huhoh

another form of possible campaign in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

This is probably also a much-discussed topic, but here it goes: It think a campaign would be a lot more interesting, if done warzone 2100-style, instead of a row of missions connected only by story. In warzone, you had a small starting location. Once you finished that mission, the map was enlarged (all you possessions still were there where you built them). Thus, if we start in galciv2 on a tiny map, another portion of the map could be added. This would enable us to prepare for what's com

Reply to Selling Galciv2 in Galactic Civilizations II GalCiv2 Forums

And so, if you want to sell the game, it's all about transferring the serial number - however, that automatically also means to share the account, which is bound to that serial, if it was used to download content already. Or so I think. I'd be interested on what stardock thinks of that matter? Whether they find it ok that people resell their game or not. Obviously a resold game is lost revenue for them. However, if every one of the 100.000 who bought galciv2 already did sell his game and the

Reply to Selling Galciv2 in Galactic Civilizations II GalCiv2 Forums

You can't? And what happens, if the seller simply gives the buyer his serial?

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

hey meisen, I also registered just to start this one single post about tac-combat, so you're welcome. From the poll it seems that people generally simply want more options: bei it through tactical ombat, for example: I know I am going to loose this battle, but I really want to just take out those troop transports, no matter the cost! Or be it through more diplomatic actions, for exam

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

And that's why I was asking for homeworld-style: There I could pause at any moment and think through all commands I was about to give. Since galciv is so single-player oriented (which I like), this is very much feasible here as well. Infact, this could be used to free up some computational time for the AI as well, because basically, as long as the player thinks, the CPU is mostly idling.

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

I'm not trying to wedge. However, I know quite some people who say: If it's not turn-based, then it's shit. Then there are other people who say: If it's not real-time, it will be too cumbersome to play. How about addings something like selective playing out of battles: When only two or three ships clash, than play it out automatically (or let the player choose). If there are more shi

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Hey frogboy, thanks for putting up the vote. However, while taccombat seems to win, this is *not* as clear an issue as it seems: Because basically the taccombat-crowd is probably splitted into fractions, at the very least along the real-time vs. turn-based discussion. Also, advanced diplomacy is probably a lot easier design- and implementation-wise than taccombat. So I am really curious on what you will make out of the results of the poll. <img src="http://images.stardock.com/gc2/T_DL/smiles/Smi

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

One more comment about the AI thing: 10 years ago graphics were the most horrible and most visible thing about computer games. Now we have 3D graphics accelerators. Nowadays the main media thinks that game-physics is the most horrible about computer games and now were are beginning to see physics accelerators. (Or implementing physics in hardware is much more easy as a standard, compared to other things) I think in some ten years from now, once graphics and phys

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

I am too surprised by these responses. I take it, that frogboy hasn't got a lot of time recently to recuperate a bit. Besides - of course will we play sword of the stars and Space Empires V, but neither of these game have a chance to come close to the balancedness of the strategic gameplay offered by Galciv and so we will continue to have this unfortunate situation described somewhere on the first page: Either you've got good global strategy, Or you get good tactical combat, but never both.

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Frogboy, What do you actually think about such ideas of two interlinked games as I have described at the bottom of the first thread-page? That solution is pretty elegant with respect to gamedesign, because you'd combine two very different games (tactical combat and global strategy) without having to break the one or the other. And by the way, I don't think the AI needs to be unbeatable. It's more important to make it enjoyable. Because, see, the extreme point of AI-development is like

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

I agree about Galciv2 *not* being fun to the end, not even to the middle. There is, in fact, not a single game I actually played to the point where you have to decide between the alignment of your race. (I either always win before, or get bored because I am anyway winning - even on the highest difficulty level) After the first few games it also doesn't make much sense to use the zoomed-in view, where you see your ships. I began to play exclusively on a very zoomed out view, because that's where

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Hmm, how about something completely new: Making a second game which is closely linked to Galciv 2 in the following way: The new game would be a homeworld-style mix with privateer, where you are a mercenary with a few ships and are hired to help out in this or that battle. In the background a galciv2 engine actually slowly plays out against itself and the various civilizations hire you to aid them in their efforts. But you can become so mighty by building up a sufficiently l

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Hmm, how about something completely new: Making a second game which is closely linked to Galciv 2 in the following way: The new game would be a homeworld-style mix with privateer, where you are a mercenary with a few ships and are hired to help out in this or that battle. In the background a galciv2 engine actually slowly plays out against itself and the various civilizations hire you to aid them in their efforts. But you can become so mighty by building up a sufficiently l

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

The visuals of the current combation resolution screen is meant to be more symbolic and was programmed by a freshmen. For that, they are incredibly good. In fact, they are so good, that the more I began to want a tactical combat, not just a show. And about exploiting - well, if someone is technologically advanced, then it's only ok, if he has more options at hand to exploit. Of course, certain techs made it way too easy, but that's basically just a balancing issue.

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

nice post, frookie. You have a calm manner of discussing, this is good in promoting any idea. Have you any idea whether it's possible to at least make such a poll as discussed above possible?

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

@Phoenix: I know that the game is written in C++ and all that. But this doesn't make it impossible to offer any kind of interface to any other programming language. It only makes it slightly more complicated. And the API thing - it's basically calling a large array of functions burried deep in the game-code. Offering them to a module is what I (and everyone else) call an interface. And no, this doesn't imply that the AI needs to be 'scripted'. I meant fully programmed AIs.

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

> Implementing tactical combat into a GC game would be the absolute best way to make sure I won't buy it. So I take it, you'd vote for point 5. And that's back to the topic of this thread: I would like to have just a poll about this. I simply would like to know, how many people think like you. But remember, that tactical combat would remain an option, so you'd not have to fight it out (unlike in Total War: Rome, where the numbers game was terribly unbalanced) @Pe

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

In fact, I'd also buy a stand-alone game, where I could design my ships with the ship-editor from galciv2 and then fight it out in some tactical combat. But combined with a greater sense of purpose by actually do it inside of galciv, would be the nicest option, of course. Those that say that Moo3 proved that this is impossible to do balanced miss the point that Moo2 proved the opposite. About the challenge: that's indeed intricate and there's no simple answer to how to make

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

So, given the lacking interest in this topic, I guess, we won't even see a poll about it. It's a pity, to be honest, but I can still hope for SEV then. FROOKIE: By the way, Space Empires IV has already been released on steam, so you can get it there. I have it for some years now already, from the point on, when it was originally released.

Reply to What would you pay good money for in an expansion? (The unofficial inquiry) in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Tactical space combat, see also here: https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=346&AID=118121

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Marcathonas: Yes, I happen to be even something like an AI researcher. So I know exactly, that training a simple AI to recalculate the value of certain ship constellations (or strength weightings) based on the outcome of battles is a pretty easy thing to do. I'd even volonteer to do such a thing. Frankly, I think the problem with this forum is that too many too intelligent people are here. This leads to many very good arguments being thrown that way and this way. In the same time each

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Marcathonas: Well, even though the player wipes the hell out of the AI in the battles in Rome: Total War, the game still remains highly interesting to play. It's all about adjustments: Once you know, you can beat a three times bigger army just because your'e better, you will constantly find yourself in battles with even worse odds and hoping to win it. This makes both the strategy more interesting (will these troops suffice to hold the line?) down to the tactical level (if I loose this battle, w

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

Oh, and one more comment on Space Empires V: If you have a look at the released screenshots, then you will see all kinds of controls necessary to control various participating ships in the battle screens. Why would they have it, if there's no way to control the ships? That, and the fact that Space Empires has always also been about playing out the battles leaves no doubt, that you will have a battle engine much like homeworld, but more detailed (at least because you have handrafted each and ever

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

And by the way, the AI isn't so much in a disadvantage if you do not allow to save within a battle. In fact, for larger battles, the AI is in a clear advantage, even for professional players. And then, just like in Total War, you can still choose to not play out most of the minor battles. Instead use just what we have now, some automated resolve.

Reply to Any chance for tactical combat? in Game Talk GalCiv2 Forums

So it all boils down to the following voting options: Would you like to see tactical combation in Galciv2? 1 Yes, real-time, just like homeworld 2 Yes, turn-based, but full combat, like Space Empires IV 3 Yes, but a significantly simplified version 4 Either turn-based or real-time, just don't simplify things! 5 No, any version would detract from the game as a whole 6 I don't care To the argument against a full-blown implementation: See Rome Tot