can compare your own military advantage against theirs, if you've done any intelligence work.
Overall, your list of "improvements" WILL be looked at as bitchy whining, particularly with your arrogant tone of condescention which WILL prove to cause a negative first reaction, regardless of the quality of your "ideas".(!!!)

[Message Edited]
Reply #22 from Stardock Forums Top
Re: your F-16 analogy, what part of: it's already in the game and instantaneous didn't you get?

If you build a Starship Foundry on a ship's home planet, it instantly, no matter how many sectors away it is, has it's Att/Def boosted. If you research exotic alloys, everybody in your entire fleet gets the 10% boost to HPs (but do have to "heal" up to full strength).

Like I said, you're just hurling criticisms without even understanding the game your criticizing to begin with.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
>>>If you build a Starship Foundry on a ship's home planet, it instantly, no matter how many sectors away it is, has it's Att/Def boosted. If you research exotic alloys, everybody in your entire fleet gets the 10% boost to HPs (but do have to "heal" up to full strength).

Come on people, if I have Sol on far left and Orion on far right and I build a ship on Sol because Sol is under attack, but Sol does not have the Starship Foundry, what good is the Starship Foundry on Orion if I can never upgrade the ship build on Sol UNLESS I build the Foundry on Sol?
Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top
>>>As for your comment about the F-16s... No, YOU misunderstood. Every time a new technology is developed that improves the effectiveness of your weapons or shields, it automatically and instantaneously applies to every ship you have out in the field.

I think you are in error here. I am at turn 1000 or so and I still have ships I built during the first 50 turns with the original hitpoints, attack and defense.

Maybe this was explained in some obscure post, but it is nowhere in the documentation and I did not observe what Eosapien says in the game.

It seems possible, what CodeMonkey said, that if you build ship X on planet A and then build a Starship Foundry on that planet A, the ship will be automatically upgraded no matter where he is (I have not noticed that happening but I will look closer). But isn't it illogical that you cannot send a ship built on another planet to a planet with more advanced manufacturing facilities for an upgrade?