I need some Rationalization..

to make this game work for me.

from GalCiv2 Forums
Hello!
I just purchased this game and although I must admit to liking the mechanics and the general gist of it, there are two fundamental problems with it that are really hindering my enjoyment of it. Could someone please rationalize these two points for me (explain it away through some kind of tecnho-jargon) so that I can let my sense of realism not ruin the game experience for me?

A) Why is the universe 2d, flat, and distances so abstracted ? I understand ships have hyperdrives which render great distances manageable, but the having two solar systems a stone's throw away, not to mention a planet's orbit almost as far as some star systems are to each other, just rings wrong in my mind, especially because starships have a constant speed. It doesn't make sense how a ship could take almost as long to get from one planet to another in the same solar system as to a planet in another.

Also, why is the universe flat? Shouldn't systems be accessible along a 3d plane, hence having a 'sphere' of influence?

B) weekly time line seems silly. I'm able to build colony ships and create new colonies, all within a year? And then have their population double? But then conversely, research simple subjects like how to make an alliance take forever and ever. Time seems to have little meaning in this world.. I kind of thought the old MOO1 turn basis of a year having more sense when empire building.

But then, maybe I'm approaching these issues all wrong. Justify them to me!! I'll be a happier man.
11,585 views 15 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Because it's a game.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
As to your first complaint, see https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=164&AID=88141 and https://forums.galciv2.com/?ForumID=164&AID=79448
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If I were managing a civ . . . I'd want a simple interface . . . maybe 2d?

It's not really the galaxy, it's just a representation. Most people that go mountain climbing don't have 3d representations . . they have 2d and contour lines. And is space . . you don't need contour lines.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I kind of thought the old MOO1 turn basis of a year having more sense when empire building.


Except that in order to make fleets/go to war/conquer someone with a turn being a year usually makes most wars 50 year affairs that require 10 years just to create a single ship. Weeks 'feels' more right to me.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Ascendancy had 3-D galaxies, but you could only travel from star-to-star by taking specified "warp lanes".

Maybe GCIII will have 3-D galaxies which are divided up into cubes...
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The 2 D effect is central to the kind of game it is. You might also notice that planets and stars are practically bumping into each other, unlike space which is almost entirely empty. Some abstractions like this are needed to bring the universe down to the size of your 17" monitor.

The weeks thing is just a goofy cosmetic error, like having the mike boom dipping down into a scene in a cheap 1970s movie. It doesn't matter to the scene, but it DOES MATTER, because you just keep looking at it and it reminds you: THIS IS JUST A MOVIE. We don't want to be reminded: THIS IS JUST A GAME. We want to feel like we are there, to be "into" the experience. Hopefully they fix it.

Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's 2D for a very good reson it would be methinks very hard to make it 3D, first of all your going to be adding a Z-axis to your y and x one meaning the player needs some way to also move down the new Z-axis as well as going left and right, then you have the problem of representing it when you zoom.

I Also find weeks far more relistic than years hopefully they dont nerf it
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I don't think weeks is bad. If it really bothers you, then you should remember that weeks are based on rotation about the sun, so the length of a 'week' is completely arbitrary, and while you can presume that there is probably a standard for what a week is, it's not necessarily an Earth week - especially since all races, no matter which one you play - use time in weeks.
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The starlanes made the 3d effect in Ascendency primarily cosmetic. Starlanes also make AI easier to program, since it allows one to easily defend choke-points. (Not that the AI in Ascendency was particularily good. . .)

A fully 3D galaxy would be cool, but it might also complicate gameplay to the point where the AI's advantage is immense. Navigation would be somewhat more complex and a mini-map would be very difficult to implement in a useful way.

As for time, I think the scale makes sense. We're talking about the scientific and manufacturing capacities of entire worlds, after all. . .
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I personally find weeks more realistic. 

A typical game might last 250 turns.  Having the game take 250 years to finish makes no sense to me.

But the unit of time is in the data files, it's editable by anyone.  Someone can change it to whatever they'd like.

Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
When any change is offered to a creative effort like a game, a group always comes out against all changes because they like the current product and fear than any change would damage it somehow. Be not afraid! Some guy just made all this stuff up in the first place! Trust him, for monkeys shalt fly out of his rear once more and thou willst like it!

Would minutes bother you? How about seconds? Maybe a galactic second is really a year. When you say week, people assume you mean a week of earth time, no absurd rationalizations required.

There will be no "nerf" just the word would change, absolutely nothing about how the game works would change, you would just call the turns months maybe, rather than weeks.

Do any of you actually believe we will invent a universal translator 4 weeks after we meet aliens? We went to the moon in the 60s, and we have yet to go to the next step there with a base or anything. That's 40 years, LOTS of weeks there. It's just about being a tiny bit more realistic.

Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It would be cool if ships could use gravitational wells to increase speed, like having a whip effect around a sun. We need the 2d universe to understand it as well as the computer; I agree the AI would have a great advantage in 3d, but it would be fun to try...........
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
ahhh.. thanks for all that. I think I've loaded up on enough jargon and crazy scientist explanations to confuse any idea of what 'should' make sense. On with the game!
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actualy seconds wouldent bother me its all rationalizable in game, its called the ability to "suspend disbelif" and if it bothers you so much you can change it your self, their is no need for the devs too.

As for makeing the game 3D... that would be great if it was workable, however with your screen being 2D and all they can only do so much
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I remember how MoO3 was *slightly* 3D and it was already very annoying because stars seemed closer than they were and you had to rotate all the time to see the real distance. I don't even want to try to play a game on a true 3D map (and my 3D spatial sense is excellent, thank you ). Ascendany was 3D, yes, but then again you only could follow the star lanes so it didn't matter much.