Misophist, I don't see it mentioned in this thread, but it's been brought up in other tactical combat threads. The reason is because most AI can't handle tactical combat even close to the level of the average player. So what happens is that people feel forced to micromanage combat to reduce their losses or have a better chance of winning because they know they'll do better than autocombat. I only liked tactical combat in MoO2 when I had a new ship class or weapon to play with, but I still always did tactical combat for exactly this reason. It just made the game drag out.

Frankly, given the relative simplicity of GC2 combat, you're either going to have a form of combat that would bore you to tears (just choosing which of your ships shoots at which of theirs), or you wind up doing a whole different combat model involving ship speed, weapons ranges, possibly even firing arcs, at which point you now have two distinct and seperate games, but you have to balance them against each other so that the difficulty levels line up, the AI is equally challenging in both modes, etc. Not at all practical.

I don't understand why anyone is arguing against inclusion of user controlled tactical combat in an expansion pack.

Because then Brad would have to program a whole new combat AI, as otherwise it would be way too easy for the human player to win most of the battles. Given all that he already has on his plate, I very much doubt he really has the time for such a project.

Don't get me wrong--I'd love to be able to personally control my ships/fleets. But I wouldn't want the feature implemented unless the combat AI was actually decent. I think back to games like Birth of the Federation and Rome Total War: Both games had battles that were fun to *watch*, but the computer opponents were so lousy it sucked out most of the fun of fighting them myself. (In fact, I wish those two games had had a "combat viewer" mode like GalCiv 2, as at least then I could've watched the pretty battles without having to play them myself!)

Tactical ala Stars! is what I'd like to see (similar to what was suggested above by Doom Kracken). I understand all of Stardock's arguements, but choosing strategies of attack/defence would go a long way toward immersiveness AND avoid the pitfalls of a full tactical engine, which have been pretty boring in most other 4X games..

Maybe if the Tactical component was $50 and enough people actually say they'd preorder it at that price.

Otherwise I doubt Stardock would have the resources nor business interest in doing it.

Frankly, given the relative simplicity of GC2 combat, you're either going to have a form of combat that would bore you to tears (just choosing which of your ships shoots at which of theirs), or you wind up doing a whole different combat model involving ship speed, weapons ranges, possibly even firing arcs, at which point you now have two distinct and seperate games, but you have to balance them against each other so that the difficulty levels line up, the AI is equally challenging in both modes, etc. Not at all practical.

I thought that the MOO1 &2 combat system was pretty good. Granted it was simplistic but there's just something inherently satisfying with out-maneuvering the enemy and firing a weapons. For me, the MOO1 &2 were the most entertaining space strategy games I'd ever played. Now, SEIV's combat system is an example of what not to do. I've never played anything as boring as that. I just want to have some fun blowing up the enemy ships myself.

I really don't understand the selective abstraction that has gone into the game. For example, it's been decided that the ruler of an empire wouldn't be controlling individual ships in battle. Ok, but who cares about that if it's fun. On the other hand we have these weird resources, the logistics resource in particular, that float out in space and impart a logistics benefit to your empire. Excluding user controlled tactical combat just doesn't make sense if you're going to use the argument that the ruler of the empire isn't going to be controlling individual ships in combat.

Sure, it may be difficult to develop a viable tactical AI but if Stardock does do this then they'd have a true heir to MOO2.

While I must agree with what has been said against Tactical. I don't want Tactical pretty much due to someone with lame strategy can make up for with superior tactical battles/wins.

Something I could live with is some say over the battle strategy... like "Target weaker ships first" "Target stronger ships first" "Target troop transports first" "Take out the ships with higher defenses" "Take out ships with lower defenses".. That way the player can have some say over how the military operates and no tactical involvement.

Misophist, the point isn't how good the combat systems are. I never played MoO1, but the MoO2 tactical AI was so simple to outmaneuver it gave me no satisfaction after I saw its blind points, and yet it was stupid enough that I wasn't about to let it be in charge of my ships. THAT is the point. Unless the AI is good enough to be equal to the player, that isn't going to change, and saying that an AI of that quality "may be difficult to develop" is sweeping the garbage under the rug. It would be a major resource drain for something that might not even be good enough to use in the end. Brad would love to have another month of nothing but polishing the strategic AI in GC2.

Look at all the strategy games with a tactical AI, and of all those, how many had a tactical AI that wasn't easy for an experienced gamer to beat? We're just not to the point that an AI can handle all the variables in tactical combat, those sneaky humans are too good at finding loopholes in the rules. The MoO1 repulsor trick is a perfect example. The tactical AI would have to either be programmed to recognize that specific trick, and all other cheese tricks, or would have to have the analytical ability to figure out why it is loosing battles and figure out a way to compensate. The first isn't going to happen because there will always be new cheese tricks, and the second is the kind of AI that exists only in research labs and takes more CPU time than the average consumer computer would have available and still have decent response time.

Right now, the release-level AI is good enough that I find "challenging" against 9 opponents just that. I might win 1 in 3 games, and I used to be one of the higher rated GC1 players. Add tactical combat and the inevitable cheese, and "challenging" is going to loose a lot of its meaning.

i am the emporer and i don't only send my fleets in to battle i want also to controll them..

Do you see President Bush Commanding forces in battle on Iraq??????? NO right????

The first isn't going to happen because there will always be new cheese tricks, and the second is the kind of AI that exists only in research labs and takes more CPU time than the average consumer computer would have available and still have decent response time.

Maybe in 10 years... 

NUFF SAID

Monc34

There hasnt been a ruler of a nation on the battlefield fighting for hundreds of years. Did Winston Churchill, Hitler, Staling, Roosevelt, et al go down and tell the battalions and divisions where to go in the fight for Europe. No!!! As for misophists statement that because there are resources a leader could choose to harvest that they should be able to control individual ships, that is ridiculous. That arguement doesnt make any sense. It isnt abstract at all to say that there could be some resources to harvest that could give an advantage. We have examples of that right on our own planet. What leader wouldnt instruct his people to go out and harvest that with support of government monies. There is a reason that there are generals. It is totally insane to think the president/Emperor of a 50 BILLION person empire would be out controlling his little four man fighters as they attack the enemy. INSANITY!!! I will say that I wont buy the expansion, no matter what it has in it, if it has tactical combat. Go somewhere else if you want a tactical space sim. There doesnt seem to be a huge shortage of games that do that.

There is a reason that there are generals. It is totally insane to think the president/Emperor of a 50 BILLION person empire would be out controlling his little four man fighters as they attack the enemy. INSANITY!!!

EXACTLY

You hit the nail in the Head, well said brigiton.


Monc34

Even if the resources were dedicated to building a tactical combat sim into GC2, the AI that Brad/Frogboy/Draginol keeps working on would be the mind behind it. As he and a veritible plethora of other folks talk every night you can bet that the tweaks would go in that would stop everything they come up with and some. Given that and the fact that its freaking rare that the normal (I mean folks that have an average QT) can be a simple chess AI I think I would rather let the tactical side go on this one and keep focused on the goals.

1) Ship Building
2) Race Configurable

I know there were more goals than them two, but for me, them two were met in beta, on the 21st we will test this.... AI and either be spanked or hand out a tail lashing. I don't have to want to worry about tactics when strategically the odds right now are that I will get my proverbial tail stepped on.

Kinda like Yeah! We won the battle... earth... earth come in Terran Space Agency this is TSA Stormbringer....

****** Incoming Flash Traffic *******
From: Supreme Alliance Command, Terran Space Agency (SAC)
To: All TSA Commaders
Subj: Announcing cessation of hostilities with the Drengin Empire

msg: All commaders are to proceed to the nearest stardock and turn over ships to weapons inspectors there. That is all.

May the Kat Lords have mercy on our souls.

****** End Message ******

Game over....

Tactical Score: Pretty good.
Strategic Score: Freaking lousy cause you lost the war. Your economy is in shambles, your culture is more Korx than Kat.

But hey, you were really good 1 out of 3 times in battle with the AI!

Anywho,

Good Hunting, to all tactically and strategically.

W/R
Suralle Straykat
Kat Lord @ Large

As for misophists statement that because there are resources a leader could choose to harvest that they should be able to control individual ships, that is ridiculous. That arguement doesnt make any sense. It isnt abstract at all to say that there could be some resources to harvest that could give an advantage.

Nope, you're not making sense. The resources are an abstraction that don't seem to be very well tied into the game. There is a metal that improves something, there's a crystal that improves something, there's a fluid that helps morale, umm...ok, I guess, there's a logistics resource (what is it?) that gives you improved logistics...huh? What I'm saying is if we can excuse this handwaving in order to introduce the idea of scarce resources into the game then we can have the the leader of the empire controlling his ships. I don't care that on Earth there hasn't been a ruler on the battlefield. I was able to control my ships in MOO1&2 and it added to my enjoyment of the game. If you're so enamored with the idea that you're really leader of this galactic empire then you should be arguing for a game that shows you only interacting with your ministers of government. What ruler would be doing all the hard work himself? You'd end up with a game where you just hung around the palace deciding what to have for lunch and so forth.

Misophist, the point isn't how good the combat systems are. I never played MoO1, but the MoO2 tactical AI was so simple to outmaneuver it gave me no satisfaction after I saw its blind points, and yet it was stupid enough that I wasn't about to let it be in charge of my ships. THAT is the point.

Ok, but my point, which you missed, is that adding tactical combat wouldn't take away from what you already have. If you choose not fight tactically, you can use the default tactical combat by computer that is already in the game. If you think the default is ok, the just hit the "Let Computer Resolve" button. Also, why do you care if there are cheese tricks? If it bothers you, then don't use it and allow the computer to resolve combat. If you're concerned with others getting a higher score at the game than you, then I don' know what to say. I only play games for my own enjoyment as I play; not for the thrill of having a higher score than someone else.

No, I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Please read my posts again, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

man just go play moo2 and stop crying....

TACTICAL COMBAT: PASSS!!!!!

Monc34

Does anyone remember Rules of Engagement? It’s an old game from around the early 90's. It had an interlocking interface with another game made by the same company that was a squad based combat sim (think X-Com). Why couldn't the same be done by Stardock. Have them make a tactical space fleet game that could interlock with Gal Civ 2. That way you can buy the parts you want. I think that the creation of an adequate tactical AI would be a little overboard, but if you could buy the expansion or a whole separate game, both groups would be happy. If what I've heard about the AI in this game is true, Stardock can do a tactical AI justice as well.

If the tactical combat was done well, like in ROME TOTAL REALISM, than it would be good. HOWEVER, that would be MOO4 and not GC2. Now I remember hearing a rumor that Stardock was considering getting the rights to MOO. If that were the case, I would LOVE Brad making a MOO4 with decent Tactical, as well as Strategic potential. Best case scenario would be a couple of years since we are hoping MOM is the next game after Society

Chris.

Ok, but my point, which you missed, is that adding tactical combat wouldn't take away from what you already have.

You do understand the concept of development time, right? I'd rather the devs spend time making or improving something that I'd use than some tactical minigame, which would exist simply to allow strategically poor players to resolve their problems through tactical dominance because the AI wouldn't be able to fight for squat without some SERIOUS dev time.

o, I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it. Please read my posts again, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

I did read what you wrote and refuted your relevant points.

Does anyone remember Rules of Engagement?

Yep, that was a piece of garbage. It had a slick interface straight out of ST:TNG that that's all you looked at. Lt. Data's bridge console. But your point of a module for tactical combat is a good idea.

My points:

1) GC2 combat is too simplistic to make a tactical combat mode that won't radically alter the balance of ship design etc.

Your response: "I thought that the MOO1 &2 combat system was pretty good." Not what I'd call a refutations.

2) An AI that can effectively deal with the complex variables of tactical combat as implemented like MoO 2 hasn't reached the consumers yet.

Your response: "Sure, it may be difficult to develop a viable tactical AI..." Please understand the scope of this: the developers aren't completely happy with the strategic AI of GC2 yet, after months of work. Frogboy has stated that he'd love to dedicate an entire month to nothing but fine tuning the GC2 AI. I still say that the tactical AI would be more difficult than the strategic AI and would also further complicate the strategic AI, as ship design would become more critical.

3) Tactical combat will make for uneven playing fields, making the Metaverse hard to balance.

Your response: "I only play games for my own enjoyment as I play; not for the thrill of having a higher score than someone else." So your reason for playing are the only valid ones? The same argument cuts both ways, people that don't think the ruler of the empire should be out playing admiral have differing oppinions, and what's to say that their opinion isn't as valid or more so.

Your point:

1) Letting the ruler micromanage resources but not micromanage combat is "selective abstraction". Sorry, I don't buy it. The US president can certainly say that he wants to open up the Alaskan oil reserve (though I don't think he can order it himself), or even invade some country, but when it comes down to the combat, he gets out of the way.

I stand by my initial reply to this thread:

No.


That was the short answer, but some people just don't learn...

1) Brad does not have the time (he being the AI programmer and also CEO of Stardock) nor Stardock the budget, nor users the CPU power to create a proper tactical AI that would actually make such a component worthwhile. Because face it, every other tactical AI in every other game to date has pretty much sucked, period.

2) He's stated in pretty much every other thread on this subject exactly what Popup Target has been saying. Firstly, that it creates an entirely seperate game within the game, and requires you to play a role other than that of emperor (and being emperor is the point of the game, not being an admiral or commander). Secondly, because of point (1) above, tactical combat inevitably becomes a crutch for those lacking in strategic skills. If the tactical AI is junk, you can outmaneuver it in tactical every time despite having a pitiful economy, low technology level, etc, compared to the computer players.

Two words that make all the difference between MOO tactical combat and GalCiv's combat system: Weapon range.

My points: 2) An AI that can effectively deal with the complex variables of tactical combat as implemented like MoO 2 hasn't reached the consumers yet. Your response: "Sure, it may be difficult to develop a viable tactical AI..." Please understand the scope of this: the developers aren't completely happy with the strategic AI of GC2 yet, after months of work. Frogboy has stated that he'd love to dedicate an entire month to nothing but fine tuning the GC2 AI. I still say that the tactical AI would be more difficult than the strategic AI and would also further complicate the strategic AI, as ship design would become more critical.

Like I said, I'm not asking for perfection. Even the admittedly flawed MOO1&2 implemention would be better than the Civ type combat abstraction. I know there's a cinematic view of the battles but it would still be good to control the battles by hand.

3) Tactical combat will make for uneven playing fields, making the Metaverse hard to balance. Your response: "I only play games for my own enjoyment as I play; not for the thrill of having a higher score than someone else." So your reason for playing are the only valid ones? The same argument cuts both ways, people that don't think the ruler of the empire should be out playing admiral have differing oppinions, and what's to say that their opinion isn't as valid or more so.

So, if in choosing to resolve battles tactically results in a score that isn't accepted into the metaverse rankings, then you'd be happy? They can do it that way then.

Your point: 1) Letting the ruler micromanage resources but not micromanage combat is "selective abstraction". Sorry, I don't buy it. The US president can certainly say that he wants to open up the Alaskan oil reserve (though I don't think he can order it himself), or even invade some country, but when it comes down to the combat, he gets out of the way.

Well then you'd also have to not buy letting the user control ship design. When does Dubya have time or expertise to design the vechicles that the US military uses? When it comes to military technology design, he gets out of the way. Cut out the ship design from GalCiv2 cause no ruler would get down and dirty in ship design.

Two words that make all the difference between MOO tactical combat and GalCiv's combat system: Weapon range.

Hmm...what does that mean? Since you're reading this thread, Brad, please keep an open mind on tactical combat. If anyone can do it, it's you and Stardock. My faith in your work is what convinced me to pre-order last March. Thanks.

Tactical combat, to me, isn't a sub-system of a larger game... it is a game all its own. To devote the resources necessary to build a good tactical combat system, you're essentially making a second game. The tactical combat system in the MoO games was horrible, even for the time. It was too easy to outsmart the computer, and the options available were a joke. Anything short of an RTS, or slow-RTS like Nexus would be proclaimed a "disappointment" by most gamers.

Yeah, you could do combat turn-based too... but you'd still need an incredibly sophisticated system to do it... completely new UI, new AI, a lot of new code in the battle viewer, in the combat code... For all the coding that went into the main game, I'd guess at least 25-50% more would be required to put in a tactical combat component that was on the same quality level as the main game.

All for a component so many people would click "auto" next to, just like they do in most other games like this that offered tactical.

People point out that Space Empires has it... but SE has everything and the kitchen sink... but crap AI that can't handle it. You can't do feature comparisons between GC2 and SE4/5 as they're taking completely different approaches. SE is a shotgun approach where it tries to include everything concievable, but the quality level in terms of polish etc is limited. GC2 picked a very narrow set of features (comparatively) and really did them right. Comparing SE and GC is like comparing Risk to Axis & Allies... similar games sure, but completely different approaches.

You have some the snappiest responses of all the users on this forum.