Suggestions for expansion/sequel

TrashMan

Join Date 05/2006

Suggestions for expansion/sequel

Let's make the game better!

I enjoy playing GalCiv2 so far, but there are some aspect where it could preform much better.

Let's start:

1. SHIP COMBAT - the ability to have some degree of control over the battle (could be researched - like Remote Field Command tech). Something like in Birth of the Federation.
Basicly you can select a single ship, all ships of the same class or a group of ships that fit the same category (command ship, scouts, fast attack ships, assault ships, non-combat..) and then give them general orders (flank, circle, ram, evade, strafe, chase,...) and then select the target (or target group). Click go and the battle starts with the ships trying to follow the orders the best they can. After 10 or so seconds the game auto-pauses and you can change orders.
Simple and effective.
Allso, weapon normals are a must. Let the ship fire when their guns are alligned with the target. Tuurets track and fire.

2. WEAPONS - too plain and not diverse enough. and hte division is bad. It should be devided into ENERGY WEAPONS (Laser, plasma, etc....), MASS DRIVERS and MISSILES. So what's hte differense you ask? The difference is that laser and plasma are DIFFERNT weapons, with different pros and cons that are researched independently. For instance, lasers have long range and high accuracy (due to their speed), but low damage, while plasma is devastating but has short range. Allso energy weapons aren't beams by default, they can allso be pulse weapons.

Let's deepen this a bit - ability to create your OWN WEAPON. How? Well, you research a tech..let's say plasma. Now you want to make a new weapon next ot the default opnes you get. You get a screen where you select the base weapon type (energy, mass driver, missile), sub-type (laser, plasma) and delivery system(beam ,pulase) and then you get displayed it's stats - range, accuracy, damage, size, power requirements, rate of fire...And each oif this stats you can increase or decrease with the + and - icons. The more you increase the stats, the more costly the weapon becomes and the longer it takes to build it and mantain it...needles to say it increases allmost exponentially. The more - you put in, the price goes down....Auto-balance.
Next you select it's apperance (normal and turreted) and give it a name and then you get to research it and later use it:D

One more thing to add is the abiltiy to actually have turrets and fixed weapons, and for that to matter in the battle.
So when equipping a ship you select if hte weapon is forward fixed, is it a forward turet (90° fire cone) or one of the full turrets (180° or 270° or 360°).
Next you select it's mount. The bigger the mount, the more space it takes up, but so does it deal more damage. Same for smaller mounts.

3. SHIP PARTS - more of them...lot more...and maby give all races acess to all standard hull parts (the cockpit parts).
Allso, the ability to encase a engine, so basicly changing it's appearance to something more armored and rugged looking..

4. RESEARCH - Alliances and Trade should be available from the very begining. It just doesn't make no sense that I can't make a alliance or trade with a race I'm good friends with. Especiall since I can build mammoth colony ships, so freighters should be very simple. the same could be said for transports..you shoudl get the earlier...

To connect with the weapons thingy, if you research energy weapons you woudl get 3-4 new options - plasma based weapons, lasers, tachions, etc.. Increasing level in each of them would give some bonuses to the basic design. And I'm not talking just size reduction - it can be anything - from rate of fire to damage to range to size....

Some racial specials would be nice - special tech that once researched can be implemented into ships or weapons...for instance - focusing cristals or gattling technology. So if you have gattling tech as a special you researched, you can design your new plasma gun and add the gattling special to it for drasticly increased ROF (for a substantial cost)

5. BALANCE - we're dealing with to osmall a numbers.. bigger numbers = more room for differences and balance. Increase HP of all ships 10 fold.. a hp ship becomes a 60hp one. Weapons would allso get an increase so more subtle differencs can be achived. the armor shoudl be implemented differenlty - when giving the ship armor you select the thickness - light, medium or heavy - and hte size, protection factor and cost are adjusted accordingly.
Smaller ships should be faster than large ones, and their speed and agiltiy should be their asset. Simply link the engine speed with ship mass. Smaller ship = less mass to push = more acceleration
This will make smaller ships usefull in battle as they will avoid getting hit and try to flank larger ships.

6. MORE DIPLOMACY OPTIONS - non-agression treaty (both nations recognize teritorial borders..AI will not try to colonize your planets), Research Alliance (BIG research boost), AFFILATE (your ships can go into orbit of your affilate nad use their starbases)

I got more but don't have time to type it all down now....

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I kind of like Marcathonas' posts. I mean, we can't just all gather around and have a pow wow and agree with every single idea out there. I have a hard time getting on top of the other strategic parts of the game as it is, I'd dislike for my battles to become an effort in futility too, I kind of just like kickin back every once in awhile and watchin stuff blow up. I'd rather see random battles, it feels kind of munchkin that the fleets just line up, and take turns pickin on one ship at a time.

Is there anyway to trade maps with your allies? Cause if there isn't, thats the kind of thing I'd like to see, in the form of a tech, or treaties or some such. I always have one ally that I'm never able to find who ends up being wiped out. It'd be nice to be able to see the armada of dewm closing in on his homeworld and be able to try to stop it, without building a dozen scout ships and stationing them at every ones home planet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

whoops

Successfully updated karma reason!

After reading many other posts, here are some I would like to see.

Espionage improvements
sabotage missions
Tech theft
counter-espionage (to protect against the 2 above)
There are probably several others, but these are a couple that I think are doable in a patch, but may
require an expansion pack

Diplomacy improvements
more interaction with AI's, lots of this has already been discussed
Civ borders: Don't change the Influence as it is now, but add a component to the diplomacy to
negotiage for sectors. Something like offering a Peace Treaty in return for sectors 5,2 and
5,3 being off-limits to the opponent.
There can be ways to expand on this...
Challenge AI Civs: "keep your ships off my lawn" syndrome. Allow us to warn/threaten the AI's
that certain things will provoke a response (trade embargo, breaking alliances, total annihilation)

The annual United Planets gathering.
We need to be able to see what the agenda is BEFORE the meeting arises. this can be done in the form
of diplomatic screen (the Torian ambassador is on the phone Mr President, he wants to talk about ...).
This gives us the ability to negotiate for getting a civ to vote with us on the UP topic.
Somewhere on the dialog with the treaties screen, there needs to be a list of the agenda topics that the
various AI's are concerned with bringing before the UP, and we need a check list so we can attempt to
get our agenda on the docket.

Better camera controls in the Combat Viewer. I find it nearly impossible to get a good view of the battles because the camera response when I try to zoom/rotate etc. is sluggish. Maybe selecting a camera view from any of the ships in the battle would work?

Cheers,
Reaver

Successfully updated karma reason!

Re: Tactical Combat

While I don't necessarily think that full blown tactical combat is necessary, I would like to see some improvements to the current system that are generally found in Tactical systems.
1) Formations. Right now, ships just sort of line up haphazardly, and when I have a couple of troop transports Fleeted with some escort ships, the defensless transports are alway put in a vulnerable position. I would like the ability to place ships so that I can screen those transports better.
2) Tactics. The abilty to select from a list of tactical styles would offer a little bit more combat control while not bringing in too much cheese factor. Options like Defend weaker ships, Concentrate Strongest, Concentrate weakest, Spread Attack (attack all ships at once), even a Defend Transports would be a good option.

The addition of these features would give a more tactical feel to the control of battles, w/o having to massively overhaul the system to full blown tactical combat.

Cheers,
Reaver

Successfully updated karma reason!

2) Yup, the weapon tech list (No, it is not a tech tree, don't even try to pretend that it is) is a bit weak and needs more flavour, (BTW does anyone know if the neutral civs get any of the weopons and defences we are promised or is increased morale and those loverly tech buildings it....?), hell they could even make the tech list into a tree by making sure you have to sometimes research two or more things to get to a certain tech. Also a laser is a 'coherent' beam of 'electromagnetic' radiation.....

What would be much better is if techs were decoupled from applications.

You research techs, and use combinations of them to produce an application such as "lasers".

These could combine in various intricate ways, for example "optical computers" would not only require developing the application "lasers", but some other techs as well.

Of course, this level of complexity would not appeal to every player, so the idea would have to be developed with interaction between devs and users to determine where the balance would be struck between complexity and playability to satisfy the greatest number of users. perhaps a setting could be made for those who wanted it, to research applications rather than techs, which would be much like the existing system.

Then again, like a lot of the ideas in the OP, this might be better as a feature for a new game, i.e.: GC3.

Edit: P.S.: What is with all this "tactical combat" crap again? GC is not a tactical game. GC is an empire-building game. You are Caesar, not Theseus.

Successfully updated karma reason!

hese could combine in various intricate ways, for example "optical computers" would not only require developing the application "lasers", but some other techs as well.

Galciv1 did sort of that. You researched x from one tree, and Y from the other, and HEY! you can get z!
I thought that was kind of cool. But there are 2 divisions now, those that say the tech tree is too complicated (wth?) and those that say it is too simple. I thought the old way was really cool, but if people think it's too complicated now, you can only imagine what would have happened to them with the old system.

Successfully updated karma reason!

* long reply *

Ups...sorry about the multiple post.. On my end I kept getting some error and my post didn't show up, so I thought it didn't come trough..guess I was wrong.

Now to adress the issues:

1.
I don't see what's wrong with tactical combat. It's a FUN and STRATEGIC thing. Jsut becouse you (or some others) don't want it, doesn't make protesting against a good move. Give people options - those who want tactial combat may use it, those that don't want can just autocalc. This way you are catering to a greater group of players. More optiones ALLWAYS = better

And since ypou only get several basic tactics, even the AI cna use them with good efectivnes.

Of course, the effectivnes would depend on ship type, his tactic and hte enemy ship type and it's tactic.

Example?
The enemy has a asault ship (long range artillery) and it's orders are "long range attack" - basicly to keep it's distance and fire. Depending on what ship type you have you have different options.
If you have light ships your best bet would be to strafe with them. A Battleship might have enough shields and armor for a even a frontal assault, alltough circling it may be better. Alternativly, if you have fighters, evading and flanking might be best.

2.
Ok..you're alergic to anything tactical (or is it jsut tactical combat?). Why do you then play a strategy game? Should it be all about STRATEGY/TATICS?

3.
engine casings? Why? Maby becouse I don't want my engines to glow like neon lamps from ALL sides...

4.
It does make sense that you have to do some market research before trading and that you have to be on good terms with the aliens, but you have the MASSIVE colony ship, which can transport people AND materials - yet you have to reearch trough half the research tree before you can make a ship that transports just one of those things? Makes NO sense to me.. You get freighters and troop transports too late in the game. They should be available sooner.
And after universal translators are researhed you should be able to explain the concept of alliance or trade to a sentient species very easily....

5.
While fighter speeds can be debatable, smaller ships DO acelerate faster than bigger ships...the question is - how long does it take them to reach that top speed? And in a space battle, with lots of doging and changing of your direction, better acceleration IS important, as it means changing your vector sooner, thus avoid getting hit...
As for multipplying - ti's far from pointles, as the weapons are multplied as well. What this makes possible is greater diversity in weapons and protecction. It doesn't make it any easier to slip up...

6.

Research alliance would mean sharing of Researhc Points - not directing the allay research. Basicly, both sides would get a boost in their research..that could be even biiger IF you both research the same tech...

Oh..and don't tell me you never wished to tell your ally to BUG OFF with his constructor/colony ship that's deep in your territory....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Nuff said about Tactical combat then....except...... look at all the wonderfull new options for ship building and planetside defence we could have:

i) carriers and one man fighters/bombers.
ii) orbital defence sats- upgradable
iii) minefields
iv) long/short range weapons
v) formations
vi) planetary defences to shoot into space
vii) boarding ships to damage/ takeover craft(this has to be expensive as it is easily cheesed)
viii) troop killing weapons.

this would add variety to the vanilla battles we have at present....but if the ai doesn't put up much of a fight then it is all quite useless, better the system we have at present.

Do some people really say the tech list is complicated???

what is the world coming to?

Mistofeles - i like the idea, it should def. have been included from the beginning. BTW Ceasar spent more than a quarter of a century fighting various campaigns as a general.....

(People should really read some in the forum before making the same requests as dozens before them...)

- theres probably thousands of posts now so, who really has the time to do that? and also there's nothing like repetition to get the point accross....was wondering when you'd show up to give your two cents worth

The UP:

The random element at the moment is a bit lame. we should be able to choose a nominal leader who is able to choose what comes up in the annual meeting, be it increased taxes on war, limiting starbase modules...whatever.
the frequency of the meetings should increase so there is more impact to the game.

I want so much!

later init.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't see what's wrong with tactical combat. It's a FUN and STRATEGIC thing.

There is nothing wrong with tactical combat. In a tactical combat game. This is an empire-building game.

And no, sorry to say, but tactical combat is, by definition, NOT a strategic thing.

Also, having tactical combat as an option will mean that people who do use it, and people who don't will be playing completely different games, because no computer can beat a good human tactician. So, if you're going to have a tactical GC game, have a tactical game - separate and distinct from GC2.

Ok..you're alergic to anything tactical (or is it jsut tactical combat?). Why do you then play a strategy game?

Precisely my point - if you want to have tactics, why are you playing a strategy game?

Strategy and tactics are two separate aspects of any operation, they are on a completely different level from each other. Strategy is the "big picture", tactics is the "details". The commander in chief does not micromanage the activities of each soldier or unit (or starship pilot), he sends a fleet somewhere and tells them to "destroy them bug-eyed freaks!"

While fighter speeds can be debatable, smaller ships DO acelerate faster than bigger ships...the question is - how long does it take them to reach that top speed? And in a space battle, with lots of doging and changing of your direction, better acceleration IS important, as it means changing your vector sooner, thus avoid getting hit...

Have you even been involved in real space-fighter combat, or real space combat of any kind? Even on a theoratical basis, the g-forces involved in "dodging" any weapon of any type that GC2 uses would kill a human being, be it beams (almost instantaneous, you sure wouldn't see it before it hit you), mass drivers (much, much faster than a "speeding bullet") or missiles (which would likely be the slowest but still much faster than could be dodged without creating incredible g-forces).

As for how fast a fighter might accelerate compared to a larger ship, it is not the size of the ship that determines this, it is the thrust/mass ratio, and still g-forces come into it because a 5G manoevre is a 5G manoevre, whether you are in a battle cruiser or an interceptor. Remember, we are talking about spacecraft, not aeroplanes. The reason a 747 takes longer to veer or turn than an F-18 is that there is a lot more wind resistance to the 747 and the larger mass puts a greater strain on individual components, also largely due to the wind resistance. The reason the 747 takes longer to accelerate is a combination of a lower thrust/mass ratio combined with the aforementioned factors.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There are a lot of games out there that had both strategic AND tactical combat - and were very sucesfull...like Birth of hte Federation..the Total War series..

Catering to a bigger player base is a smart thing, and frankly, if you don't know how to use a game aspect effectivly, you don't have to use it. The trick is to add enough option to hte combat to gtive player some influence, while at the same time making those options simple and limited enough that a AI can be scripted to use them quite effectivly.

That's why I was suggestion general orders (like flank, circle, strafe, ram, evade, retreat..), as they can be scripted efectivly.
And trough history there were many leaders that were involved in combat...that's hte thing about being a leader that you CAN do it if you want to. What if I want to play as a conquering/war leader? Yet you insist that I shouldn't be given an option to do so and that I HAVE to play a leader that sits in his office all the time.
That's what options are for. If you don't want to use tactical combat, that's your call, but you can't claim that putting it in would be unfair and bad. I MIGHT have an advantage over you.. if hte AI is scripted in a good way it will be a minimal one...but hten agan one player will allways have some advantage over another one for god knows what reason..

And I have enough knowledge about stellar physics, tank you very much - I know what I'm talking about.
Smaller and more agile target = harder to get hit = smaller ships having SOME PURPOSE.

Successfully updated karma reason!