| Becouse it's TURN based, not real time. And it would be impossible to calculate who destroyed whom first and the destroyed ship shouldn't fire at all... |
Actually (and I'm sorry for comparing GalCiv to yet another strategy game), but Birth of the Federation had simultaneous turns in combat--or "phased real-time battles" as some have called it--and it was able to calculate the damage just fine, even if both sides lost ships in a single combat turn. (Granted, it was one of the few things that game *did* do fairly well, but that's a discussion for another time and place.
) All I'm saying is that *is*, in fact, possible to do.
| I do hate it that there is no retreat for the loosing side. |
Yeah, I'm kinda bummed about that too. But I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult to program the AI to "know" when it should cut its losses and withdraw--especially since it would constantly have to deal with different fleet make-ups throughout the whole game. And if they were going to do that, then they might as well build a whole tactical AI, which we know just isn't possible at this point....
| This is just a matter of giving the attacker a slight advantage. If it was simul, then it would not matter if you attacked or let the other guy attack you. For very disparate fights (ie, a single star-fighter with a 1 attack and 0 defense versus a battleship with a 10 attack and a 10 defense), it won't matter which attacks first, but for something very much closer, being the attacker and getting the first shot can be important. |
Right, I understand that part. Hmm, I think I've been phrasing the question the wrong way here.... I guess what I'm really asking is, *Why* do the attackers get to fire first (and therefore get the advantage) instead of just having the attacker and defender fire at the same time--especially (as you pointed out, Star Pilot) in close battles, where that could make all the difference? Is it because the defenders would otherwise have a natural advantage that needs to be countered? Is it because it's assumed the attacker would automatically have the initiative anyway? Is it because simultaneous turns are a much bigger pain in the butt to program, and this was simply a lot easier? (And no, that last question isn't sarcasm; I really wouldn't know.)
Sorry, I'm not trying to be a pain. I've already pre-ordered GalCiv 2 (which I have no intention of cancelling), I'm pretty sure I'm going to like it, and this certainly isn't a deal-breaker for me. It's just that with all the sophisticated AI Stardock is putting into this game, it struck me as slightly odd that the attacker would get to go first "just because".... Anyway, thanks for the responses, Spacer Voyager & Star Pilot.
| DId you read my first statement Citizen Martok - Ever heard of Moo 2? One of the best selling games of all time. Obviously people didn't think it was that boring! |
Yes, Star Ranger, I'm well aware MOO2 is widely considered to be a classic. I myself am among the minority that didn't particularly care for the game (although I certainly understand its appeal), but I realize that's not terribly relavent. What *is* perhaps relavent is that even among those I know who loved the game (and I've known quite a few), the vast majority of them have said that the tactical combat, while being fun to watch, was one of the game's biggest weaknesses. Smaller ships were always at a disadvantage, and it was too easy to beat the AI. If I'd ever bothered to compile all the stories, anecdotes, and forum posts about a MOO2 player smashing an AI fleet while losing only 1-2 ships even when outnumbered, it would probably be enough to fill up a set of encyclopedias!
When you start winning that many lopsided victories in a strategy game, it starts to get boring and lose its replayability. Seriously, when you know you can beat the AI in battles all the time, what's the point in playing? And there are too many empire-building games out there (besides just MOO2) that are like that. Since I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Brad & Co. know all this (sorry, I couldn't help the sarcasm there), and since they also wanted to make sure they invested their resources in areas they knew would be fun and/or have a major impact on the game, that's why GalCiv 2 isn't going to have player-controlled combat.
As I indicated in my earlier post, I'd be just as thrilled as you if this game *did* have tactical combat implemented--but not if it was going to come at the cost of decent strategic AI, ship design, diplomacy, etc. This isn't Homeworld or Nexus. In an empire-building game like GalCiv, tactical combat matters less than the other stuff. Yes, I will probably miss it somewhat, but I completely understand the reasons why Stardock isn't including it. If I were them, and were limited by the time and budget restraints that they've had to deal with, I doubt I would've done things much differently (if at all). I know I'll enjoy the game either way.
