General Joab

Wishlist

Wishlist

How GalCiv III could improve GalCiv II

 
I enjoyed playing the previous Galactic Civ games. In fact, I am still playing II. There are a few things I would change though, if I could. Aside from things like better graphics and three dimensional maps or a fleet combat viewer that looks less like a four-year-old's bathtub war games a have a few more practical suggestions. Many others have elsewhere commented on ideas I share. In the interest of brevity, I have omitted those. What follows are still at the top of my wishlist.

1. Make Constructors and Troop Transports and Colony Ships reusable. They may have to return home to take on fresh troops and supplies and there may even be time/money costs involved but it should be cheaper and more flexible than building a new ship for each upgrade to a star base or a new transport for each invasion.

2. Like Influence victories, there should be an Economics victory path that follows banks and stock exchanges; however, rather than one leading to the other, they should diverge and become separate but essential tech tree paths to victory. The Banking techs should lead to Reserve Banking systems with the aim to become the Galactic Reserve Bank. Coupled with the Galactic Stock Exchange, and economic victory would allow the victor to gradually acquire the means to manipulate the economies of other races and ultimately to buyout entire planets in a way similar to influence but from an economics perspective. Advances in banking should allow for the diplomacy power of offering other races a loan as a bargaining chip. Banking could then be used to extort your enemies, or prop up the economies of your allies in a much more dynamic way. Becoming the Galactic Reserve Bank would then tie the entire galactic banking system to your empire granting you an economic share in their success. Stock Markets should afford you the chance to buy up major companies through their stocks and by so doing acquire trade goods developed by other races. Even if you cannot produce them on your own worlds, owning the galactic businesses that produce them among the other races would give you access to the profits they produce. By using banks and stock markets, one may ultimately own the galaxy without having a large empire, military, diplomatic alliances, or influence. If one may dispense with the single galactic currency, and in its place allow each empire to have its own currency, we can begin to see the value of building a Galactic Reserve Bank. While the currency values for all the races rise and fall based on their own economies relative to each other, the empire holding the Galactic Reserve would be the security they all use to prop up their systems creating dependency and the power to manipulate a currency war. Not all of these tools need to be present for the Economic Victory to function, but it would make the game a bit more interesting than an Ascension Victory. No offense.
 
3. The Ship Creator needs a rethink on modules.
Constraints should be focused on energy costs of operating the module, not on size. A power-hungry weapon may deplete energy to where shields and other components do not operate properly without adding more power generation. There would then be a power source for each ship whether it be fission, fusion, anti-matter, or zero-point energy. The more power-hungry a ship becomes, the more power generation must be built in.
While mass would not be an energy constraint for systems operation, it should be included for selecting the proper propulsion unit. A ship bogged down with massive weapons systems may not be quick or maneuverable without adding more engine power. Other than cost, what is the practical use of a fighter that is just as sluggish as a freighter?
As for weapons, consider adding range and re-fire values for the weapons. Longer ranged weapons may require more energy, better sensors, and have a lower re-fire rate but would allow for fleets backed by ships serving a role say more like artillery. If we want fleets to be more than just the number of ships in a stack, or their combined fire-power, hit points, and defenses, we need ships that can serve in different roles and excel at doing so.
 
4. Fleet Combat should allow some tactical input without micromanagement. For example, the AI should select the best strategy for success, but if the battle is a suicide mission, the player should be free to designate which targets in the enemy fleet are a priority making it possible to carry out precision strikes against a more powerful enemy. We should also be able to interrupt a battle to instruct our fleet to retreat. 

5. Diplomacy with other players or AI allies should include the capacity to designate targets of interest and the development of a cooperative strategy. If I have the best warships and weapons to fight the enemy, and my ally has a weaker economy that limits their ship production, I should be able to instruct my ally to build the cheaper Troop Transports to conquer the enemy planets while I supply the battleships to provide his fleets with cover. Also, allied forces should be able to form combined fleets, or at least have fleets that can occupy the same tile and jointly defend that tile as a means of shoring up allied forces. 

6. Finally, on the choices-driven Good vs. Evil ethical system, i have a thought. Good vs. Evil is too simplistic, but it is a good idea. Why not allow for a spectrum of ethical philosophies represented by your choices, and expanding choices beyond good bad and neutral? No choice should be neutral, and all choices should pose serious costs and benefits. Enslaving a race may provide an economic bonus, but also require significant military costs in terms of garrisons to keep the slaves under control as well as contributing to organized crime throughout the galaxy. In the past, enslavement was the only choice that offered any benefit to the player. Choosing not to enslave them should offer several paths with their own sets of costs and benefits. For example, you could choose not to colonize their world after all, and instead focus on diplomatic and humanitarian aid while providing them with protectorate status so other races do not enslave them. It may cost you a planet and whatever production you might gain from it, but you lose nothing to garrisons or organized crime, and it could provide a small economic benefit with the possibility of incorporating their planet into your empire at a later date via referendum or whatever. I understand the argument for eliminating it from the game entirely, but I think a more multifaceted philosophical alignment of multiple ethical views each with their own costs and benefits could keep this as an interesting part of game play. 
 
I am looking forward to your comments.
200,150 views 118 replies
Reply #76 Top

Quoting General, reply 72

Read the historical uses of mines on Earth.

 

I did. Moreover, we studied them back in the army. Let's say things I've learned there contradict with things you just said. SD-2 Schmetterling rings any bell? Yugoslavia?



Quoting General, reply 72
Honestly, if mines were so great as to deserve another mention on this thread, why have they been abandoned by every military force on Earth?

 

Yeah, sure they were. Only number of MRAPs strangely increases, and number of actions tanks saw actually strangely decreasing. Tanks, they remind me of cuirassers of old time - flashy, impressive, can bring you victory, but how constly they are (what, 15 millions now?)...

But let's return to the mines. So what had happened, were they abandoned, or they simply changed their name (have a hint, abbreviation, consists of three letters, two first is one "popular" Internet Browser, and third is merely fourth letter of English alphabet; or old anti-personnel mine could be renamed into.. hmm, "defensive charge" - clearly not a mine!), and were layed off for a while, keeping same sockets on mine, sorry, "not-mines", allowing installations of older types of "trigger" mechanism - where target initiates it, not the soldier from the side that installed the "not-mine".

The only weapon that has been excluded from arsenals is gas weapon. Because from military point of view they have more drawbacks, they are weather-dependant (wind changed and invigorating fumes now go toward your forces, take a deep breath, feel better?), and attacking while wearing that condom with legs, laso known as "NBC suit" is, actually, much more difficult than simply sitting in similar suit or moving for short distances. Yet we have gas warfare in GalCiv, boo!

 


Quoting General, reply 72
And don't cite international law or ethics which would seem perfectly valid except that nuclear weapons have not faced the same fate.

 

There is no morality in politics; there is only expediency.

Have you seen how military manuals changed in recent years? I did. A lot of new manuals were released, mostly concentrated on that "humane" bullshit, released only to cover higher ranked people arses. Why so? Well, recommendations given in those new manuals sometines openly conflics with recommendations given on other manuals, those actually telling you how you, as a soldier, should do your job. Zugzwang in its best.

 

All those conventions are created for two reasons - business (do you know how many mines were manufactured during last decade, for example?), because modern "not-mines" are slightly more difficult to manufacture for poorer (hence less developed) countries, and politics, because of ability to apply pressure on unwanted countries and regimes, blaming them in "inhumane" fighting. Yeah, sure, mine in inhumane, grenade from underslung launcher is humane, howitzer's shell is humane, gunship's cannon's rounds are very humane. Collateral from bomb thrown on market, or fuel tanker exploded is humane.

Yo, dawg loop, of a sort.

But I digress. This verbal diarrhea with "naming" our politicians have, clearly reminds me of George Carlin's Shellshock/Battle Fatigue/Operational Exhaustion/Post Traumatic Stress Disorder monologue - changing name of the device, won't change its point. But it will turn attention away, as in Offsrpings' "you're gonna go far kid", allowing them to pour more verbal diarrhea into audience ears.

So far it is more expedient to waste "your" humans' (soldiers') lives and blame your opponent in "unfair" fight (remember all that knighthood honesty and codex BS?), while pretending your side fighting fairly. Besides, every team plays as opponent allows them, and as long there is no need to utilize mines massively, because most modern "wars" we have reminds me fight between MMA fighter in riot gear and child in cardboard "constume".Or, if you, for some reason, don't like that comparison, imagine hockey between adult and teen.

 

If I understood you correctly, your despise towards mines founded mostly on your experience from attacker's perspective - where mines "unnecessarily" delays the game. Well, that's what mines supposed to do - to delay (their second "job" - to instill fear, sometimes irrational). Even though I support addition of mines into game, I doubt there will be use for them on "strategical" map, because, as many pointed out, of sheer size of even smallest "hex". They only use I can see there for them is to be scattered in hex for one turn (some modern "not-mines" set to auto-destruction within different set periods, say, 192 hours - that's almost week. Hex filled with mines could offer several outcomes - either stop enemies completely, or slow them down, working similarly to Starbase module, that slowed enemies for -1 move, or even do nothing, in case enemy fleet is small or/and has sophisticated systems, allowing to clear part of minefield.

Tactical use of mines (within combat) would depend on complexity of combat. If it won't take mobility of ships into consideration, even outside of our "view" (so all calculations would be performed outside of our control), then there is no need to use them.

 

 

Quoting Tharios, reply 75
That may be gratuitous over-complication. Why bother?

 

Some guy, named Sid Meier, said, and I quote We think we’ve found a good balance of playability, depth and complexity.

Who am I to argue with Sid, but of course I have something to say. And here it is: complexity could be different, it could be inside game's calculations, but outside of player's view. For example, back when Jagged Alliance 2 was released, my friends and me played it extensively, and tried to determine how deep game is. We came to a conclusion, that game, in fact, quite deep (no, I don't mean dropping steel helmet as a loot from "Grey" guy, armed with Minimi). For example, we have checkpoint, where one "Grey" was at watch. I sent my merc in full Spectra set, no gas mask, no sneaking, just run there. Result - gas grenade under his feet. Take two - same as above, only gas mask on now. Result - frag grenade. Take three, same as above, no helmet - headshot. Take four - same as one, only two mercs now, moving more or less "parallel". Result - mortar shell.

Simply put, if game processes a lot of raw data, but show only final result, while keeping clear connection between "cause" and "outcome", I'll but that. Well, I already bought it, so this part is a bit irrelevant.

 

Since this topic named "wishlist", here is one thought I have. As I said before, I still think that exercising command over fleets, and battles in general is not the job for "supreme ruler'. So I won't mind to see Admirals and Generals, whom we would delegate our combat-related duties. Also, it would be necessary to create "officers", people of lower rank than our Admirals and Generals, but nonetheless important for creation, and control our armies and fleets. Number of active officers will determine number of ground forces we could create and send into combat, and number of combat ships we could build. Similar concept was used in Hearts of Iron, or Sins of a Solar Empire, so it wouldn't be nothing new and unusual. All we got is one building, that would consistently and constantly would produce, and improve officers, allowing greater numbers of armies. In case of defensive fight, number of officers would determine effeciency of our fighting force - if there will be insufficient numbers of them, then efficiency will be lower, if there is an excess of officers, that would give slight bonus, allowing them to replenish losses of officers during active stages of fightings. Sort of.

Reply #77 Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 75

12) Covert Ops- I like the stealth and cloaking idea, but without a detection parallel on the tech tree strategy becomes lost in the haze of planets and starbases being traded and destroyed by invisible forces on both sides. It sounds like fun until everybody is doing it in the same game.

13) Active vs Passive sensors?- That may be gratuitous over-complication. Why bother?

12 and 13) Active and passive Sensors...is sort of part of the point of covert ships.  Active sensors can be scrambled by certain stealth modules, but are better at spotting others, and the opposite would be true of the passive sensors.  That, and the covert ships are intended as a counter to inhibitor fields...and minefields if they ever were to exist.  The sensors tree would be adjusted accordingly to keep the "arms race" properly balanced.  But ultimately, covert ships will never be as good at combat as actual warships.  The idea is that they should survive the battle and get away, not stick around and duke it out with a star base or full fleet.  It might be useful to prevent covert ship spam by forbidding them to be part of a fleet, or penalizing them for being in a fleet.  They would still be useful for their intended role, but wouldn't become the go-to ship type for the entire game.  Also, it's intended that a covert-equipped ship should be much much more expensive to build and maintain as a conventional ship of the same class.

Plus, this game needs a LOT more espionage options.  I don't like economic or influence victories...but I get a thrill from shadow victories without ever firing a shot...or few shots anyway.  In FPS games...I prefer being a sniper.  In various other games, I prefer being a rogue or similarly sneaky and completely dishonorable combatant.  If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you've screwed something up.  Covert ships could be dovetailed with any number of other espionage options found in a wide variety of games.  Perhaps they could even be altered to go with those long-range artillery weapons I mentioned.  Cloak, park a few hexes away from the target, snipe them.  The price...can't fire while cloaked, and immobile during the firing turn.  Proper use would require careful planning and good awareness of the area around the target, or you'll lose the ship every time.  Also, such a weapon must be reloaded at a base or planet after each firing...since it's not meant to be used that way.

Yeah...I like that.  I like that A LOT.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that espionage won't be in the base game, but will be an expansion feature. I'll need to track that down.

That said, passive sensors would be an awesome addition for covert ship purposes. There's a lot of good ideas here in that area. I'd love to see really fleshed out covert ship and planetary ops.

Reply #78 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 77
I seem to recall reading somewhere that espionage won't be in the base game, but will be an expansion feature. I'll need to track that down.

I thought that was in the december update thread that Frogboy started, saying it would not be in the Alpha but would be in the beta. However, in looking at the initial post of the thread (https://forums.galciv3.com/450866/page/1/#replies) what it says is that Diplomacy won't be in the Alpha and will be in the Beta. Could that be close enough to what you were thinking of?

Reply #79 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 77
I seem to recall reading somewhere that espionage won't be in the base game, but will be an expansion feature. I'll need to track that down.

Paul Boyer said that on the SpaceGameJunkies podcast. I don't remember the exact timestamp, but it was somewhere after the 30 minutes mark, if I recall correctly.

Reply #80 Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 79


Quoting Tridus, reply 77I seem to recall reading somewhere that espionage won't be in the base game, but will be an expansion feature. I'll need to track that down.

Paul Boyer said that on the SpaceGameJunkies podcast. I don't remember the exact timestamp, but it was somewhere after the 30 minutes mark, if I recall correctly.

Aha! Yeah, that's the one. Keeping track of where all this information is coming from is complicated. :)

Reply #81 Top

I'm mostly just hoping for a better combat system. I would like ship defense to actually matter. More offbeat support options like the warp bubbles and atlas modules would be nice as well.

 

Making fleet combat and ground combat more interactive would be nice as well. At best, a fleet engagement could be like a RTS minigame. Imagine a battle being played out like a large-scale fleet clash in SoaSE.

Reply #82 Top

Quoting 00zau, reply 81

I'm mostly just hoping for a better combat system. I would like ship defense to actually matter. More offbeat support options like the warp bubbles and atlas modules would be nice as well.

Making fleet combat and ground combat more interactive would be nice as well. At best, a fleet engagement could be like a RTS minigame. Imagine a battle being played out like a large-scale fleet clash in SoaSE.

Never happen.  Too many people play GC because they're bad at tactical combat, so they don't like games that include it.  Plus, the devs seem to be under the strange impression that it somehow takes away from the rest of the game...which is a bit silly, but it's still a great game anyway.

I would prefer it if there were some way to turn combat into something interesting rather than just, "press button, wait to see results of caveman clubathon".  Which is essentially all it's been in the last two games.  Spam modules on a ship until it has a single really big number, spam that ship to make a fleet, throw it at the enemy and hope your number is bigger than theirs.  Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

But nah, don't even hope for tactical combat, it'll never happen.

Reply #83 Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 82


Quoting 00zau, reply 81
I'm mostly just hoping for a better combat system. I would like ship defense to actually matter. More offbeat support options like the warp bubbles and atlas modules would be nice as well.

Making fleet combat and ground combat more interactive would be nice as well. At best, a fleet engagement could be like a RTS minigame. Imagine a battle being played out like a large-scale fleet clash in SoaSE.


Never happen.  Too many people play GC because they're bad at tactical combat, so they don't like games that include it.  Plus, the devs seem to be under the strange impression that it somehow takes away from the rest of the game...which is a bit silly, but it's still a great game anyway.

I would prefer it if there were some way to turn combat into something interesting rather than just, "press button, wait to see results of caveman clubathon".  Which is essentially all it's been in the last two games.  Spam modules on a ship until it has a single really big number, spam that ship to make a fleet, throw it at the enemy and hope your number is bigger than theirs.  Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

But nah, don't even hope for tactical combat, it'll never happen.

I mean, they could make it optional. Or make the combat turn based, a la pokemon. Just something quick and dirty, but more involved than just watching them club it out. Heck, even something like setting a fleet stance that gives bonuses and penalties; that'd be more of a strategic decision, too.

Reply #84 Top

I think a possible compromise would be to allow you to change the settings globally or for each combat situation it would be your decision. I would want this turn base, but I would also want to be able to set this in the beginning and not to worry about this. I probably going to have to occasionally change this. The problem I'm not sure what tactics is. 

I would like to have at least a better looking combat viewer. Honestly I like to run a civilization. I consider combat part of it, but not the whole thing. I would not want all my time boggled down with combat when micro managing is a big part of it, but if it were turn based at least I have time to do all this. The Ai is really the most important part of it. How clallenging of a opponent you have.

+1 Loading…
Reply #85 Top

Quoting 00zau, reply 83
I mean, they could make it optional. Or make the combat turn based, a la pokemon. Just something quick and dirty, but more involved than just watching them club it out. Heck, even something like setting a fleet stance that gives bonuses and penalties; that'd be more of a strategic decision, too.

You might get certain fleet "stances" or the like.  The devs have said they want to incorporate roles into ships of the fleets, so there'll be that hopefully.  But you won't even get a toggle option for tactical combat.  Auto-resolving combat whose outcome could be changed by player tactics, is inherently unfair, currently.  If player A is a good tactician and wins based on tactics rather than numbers, and player B uses identical fleets of ships but auto-resolves combat...player B will ALWAYS lose.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news.

Reply #86 Top

Wait I thought about your delima. Let's say tactical combat was an option. I hope it would be turn based. On multiplayer this would be an option for the person hosting the game not the individual player. The games that you would be trying to join could state whether they have it or not. This is one viable solution to the problem assuming this is an option. It it were turn based I would play this.

Reply #87 Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 85


Quoting 00zau, reply 83I mean, they could make it optional. Or make the combat turn based, a la pokemon. Just something quick and dirty, but more involved than just watching them club it out. Heck, even something like setting a fleet stance that gives bonuses and penalties; that'd be more of a strategic decision, too.

You might get certain fleet "stances" or the like.  The devs have said they want to incorporate roles into ships of the fleets, so there'll be that hopefully.  But you won't even get a toggle option for tactical combat.  Auto-resolving combat whose outcome could be changed by player tactics, is inherently unfair, currently.  If player A is a good tactician and wins based on tactics rather than numbers, and player B uses identical fleets of ships but auto-resolves combat...player B will ALWAYS lose.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news.

Not if it was a game option. When you start a game, you'd set "tactical combat on/off;" people who like/are good at tactical combat would play games where tactical is on, people who don't like/aren't good at it would play games with it off. Basically, combat would always auto-resolve with tactical = off.

Reply #88 Top

Quoting 00zau, reply 87
Not if it was a game option. When you start a game, you'd set "tactical combat on/off;" people who like/are good at tactical combat would play games where tactical is on, people who don't like/aren't good at it would play games with it off. Basically, combat would always auto-resolve with tactical = off.

Ah...so segregation of players, basically.

Reply #89 Top

In a big world there should be enough people who like it either way that this should not be a problem.

Reply #90 Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 89

In a big world there should be enough people who like it either way that this should not be a problem.

I disagree, but that's not relevant.  Functional or not, I'd bet a good amount of money it won't even be an option.  There will simply be no tactical combat in the game, unfortunately.

Reply #91 Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 88


Quoting 00zau, reply 87Not if it was a game option. When you start a game, you'd set "tactical combat on/off;" people who like/are good at tactical combat would play games where tactical is on, people who don't like/aren't good at it would play games with it off. Basically, combat would always auto-resolve with tactical = off.

Ah...so segregation of players, basically.

Call it "two games in one" that'll sell better. I think having two options allows for a broader audience for the game; there'd be all-victory-conditions, tactics off games for the Civ-type crowd, and tactics on, non-war victory off slugfests for the SoaSE/Starcraft/AoE crowd. Basically, they'd hopefully be able to bring in some of the RTS crowd.

Reply #92 Top

Quoting 00zau, reply 91
Call it "two games in one" that'll sell better. I think having two options allows for a broader audience for the game; there'd be all-victory-conditions, tactics off games for the Civ-type crowd, and tactics on, non-war victory off slugfests for the SoaSE/Starcraft/AoE crowd. Basically, they'd hopefully be able to bring in some of the RTS crowd.

You mention all those games...and all it does is make me miss Homeworld.  Thankfully...(assuming I can get away from this Mac) it's getting a new lease on life through Gearbox and I'll be able to play it again someday soon.

It won't cut into GCIII, but for RTS games, I haven't yet seen anything on the level of the first Homeworld.

Reply #93 Top

Quoting 00zau, reply 87
Not if it was a game option. When you start a game, you'd set "tactical combat on/off;" people who like/are good at tactical combat would play games where tactical is on, people who don't like/aren't good at it would play games with it off. Basically, combat would always auto-resolve with tactical = off.

Ahh, the old "just make it optional" argument. No one has ever used that before. It's a really silly argument to make, for more than one reason. I suggest you read the tactical combat topic to discover why.

Quoting 00zau, reply 91
Basically, they'd hopefully be able to bring in some of the RTS crowd.

Not enough to matter. The RTS crowd is used to games that last 20 minutes, not 20 hours.

Reply #94 Top

Quoting WIllythemailboy, reply 93
Ahh, the old "just make it optional" argument. No one has ever used that before. It's a really silly argument to make, for more than one reason. I suggest you read the tactical combat topic to discover why.

Not enough to matter. The RTS crowd is used to games that last 20 minutes, not 20 hours.

So I looked in the thread you mentioned.  And once again, the only supposed reasoning is, "I don't like it, tactical combat is for losers."  Logic doesn't seem to be a priority for number crunchers, ironically.

You yourself talk about RTS players being used to games that last 20 minutes.  You're right.  But then, it was suggested SOME of them would come over to GC.  I myself enjoy RTS games, though I haven't seen a particularly good one in nearly a decade.  But still, not one person had a decent argument against them, just "I don't like it."  It's like the mines discussion all over again.

Firstly, tactical combat is hardly real-time by default.  Final Fantasy Tactics, the Front Mission series, the MoO series (the first two, anyway), and so on.  You can't argue that those are old games and their time has passed, because GC is an old series and all the big producers in the gaming world think the same thing about it too, but here we are.  Tactical combat can be turn-based, and have zero disruption on the strategic element of the game.  But no one seems to have really addressed that at all, except for the ubiquitous "I don't like it, keep it out" comments, with some flimsy and baseless justifications about it ruining strategy, as if the two had any direct overlap except for the fact that people who are bad at tactics would would be completely owned militarily.

Second, a multiplayer game of GCIII would not be something people sit down to a 20 hour session to play.  They might play a while here and there, getting on to take their turn, or everyone logging on at the same time to play out a good chunk of turns in succession.  I'm not really sure how that would work.  Nevertheless, actual combat engagements would indeed be extremely brief, even without auto-resolve, and so long as they're engaging enough, those rare gems among RTS players will still be content to click the turn button a few dozen times to get their tactical combat fix.

Sadly, I have to agree that it's probably not worth it to implement in that regard, but then again, I don't know why they'd bother with multiplayer in this game either.  As such, there's going to be no tactical combat.  But that said, they are implementing more than just "build the biggest number" fleet composition now.  Ship Roles, standing orders, and whatnot will make for something more than just number crunching, at least slightly, I hope.  Number crunchers need to be hunted down and exterminated in all games, along with their twitch-gamer rivals.

Tactical combat is like any other feature in any other game.  When done right, it's great...when done wrong, it sucks.  So, either you're saying that the feature tactical combat is an inferior form of gameplay even when done correctly, which is absurd...or you're saying you don't trust Stardock to implement it well, no matter the conditions.

And also, with the mines, all anyone can say is that space is too big for mines, but not for all the other impossibly unrealistic parts of the game.  Because the best argument for that was, "space is too big for mines!"  Space is too big for combat of any kind, as I pointed out, thoroughly.  To which the only responses were, "But it works in the game because of the hyperdrive, so it's ok!"  Really?  So as long as it works in the game, it's ok?  Oh good, then we can have mines because it takes only a few to completely cover an entire region of space in the game, for the same cost as a fleet of ships.  Make up your minds because you can't have it both ways.  Argue from reality and nothing in the game works.  Argue from the game and mines are perfectly viable within the confines of its functions.  Choose one.

Tactical combat will not exist in GC, mines will not exist in GC.  The first isn't worth the time and effort to implement, unfortunately...and the second sounds too dangerous because of a vocal (though misguided) minority.  Adding mines seems like it would kill the fan base, though it wouldn't really even scratch those numbers.  And all justified with essentially the most gossamer of reasoning.  Strip it all, and it comes to "I don't like it", and "it's not worth their time".  So since neither will be implemented regardless of complaints or desires either way, how about the rest of you just drop it?

Reply #95 Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 82
Too many people play GC because they're bad at tactical combat, so they don't like games that include it.

Source, please?

For the record, Albion, RoA 1-3, BG 1+2, IWD 1+2, ToEE, MoO 1+2, MoM, AoW:SM, HoMM 2+3, Incubation, JA 2, SotS 1, are all games I either really like, or absolutely love, and they all have tactical combat.

However, I don't want it in GalCiv, because that's not why I play the game, nor is it what the game is about. GalCiv is about building up your civilisation. Combat is just one of the means to do that, not the main focus.

Quoting Tharios, reply 82
Plus, the devs seem to be under the strange impression that it somehow takes away from the rest of the game...which is a bit silly, but it's still a great game anyway.

So, implementing tactical combat wouldn't change the focus of the game, nor would it take away time and money that could be used for other game mechanics?

Reply #96 Top

Quoting Tharios, reply 82
Never happen.  Too many people play GC because they're bad at tactical combat, so they don't like games that include it.

And you're basing that on... what, exactly?

Plus, the devs seem to be under the strange impression that it somehow takes away from the rest of the game...which is a bit silly, but it's still a great game anyway.

Yes, it's a "strange impression" called not having infinite resources. Developer time isn't free. Time spent building tactical combat is time not spent on something else, and they decided to spend it on the "something else" part.

Reply #97 Top

At first we need to determine what is tactical combat - everything up the army level, or games like those Gaunathor listed - Jagged Alliance, Frozen Synapse, Avernum, Geneforge, Avadon, or practically each and every so called "RTS" game - they are anything but "strategies", or games like Blitzkrieg series, Cossacks seires, Total Annihilation, Wargame series (European Escalation/Airland Battles)?

For example I don't like "competitive" Starcraft, it is too pattern-oriented, and require high click-per-minute rate, something I'd rather not do, prefer calmer activities, but I don't mind to play single-player in these games, or play multiplayer with someone I know, where when we can agree on terms of game, because it is not about winning and W/L ration, but having fun for all participants.

As I said multiple times, I do not mind to have better combat in GC3, maybe something closer to SoaSE (only a tad faster), even if I think that ruling in combat is not the job for a person whose role we are playing. It's like Hearts of Iron - you don't tell individual tank whom to attack, you can just tell your generals what you want them to do.

Reply #98 Top

I really hate that we're still drumming the old mine issue. Why? For one, I really like some of your more sensible ideas, and frankly, I would rather talk about them. But the other reason is that it I will admit to feeling furious irritation at your total ignorance of the scale at which we are talking. I know. I know. It's a game not real life so all that doesn't matter. Or does it? Here's a simple fact for you. If you wanted to mine the volume of one Astronomical Unit (the distance from our Sun to Earth), you would need to fill a volume of more than 3.36 octillion cubic miles! The total mass of our solar system (that's everything- every planet, moon, asteroid, comet and of course the sun) is 1.98855 nonillion kilograms, or roughly 591.8 kgs per cubic mile (or 1304.9657 pounds per cubic mile). Please note that this is for illustrative purposes only. At this magnitude the margin of error due to rounding error could easily rival the combined mass of the 8 planets as the mass of the planets is barely more than a rounding error of the sun's mass.

Why am I boring you with these arcane figures?  BECAUSE MATH MATTERS. Warp Drive is not contrary to the laws of physics. Neither is consuming the mass of several solar systems, refining it and processing the materials into mines, and distributing them throughout interstellar or even interplanetary space to constrain the movement of your enemy. The difference is that NASA is currently working on creating a Warp Drive and perhaps in a few centuries we may have one, provided of course that the requisite exotic materials are themselves not impossible to create. Meanwhile, even with a warp drive and a society capable of supporting an industry several orders of magnitude greater than present, you will require millions of years to digest enough material to finish mining our solar system. While both ideas are good science fiction, I challenge you to find one astronomer, physicist, or military strategist that thinks mines are a better idea than warp ships for fighting warp ships.

I will grant you only this. That mines by their other names and more sophisticated modern uses remain relevant to terrestrial (in this case I mean planet-bound) warfare. But the moment we consider the volume of space the idea is plain stupid. It is actually worse than me launching a toy sailboat off the coast of Greenland while you randomly place a a few firecrackers in the South Pacific and expect that I will even bother checking in to see if my little boat needs a course correction to avoid your mines on its way to Hawaii. The odds of collision are remote beyond imagination. I'm not joking. Whatever terrestrial uses you may have for a mine, it requires that there be some sizeable constraints on the maneuvering options of your opponent. I dare you to find one expert who disagrees.

And for final word on this point, I do not hate mines. I would NEVER use mines in space though. Give me a trillion mines, and I would still melt them down and build warships from them and take the war to my enemy, because I know that he cannot use mines against me either. In fact, I might sell your consulting services to my enemy just to bring a speedy end to the war. But on a tightly confined land war with natural barriers I would absolutely use mines if I had any doubts about my ability to end the war without suffering losses at home. I would NEVER rely upon or put any faith in the mines; however, because unlike soldiers they do not follow orders, move when needed, or know the difference between friend or foe. The use would always be limited to those areas in which an army is less suited to do the job. 

So to sum up together with my previous postings on the issue, I have no problems using mines as a weapon in fleet combat. As wall building, I think it should be discouraged. Certainly it can be worked in and possibly quite well. I disagree with it on the principal that it is really bad science fiction, and on the practicality that GalCiv I&II were perfectly engaging and enjoyable games without the introduction of the infinitely divisive and ultimately unnecessary mines. Why continue to pursue the issue except to irritate long-time fans of a game that never needed the annoyance of the dreaded mine-spamming, unless of course you are a helpless mine spammer with no other winning tricks up your sleeve when fighting math-minded opponents? 

Reply #99 Top

I like some of your ideas here (and elsewhere this could be called a meta-response). Being now quite limited in time I will hit only a few briefly. 

Wormholes- Yes limit the number of them. Why? They are a paradigm shift in maneuver and ultimately shrink the map dramatically. If we force ships to have a module to traverse the wormholes, then enemies not as technologically advanced in wormhole technologies will be unable to take advantage of the added maneuver and will suffer an extreme disadvantage. The ease with which a defensive fleet may be outmaneuvered with strategically-placed wormholes would render the winner of this arms race the winner of the game in 9 our of 10 games against equally capable opponents. It would be like playing capture the flag then then suddenly one side jumps on a bunch of dirt-bikes.

There are ways of dealing with that. One- all wormholes must have only two apertures. That is to say it only links two location on the map. Two- ships must be slowed somehow when using the wormholes. We can't have a ship capable of movement before entering, travel the wormhole, exit into a hub of wormholes, move to another wormhole, exit it and still have movement left in that single turn. It's one thing to be unable to outrun a guy. It's another thing entirely to have him popping up unpredictably out of random holes in the map. I've thought of a few ways to slow him down. One, ships must spend a turn prepping to enter the wormhole, and a turn prepping for return to normal space after exiting the wormhole. To make it even more interesting, require that ships traversing a wormhole remain inside it for two or three turns and that the destruction of either aperture while in transit through the wormhole results in the total loss of those units. It has to have an Achilles' heel.

On #11 I suggest Ender's Game once again (the book). The little doctor as it is called for its initials MD which stands of Molecular Disruptor causes all matter to undergo a chain reaction of total dispersion. Don't mean to disappoint but electromagnetism alone won't disrupt the nuclear forces at work at that level, although they can certainly pack a wallop. 

Personally, if we want to imagine new weapons I have a couple suggestions. One would be a kinetically-detonated nuclear warhead usable both as a missile and a mass-driver. Nuclear material can spontaneously explode if it reaches a critical mass. By separating the requisite mass into two sections separated by a short distance that is then collapsed at high speed by its impact on the target, a nuclear warhead could be kinetically detonated. Essentially, one could be firing artillery shells that detonate on impact as a nuclear bomb. If used as a missile, a soft-tip would be nice as it could transfer the energy of the explosion as kinetic energy into the interior of the vessel pulverizing its contents. It would certainly make a persuasive argument for researching the point-defense part of the tech tree.

Also of interest would be Masers. Earlier last year the military unveiled the first ever maser, which is simply the microwave equivalent of the visible-light spectrum laser. This weapon is reported to be harmless to materiel and personnel but devastating to electronics, making it the perfect anti-drone weapon. As I wholeheartedly support the introduction of drones into the GalCiv ship strategy, I think it only fitting that we have a weapon specializing is little else. It could also be used to disable ship components that are not adequately shielded (another arms race). I can already see with relish the irony of drone-killing drones. Most exciting to me, would be the use of cloaked/stealthed vessels using masers in fleet combat to disable an enemy ship. Of course, the moment they fire the weapon, they would give away their position. Nevertheless, in the moment they have to strike, they could disable a valuable asset of the enemy fleet and thereby alter the course of the battle. With further advancement in this tech area, these ships could even board the disabled ships allowing your to steal the enemy ship rather than simply destroying it (or being destroyed by it). Note that this would be an invaluable weapon for a pirate nation. Something to ponder no doubt.   

I must also mention a new game coming out I was only recently alerted to called Planetary Annihilation (or something like that). No, I'm not plugging for them. I just couldn't help noticing a few aspects of the game that would be cool additions of GalCiv. For example, capturing a moon to rain down troops behind enemy lines in a surface war, or strapping rockets to asteroids and annihilating the entire planet. Sounds like fun additions to the game. I picturing a drone carrier ship with thousands of drones on-board entering a solar system but remaining on its fringes. From this safe vantage point it then launches the drones, not at the planet, but at the many asteroids in the system. The drones then attach to the asteroids and use their out-sized nav units and booster rockets to assault the planet with swarms of asteroids numbered in the thousands. Many drones will be lost, perhaps all. But the planet is unlikely to defend itself against all of them. The carrier may have exhausted its compliment of drones, but its dirty work would be complete. We might need an evil morality system to support such tactics, lest we be forced to admit that there are no rules in love and war.   

+1 Loading…
Reply #100 Top

If we both agree on tactical use of mines (within fleets' combat), then I don't understand why we have this discussion. I never proposed blanketing space with mines (unless I wasn't that clear), I propose use of mines tactically, within combat (or right before it).

You launch them from your MRLS (or any other convenient launcher), but instead of missiles/rockets with conventional warheads you use cluster ordance, filled with mines, probably with proximity sensors, and launch them when you're in contact with enemy. The only difference is that when you launch ordinary missiles you aim at dealing direct damage, yet when you launch mines you aim at constraining your opponent movement. Imagine your opponent has ships with powerful, albeit short-ranged weapons. Now you place mines right under their noses, similarly to a way Hedgehoqs and Squids were used in WWII against subs trying to avoid ASDIC, or you turn around your ships and drop "depth charges", pursuing similar goals - to constraint your opponents movement, forcing him to change his course, and maybe, show his less protected areas. Because unless we talking about spherical ships in vacuum (this time - literally) I doubt it is possible to create ship equally protected from all directions.

Yes, of course he could destroy mines you laid, but every moment he is not firing at your ships is your advantage, no? And if they won't stop or shift their fire, they'll be damaged or, maybe, even detroyed.

But for further evaluation we need to know ships' size, strength of the materials they made of (and thence their hulls), and, if we plan to participate in space skeet, we need to know ships' speed and maneuverability, their formations parameters (how close they are to each other, how fast they can change formation, how often they do that), their course (is it straight line, or they perform random zig-zagging, spiralling, barrel rolling, or some stunt flying maneuvers), range of detection, and reaction time.

If ships follows in rather compact formations in straight line (or follow pattern in their maneuvers), if detection range is short and reaction time is long, it shouldn't be much harder than shooting skeet or trap. Otherwise, collision warning system will have enough time to move ship away from possible obstacles before it'll crash into them, at least if ship is agile enough - some big and slow one could ram into them.

This, actually, could be used as deterrant against big ships with weak engines, bad sensors and autopilots, forcing further branch-out studies in many areas, rather then pursuing minumal requirements for dreadnaughts. This also could (and I even go as far as saying "should") make all ships necessary, even small ones, ant not just to soak-up the enemies, but to actually be useful, to protect their bigger brethren.

 

As for mines telling friend from foe... I'm not Naval specialist, but IIRC German mines with magnetic "sensors" could, actually, tell German ship from non-German, because of shipyard orientation and subsequent ship's magnetic field orientation. Moreover, if currently we have rather sophisticated IFF system, there is no actual deterrant from creation of newer, even more sophisticated systems. Move part is somewhat complicated, currently, if mine is not unrecoverable, of course, you  need a lot of sappers, time and some vehicles to relocate them. But if follow "everything could be better in future" (not in utopian meaning), then why not create specified vehicles that could gather and sort already placed mines? Same goes for following orders - if now we have remotely controlled "non-mine"fields, what precludes our descendants from creating something better? So mines, in fact, do follow order - they tend to explode when disturbed. And they loyal, they can't defect. Mines are good - so simple, much cheap, very loyal.

 

I don't know where you served, but I do not understand "where army is less suited" for the job part. Army and mines are not mutually exclusive, or antagonistic. Mines are tool, all they do, is supplementing your soldiers' other tools, and indeed, they don't need any logistics support after they were planted - they don't eat, drink, sleep, completely immoral, need no mails from home, not fall into depression from getting "Dear John letter", not they are going to shoot their comrades because voices in their heads told them to do so.

 

As for "dare" and "challenge" part - you can't beat me, I don't compete. :P