Papa718thTFW Papa718thTFW

Expansion will fix...

▼

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~
1,284 views 57 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top
I think you may have a few good suggestion, but given your attitude of "if it doesn't adhere to my vision of scifi realism, it's b.s.", people are hardly going to listen and certainly won't put the effort to pick out a few good ideas out of your sea of disgruntledness. Like someone said earler, games always have some level of abstraction, and with strategy games, balance is king. Balance that has realism may be a better king, but it's easy to understimate how much effort is required to make sure that even small changes are balanced. And who's to say what is the most judicious application of development resources?



You also asked "What's wrong with my idea X, or what's wrong with y..." Well, nothing may be wrong with it. But look around. There are a OODLES of good suggestions all over the place. And only a fraction of them will get implemented, if everything goes well. Frankly, criticizing and suggesting stuff is easy. People should still do it of course, but preferably with a more realistic attitude and a better tone. And even if you haven't seen first or even second-hand how hard it to add new things to a model, you should at least acknowledge that you don't know, instead of being so indignant about it.



If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, try building a new tech tree from scratch and play test it for a while. You could simulate a lot of the things you complained about with the right techs and new ship and corresponding stats. And who knows, maybe you'll succeed and your results will be interesting enough to have an impact.
[Message Edited]
Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top
Suggestions to improve the game are one thing, but demands for a massive overhaul that would change the whole flavor of the game are another situation entirely. This is like a chess player barging into a checkers convention. Either you get Galciv or you don't. Simple.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top
Again I have to note how amused I am at the idea begging for "realism" in a science fiction universe that (to our knowledge) doesn't exist, with technologies that don't exist, with races and cultures that don't exist, etc. etc. Realism in this sense is generally what the designer/author makes it, not what can be argued, IMHO. Analogies just generally don't work well when you compare real life (or what you imagine real life to be) to fantasy fiction or science fiction.

~SDC~
Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top
Okay, it is time I came clean.

First, I apologize for the offensive tone of my original post. It was nothing personal in any way. I simply got frustrated with the fact that each time I encounter something in the game that is not explained I have to go to the forum an browse for hours on end to find a clear answer. I got frustrated when after all the time and effort I put into establishing an alliance with the I-League I got zero visible return or benefit. If it were only explained somewhere that Alliances are good for one thing and one thing only, namely for achieving an alliance victory condition I would not have spent 3 evenings working on it. Many other things in the game defy logic and common sense. Maybe I simply don’t get it. But I apologize nevertheless.

Second, to address the IQ ridicule. Forget about that. IQ is actually bull and does not reflect the level of intelligence of any person. This has been established time and time again after Yale, Harvard, Oxford and other serious guys looked into it. IQ testing does have some potential applications but it does not in any way indicate how smart someone is.

Now, IQ and related crap aside, I know how things work. I am a 38-year old computer professional (Network Admin) and I know a thing or two about programming also. But most importantly, I am a hardcore gamer (having access to hundreds of computers helps :o)

I have been gaming since I build my first 286 with a 1 MB video card and 4 MEGs of RAM 13 years ago. I own approximately 500 games dating back to 1991 or so. I have play-tested and beta-tested for Microprose, Blizzard and other major publishers and developers.

NO, I am not trying to “pull rank” here. I am addressing those who said that I don’t know anything about how hard it is to make changes to a model or that it is easy to criticize and that I should put my money where my mouth is and go ahead and develop a better game. I would if it were my job. I do my job and if I am criticized I listen and improve. And I believe that if I pay my $40 for a game I should be able to install it, read through the manual and begin enjoying it instead of hanging on message boards trying to fish out enough information that would allow me to “understand” the damn thing.

Finally, I do know what I am talking about and making the most of the changes I mentioned in the original post does not require a total overhaul of the game, just some minor tweaks.
Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top
Dude, you are now officially in the f***tard dictionary.

For someone who claims to have a 144 IQ, you clearly have no concept how to use it.

It doesn't take much in the brains dept. to see the convenience and gameplay benefits of not having to manually retrofit *all* of your ships just so a dumbass like yourself can avoid paying the few BCs maintenance it costs per foundry.

How does it not occur it to you that the very costs and maintenance of these projects have the base game mechanics figured into them?

I'd think you were a troll, but I suspect you're just a moron.
Reply #31 from Stardock Forums Top
It's a good thing your not trying to pull rank, because there is no rank here to be pulled. You are a user, just like everyone else here (except the devs) so your word has no more or less weight (though I think you are working hard towards the side of less weight).
Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top
Look, the fundamental point that Papa makes (and forgive me if I get you wrong, Mr. P) is that GalCiv is very deep and complex, but badly documented. The only option (certainly while coming to grips with the game) is to play by "feel". As in, the decisions made have to be based on common sense, until certain game mechanics become clear either from playing many games, getting proper documentation or shuffling endlessly through the forums.

So, yeah, it's frustrating to get absorbed in a game and form a strategy based on common sense only to find that (undocumented) Rules, when they finally reveal themselves, don't agree with you. It's not entirely unlike playing Chess only to find that a pawns now get two moves per turn. Okay, fine, but I'd have played differently if I knew that.

If you read through Papa's orginal post once again, most points he makes are valid from a "this doesn't make sense in the real world" point of view. Yes, it's a game (and a very good one), nobody wants a tedious simulation but I can relate entirely to that feeling of frustration with The Rules. Tell me what The Rules are, and I'll be happy.

I'm all for game design favouring gameplay over realism. I prefer it, I love games that still have that "board-gamey" feel, but all design decisions that go against plain old common sense should be clearly documented and explained, not hidden under the carpet like they are now.

~SDC~
Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top
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.


This is a tbs strategy game. Think of it as a complicated game of chess. It doesn't have to be realistic.

And you trumpeted moo2. Does it make sense for one fleet to move, shoot and attack, then have the other fleet do the same? That's how moo2 worked. It just did it on a seperate combat screen instead of out on the main board. Not really any different.
Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top
Suggestions to improve the game are one thing, but demands for a massive overhaul that would change the whole flavor of the game are another situation entirely. This is like a chess player barging into a checkers convention. Either you get Galciv or you don't. Simple.


It's the equivalent of a Warcraft 3 computer game player barging in on a checkers tournament and demanding all the pieces move at once, "Like Chess" When in fact, they don't.
Chess, in fact in its beginnings was designed as a war simulation game. But last I checked, no one complains "Hey you idiots. Knights don't move like that in real life"

Moo2, which he trumpets, works in nearly the same way. One player moves their fleet, shoots, then the other player moves and shoots (if he has any ships left) That's just plain not much different than Galciv.

I believe that's why they call it. TURN based Strategy.
Reply #35 from Stardock Forums Top
Look, the fundamental point that Papa makes (and forgive me if I get you wrong, Mr. P) is that GalCiv is very deep and complex, but badly documented.
End of quote


I agree. Poor documentation is a very valid criticism of GCiv, but I think you're being really generous if you're summarizing P.'s post like that.

And P., that's nice that you "came clean" but a lot of reactions were based on both your tone and the content of what you wrote. If you had presented it as just a list of suggestions, I don't think anybody would have said a thing other than perhaps agreeing with a few points.

And simply rescinding your attitude does not make our reaction any less appropriate or your original points any more valid. I couldn't care less about any IQ issues or your resume as a professional gamer. What I remember is that you were very clear in your demagoguery with one "x WILL be fixed" after another, interpersed with a few assertions of "y is bullshit. It makes no sense. Think about it."

btw, I wasn't being facetious when I suggested experimenting with a new tech tree. I wasn't trying to do a "make your own game" jab. I would actually find new tech trees interesting. And you could try some of your ideas, for example, you could increase planetary defense early if you don't like the current attack advantage. As long as it doesn't come with another post, I'd be interested in checking it out.
Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top
Look, the fundamental point that Papa makes (and forgive me if I get you wrong, Mr. P) is that GalCiv is very deep and complex, but badly documented. The only option (certainly while coming to grips with the game) is to play by "feel". As in, the decisions made have to be based on common sense, until certain game mechanics become clear either from playing many games, getting proper documentation or shuffling endlessly through the forums. So, yeah, it's frustrating to get absorbed in a game and form a strategy based on common sense only to find that (undocumented) Rules, when they finally reveal themselves, don't agree with you. It's not entirely unlike playing Chess only to find that a pawns now get two moves per turn. Okay, fine, but I'd have played differently if I knew that. If you read through Papa's orginal post once again, most points he makes are valid from a "this doesn't make sense in the real world" point of view. Yes, it's a game (and a very good one), nobody wants a tedious simulation but I can relate entirely to that feeling of frustration with The Rules. Tell me what The Rules are, and I'll be happy. I'm all for game design favouring gameplay over realism. I prefer it, I love games that still have that "board-gamey" feel, but all design decisions that go against plain old common sense should be clearly documented and explained, not hidden under the carpet like they are now.
End of quote


Finally, someone sees the meaning, not the words. I cannot add anything to Crackles' comments. He got it all right. It just ain't right to sell a game like Galciv without any documentation. It was driving me up the wall for three weeks till I basically experimented with everything, memorized the most important relationships between things in the tech tree and I can now more or less play and enjoy it... Game improvement suggestions aside, what they should really to is print a good manual and mail it to all registered users of legal copies. This is not unprecedented. Game developers/publishers have done this before.
Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top
It doesn't take much in the brains dept. to see the convenience and gameplay benefits of not having to manually retrofit *all* of your ships just so a dumbass like yourself can avoid paying the few BCs maintenance it costs per foundry.
End of quote


It is SO not obvious that ships heal up to the newer tech automatically without the need to send them manually to a shipyard that I thought the damage these ships display was from a battle that I missed. As Crackles says in his post below, it is basically a shame that players are put in the position of having to figure out all the mechanics of the game on their own, especially if such mechanics are not self-evident or commonsensical...
Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top
It is SO not obvious that ships heal up to the newer tech automatically . . .

But, it actually is -relatively- obvious, after once through the game. Otherwise, how would you explain corvettes that had five attack and four defense that you'd had around for a while? Or how would you explain that new ships you were building of any given class had the same power as ships that had been out for a while, even though the ones that had been out had never been retrofitted?

All that notwithstanding, your original complaint wasn't the poor documentation, it was everything. And many of them were just straight up poorly researched. I can easily forgive your lack of understanding about tech and starship bonuses, but your complaints about SBs not being able to have guns installed on them? There's a huge tab that says "Defensive" in the module type list. A great deal of it just seems poorly researched to me.

Moreover, all of it was in an incredibly offensive tone that I find frankly sickening coming out of a thirty-eight year old adult. Have you not learned manners? Consideration for others? Common sense? Manners, of course, that you do not make demands of people who are already going above and beyond to continue to update a game, consideration since your words might hurt the feelings of those who work hard for what they consider their "baby", this game, and common sense because, after seeing your first post, do you think anyone here at StarDock is honestly going to give a flying **** what you think? None of your demands are going to be fixed, not for your sake at least, and though you apologized for your offensive tone, you continue it throughout all the posts following the original, hence my skepticism that you actually meant anything you said in #29.

More than anything else, though, is this. For me, this game is extremely difficult, and I've played games too, though probably not so many as you. It's really hard for a lot of other people too. You're having trouble, so you ask advice, get help, just like everyone else. But -you- didn't, and continue to be confrontational about the issue. The -audacity- of it, that you come in here demanding changes and then apologizing without really changing your behavior at all makes me quiver with rage. You are -not- the only person here, and if there were so many inexcusable problems, do you not think that someone else would have noticed at least some of them? One or two? Did you even bother to look? I would be very surprised if you could honestly tell me that you did any kind of thorough search before blessing us all with your complaints.
Reply #40 from Stardock Forums Top
Smacks of another 'Im not any good/I cant understand the game, so I demand you change it til its something that Im the best at" type post. ;p

"Also, despite of what some posters said, GalCiv is a simulation, a lowsy one at that at this moment..."

My only resonse is... well go play one of your 500 other games then- sounds like this game isnt at all what you want.
Reply #41 from Stardock Forums Top
This has been a hugely entertaining post but is now becoming too aggresive on all sides and is degenerating into a slagging match. I prefer to take out my aggression on the AI in the game instead.
It is still a...Game - right???? :)


On a final note (from me at least). In the last 3 game releases I have played, they have all had 3 features in common.

1) Game is more complex/deep than previous generations
2) Manual is out of date at release (due to last minute fixes/changes/patches etc)
3) Absolutely necessaty to have a look through the forums for a) bug reports b) whats in the pipeline and general player opinion of the game c) what strategies to follow.

I also look at forums checking items a b & c BEFORE I commit to trying demo/ buying game.

The only differences I see with this game is that there are many ways to get latest updates (via stardock etc) and that the level of Dev support is so (thankfully) High. v1.05 still needs a bit of work though ;)


Reply #42 from Stardock Forums Top
It is SO not obvious that ships heal up to the newer tech automatically without the need to send them manually to a shipyard that I thought the damage these ships display was from a battle that I missed. As Crackles says in his post below, it is basically a shame that players are put in the position of having to figure out all the mechanics of the game on their own, especially if such mechanics are not self-evident or commonsensical...
End of quote


Just how many strategy games, particularly TBS, have you played? Further, just how many game forums/newsgroups have you ever taken part in.

The issue of a game being so complex that the finer elements of its mechanics are left up to the player to figure out is extremely common. While it is sometimes a bad thing because the game is poorly designed and/or poorly documented, more often than not it's just one more element of discovery for the game. This game is not poorly designed by any stretch of the imagination no matter what your 'Vulcan' brain may say, but the documentation was admittedly sparse...

But that brings us to number 2. I've been utilizing online resources such as usenet and webforums as game resources going back to 1994. In all that time I've never found a game that you couldn't find out anything the documentation missed just by spending a few evenings lurking, searching, and maybe posting a key question or two. Most importantly, I know the golden rule of lurking before posting so you can see what's already been asked a million times, what sort of posts are tolerated, etc.; something that if you'd adhered to, this thread wouldn't be so negative.
Reply #43 from Stardock Forums Top
I think everyone has missed the most glaring issue. What about this ridiculous faster than light travel? Absolutely no foundation in the real world. Please remove it in the expansion pack. I realise the game will play a little slower but I'm sure the added realism will compensate.
Reply #44 from Stardock Forums Top
Some people are too smart for their own good.

---

Completely unrelated to that
#33

Moo2 patched had a ship initiative option... it wasn't super-realistic, but the fastest ships moved first regardless of fleet... so the attacker didn't always wipe out the other guy.

I like Galciv alot, but I can't even imagine what the fleet combat would be like if I tried. One ship at a time is unlike any movie or real-life combat example I can think of.

But it's still the best 4x game out now.
[Message Edited]
Reply #45 from Stardock Forums Top
smmmrkkk...

Sorry, I've just come back, and I am finding it hard to take comments like "Galactic Civilisations is a simulation" hard to swallow.

You might as well say Mario is a simulation.

The original post seems to be mainly a list of how Papa thinks the game should work. To be fair, a lot of GalCiv is counter intuitive, and the documentation is poor... But I don't think the changes would really be an improvement. It would be a different game, but not necessarily an improvement.
Reply #46 from Stardock Forums Top
Interesting reading. If GalCiv was the only space civ type game I played I think I would feel some of the frustation that Papa has expressed.



GalCiv, for the most part is a strategic level type of game. Not in the true sense since it is not a war game in total. You do not design ships, research specific weapons, shields, engines, etc. Infinite combinations of technology, etc. But because it does not offer all that configurability the developer is able to design a AI that plays very well in its' universe. And the AI's can be given personallity more easily in this type of arena. GalCiv in my mind plays at a different level than more "tactical" games.



A more tactical type of game is Space Empires IV (SEIV). In that game you design ships, research multiple branches in the tech tree, configure your ships any way you want, etc. A very extensible game as well. But that strength is its' weakness as well. The AI in the base game is nothing to write home about. Can you imagine writing a AI that has so many varying elements? As a software developer myself I certainly can see how writing a AI for this type of product would be more challenging. There are some very good mods for SEIV that help to make the AI much better and makes the game fun. GalCiv however has more "atmosphere".

So, I actually play both depending on my mood. The key is to not expect a game to be something that is is not and was most likely never intended to be.






[Message Edited]
Reply #47 from Stardock Forums Top
I trust the direction GC is heading (game play wise) and I like the game in broad terms very much indeed! Unfortunately this evening just like any other time I play it has crashed about a dozen times. CRASHES = NOT Much FUN at all . . . I end up too frustrated to be bothered playing more often than not lately. I really hate whinning and asking questions and posting bugs problems all the time in these forums. Eventualy I'll be ignored or told to pss-off . . . 'Why does this game crash so much!' 'Can someone answer me that?' 'Its a fair question?' Yada yada . . . add infinitem.

Look I know, this game is breaking new ground (its a fact, credit given where its due) but you can't expect support for something that lacks reliability no matter how great the tech support is. I wish SD every sucess and thier team as well, but reading some of the recent review this games been getting . . . with words like 'Sytemic problems!' 'Capriciously Marketed' and 'Unstable' . . . its just Tragic.

I just hope the designers and Coding Techs can get rid of the gremlins in this first edition befor they release the expansion.

~SDC~
Reply #48 from Stardock Forums Top
I just hope the designers and Coding Techs can get rid of the gremlins in this first edition befor they release the expansion.
End of quote


I notice from the metaverse that your last game was posted on the 14th using version 1.04. Have you tried the new version? It seems to be working for lots of people.

~SDC~
Reply #49 from Stardock Forums Top
Only a couple of comments. I disagree with the defenders having the advantage over the invaders. The invasion force will have control of space over the planet which is a significant advantage.

I also had some crash problems with GalCiv, but I think the problem is that it doesn't like other programs running while it's playing at times. I havn't had a crash since (I turned off my AV and firewall and didn't multitask).
Reply #50 from Stardock Forums Top
Just go to flightsim on the newsgroup and you'll get plenty O'Papa...I think it's the comp.sys.ibm one...