Comments on Galciv 2. Moo 2 still the king

I just don't get it why you people insist on tactical combat! It has been thoroughly explained by the devs why there is no tactical in the game. As for the campaign, if you don't like it then don't play it! It's as simple as that.

Yawn. The haters post more then the people who like/love the game, you ask why.. Because we are busy playing it.

The reason is because people dont read other people's posts. It is much faster for them to spout off their beefs rather than find out reasons why that is. Fairly standard procedure to be honest.

There is no ship combat, still. Moo 2 had a very very simple screen but it was like chess. You used your ships strateigcally and it could make a huge difference to a battle. The video of the ship fight is completely lame, dare I say it iunfuriating. I cannot imagine anybody playing the game with it on more than once. 0/10 for this feature. Try again. GC2

Seriously it didn't make a big difference...that's like saying having a quarterback in football makes a big difference...there's no change when the game is designed with a feature. Tactical combat is just short of useless to this game. Anything you would do with tactical combat you can do with smart fleet management and ship building.

Well, you have to credit schizzledizzle with at least a constructive, though-out post of his opinion, as oppossed to the usual one liner tirade.....

Useful Macro features for players who like to play opn huge maps/piss about with things: where are they? I know galciv 1 had a few but they were always hard to see and figure out. On the other hand moo 2 had none. Here is a list i'd like to see: - send all ships consturcted everywhere/all ships of one type to a rally point (i.e. invasion force) - send all ships constructed in a sector to a rally point - autoform fleets from ships built on 1 planet - set ALL planets with production bigger than X to produce X (especially with ships) - set all planets to produce ship X - user defined planet building structure - i.e. tell governor to build 1 entertainment building, 3 food buildings, rest factories. I NEED this. Instead of specifying what to build on planets i want them to build according to different templates. AUTOMATE.

This tells me that the OP hasn't used the governor screen yet, so his post is based on incomplete information. Half this stuff is in the game already.

You have made some minor improvements over the best and most complete game of its genre - yes moo2 - but you are still refusing to finish the job.

Since when have SD declared they are 'refusing to finish the job'? Did I miss the memo where the game isn't going to get updated?

I don't understand why there are cosmetic mods when you talk about spending developer time efficiently but as a feature it doesnt hurt.

Ahh, the age-old armchair developer assumption that people who work on artwork are the same people who work on coding. So really, when you've got artists to work on cosmetic stuff, why not? Not as if you can give an artist a compiler and tell him to go off and implement tactical combat AI...

There is no ship combat, still. Moo 2 had a very very simple screen but it was like chess. You used your ships strateigcally and it could make a huge difference to a battle. The video of the ship fight is completely lame, dare I say it iunfuriating. I cannot imagine anybody playing the game with it on more than once. 0/10 for this feature. Try again. GC2

Meh. Tactical combat was either attrocious in that the AI had about as much tactical sense as a yoghurt, or it was totally ineffectual and you'd get the same result regardless of all your prancing around. Either way, with simulated combat you at least know you're getting a fair deal and there aren't AI flaws that enable you to run rings around the AI because it can't deal with a tactic.

Planets & dead wood. There is no way of terraforming/stellar converting dead wood planets.

Agree on this that the terraforming could do with some boost, though if you don't like the useless class 0 planets simply set habitable planets to abundant and away you go.

Sorry but if you gave moo2 a 3d overhaul, gave moo an AI, added some planet building que macromanagement which would be available for all planets of type x or with pop x it would still knock the pants off GalCiv 2. 10 years and still the best. Sad really.

So uhhh, if you made MOO3 you mean? No wait, someone did. And it sucked

While I too did like Moo2, it had one game ending flaw that was never overcome, you could not play the game on anything bigger than a medium map or the endgame became the ultimate in tedious battle after tedious battle. One game I waiting 30 minutes for the AI to finish all its moves....that one of what 30 or 50 turns battles can (and in the endgame do) take.

Rose colored glasses my friend, Moo2 was good, but it failed to surpass Moo1 in true fun factor, and while I long for some things, Moo2 aint one of them

In DOMINIONS_2 (TBS game) you are allowed to choose the exact location and setup of your forces.... and then when battles occur you watch the results.

Does GAL_CIV2 game allow you to position the arrangements of your ships if battles do occur ??
OR
Do you just select a stack of ships to travel together and stuck with whatever random setup occurs??

Even with habitable planets set to abundant you still have nearly half the galaxy filled with useless planets.

Yeah, and those stars are useless too! We should be able to colonize the sun!



Just label it terrain and call it a day, eh? On higher settings you have far more planets than you'd want to manage anyway.

I do wish there were some more terraforming/colonization options for otherwise dead planets (habitation spheres you can drop on the planets surface to open up buildable areas - genesis devices) - but that's about the only party I really agree with there.

Tactical combat and make a more challenging AI..... Tactical combat ends one way. Players design a certain fleet that always works, eventually the AI will fail. You CANNOT have both tac combat and a challenging AI. It is simply not possible. If you had both then what you really have is a dumb player. I hope that makes sense.

Also I do agree with not having useless worlds. At all. Developers need to detach themselves totally from realism here. I mean you have 181 worlds in my present galaxy that are liveably out of like 450. That is not realistic at all so why bother having a significant number of unusable planets? Ok a few gas giants, fine. Make the rest liveable with minor colonies or something that add a slight econ boost. The economy as it stands is painful. I have to spend vast sums or go to war to aquire most of the economy resources. Remove the rescources if they give to much advantage. The player economy stinks as is. I mean reeks! I am in the green now with two economy worlds that produce 600+ surplus (democracy). I control 6 green polygon mines. I have 10 trade routes all to one planet with amplifing starbases making them all average 50+ at least. I have 30 trade routes from other civs. I have two major production worlds and one major tech world the rest of my 31 worlds are multi focus. Production at 100% leaves me with exactly 24-25 surplus. PATHETIC SYSTEM! To stay in the green I have to stay at peace with practically every civ but two minors and the drengin or I will lose my trade and fall into the red. Why would it be so hard to make money? Sure I crank out a lot of ships, but most get sold to stay afloat (or construct my starbases). Anyways that is my rant. Economy=slightly too much work. Soon my colonies will be finished developing I think then I should have more positive cash. Rapid expansion cost me quite a bit though. I had to drain the minor races coffers just to fuel my massive furnace. Also my minor races aren't very minor. Most have a second world and the scottlingus, carinoids (whatever, ok?), and akilians have benefited from following the drengin around retaking the worlds they conquer.

I do have some other minor annoyances but really the world class system is like corruption in civilization. If it doesn't add anything to the game, remove it. And this really doesn't add anything. All worlds (except the gas giants) should be developable. A minor colony system for moons and "uninhabitable" worlds would add another element and they could give some extra income that is needed!

As a side note: I'd be neat if planetary improvements interracted in some way. Ie-districts of the same type built next to each other give a slight bonus.

Personally, I like tactical combat. I think it's ignorant to assume it serves no real purpose. I agree it's not 'required' for the game, but neither is ship jewelery

Tactical combat is still strategic. I think it's the only thing missing (besides multiplayer) to make this my fav game. Space Empires IV is still my #1 turn-based game, despite the unbalanced tech tree and rather stupid AI. The tactical combat could make the difference between victory and defeat, and it also made you make more advanced outfitting decisions about ship equipment, such as range versus damage versus damage type. It also put emphasis on propulsion. A faster ship could outrun missiles or swoop in, attack, and then pull out without a scratch. Fighters and carriers were also a great concept I'm sorry to see missing from this GC2. Certain civs had to "purchase" access to special tech trees, giving the game a rediculous replay value.

Lastly, the "wormhole" concept was cool. The biggest problem I have with space games is a good way to defend yourself. There's really no way to set up a "perimiter" defense. With enough funds & speed, an opponent can pick off a small planet within your influence and start cranking out HUGE ships turn after turn. With wormholes, you could close off entire systems at wormholes with mines, starbases, or fleets. Once a sector's defenses were breached, you could come in with a decent fleet and close off all other wormholes, securing that sector. This meant that for a person to make it to your home world, they couldn't just charge witha huge fleet kamikazee style. There had to be more strategic decision making.

It would be nice to see starbases do more against rushing, such as "Ship point-defense" (not missile) where ships take damage as soon as they enter the starbase's AOE, or maybe a tractor beam/subspace disruptor that freezes all ship movement for X number of turns. This is especially important for when propulsion techs get to where ships can move 20+ parsecs/week.

Also, I think starbases should have higher maintenance costs or something. They're kinda overpowered. A constructor ship is CHEAP and a fleet of well-defended constructors can set up an almost invincible space station in enemy territory with relative ease.

I love CG2. If I want to play a newer version of Space Empires, I'll wait for Se5. The same goes for Moo2 fans. Oh. Ooops. Sorry

I just wanted to give my perspective, in case anyone out there is interested

The gal civ ship system I find to be pretty unimpeachable. I would like more elements thrown in (more then three weapon types/defense types) but that is probably just me. Your strategy comes from what ships you put in a fleet and what weapons you put on the ship. Anyone remember making a uber shield ship and putting it out in front and the AI would always attack it in ascendency? In this game the AI always has some chance of designing the better fleet (although this rarely happens for me) generally the AI fleets are not as updated as mine (make updating cheaper and the AI use it more extensively) The thing is a human is far more likely to have an awesome fleet at just the right spot and to keep his fleets upgraded (keeping the crap ships in the rear, selling them to minor races, or upgrading them, if they are worth upgrading, which is rare). It is a really good concept, just needs some work. These elements to make the AI better are lame:

Unpurchaseable constructors.
Unpurchaseable minor race vessels/starbases. Especially since it appears the minor races sell them to AI major races. They have little value to them and get the race attacked or annhilated by humans or AI major races backed by humans who then snatch up the resource after the unupgraded POS they parked on it is destroyed.
Please dispose of this system in a future update. Is there some cool strategy I am missing that involves purchasing minor race ships or constructors? Buying a constructor that is seconds away from mining a resource you want can prevent that AI from getting creamed in a war or getting human backing for future enemies. That is about all I can think of but I see no huge exploit here... A smart AI would sell his constructor I think.

I guess I see some abuse potential for buying up a minor races ships then conquering them with the same ships but that isn't really that great a strategy. I can generally get together the forces to conquer a minor race when I want to. I usually leave them be anyways or maybe relocate them to a lesser planet, but keeping another trading race in the game is generally beneficial.

about tactical combat I disagree - in 2005 I played a lot of MOO2 and more then once it got on my nerves - these long micromanagment things...

about the zero class planets - honestly organic growth is pretty much possible as each planet will grow in size and population.

What use is there - like MOO2 did - to crank out a colony on a formerly unhabitable planet ? Not use - besides from the strategical point of vue - but isn't this covered by star bases ?

About planets the only remark I have is that a lot of un-used planets are in the game and it would have been nice that each race has a different picking and might find a zero class planet (for humans liking) a paradise for their race. Like MOO3 did ... MOO2 has no added vaule here - just extra micromanagment...

The gal civ ship system I find to be pretty unimpeachable. I would like more elements thrown in (more then three weapon types/defense types) but that is probably just me. Your strategy comes from what ships you put in a fleet and what weapons you put on the ship. Anyone remember making a uber shield ship and putting it out in front and the AI would always attack it in ascendency? In this game the AI always has some chance of designing the better fleet (although this rarely happens for me) generally the AI fleets are not as updated as mine (make updating cheaper and the AI use it more extensively) The thing is a human is far more likely to have an awesome fleet at just the right spot and to keep his fleets upgraded (keeping the crap ships in the rear, selling them to minor races, or upgrading them, if they are worth upgrading, which is rare). It is a really good concept, just needs some work. These elements to make the AI better are lame:

Unpurchaseable constructors.
Unpurchaseable minor race vessels/starbases. Especially since it appears the minor races sell them to AI major races. They have little value to them and get the race attacked or annhilated by humans or AI major races backed by humans who then snatch up the resource after the unupgraded POS they parked on it is destroyed.
Please dispose of this system in a future update. Is there some cool strategy I am missing that involves purchasing minor race ships or constructors? Buying a constructor that is seconds away from mining a resource you want can prevent that AI from getting creamed in a war or getting human backing for future enemies. That is about all I can think of but I see no huge exploit here... A smart AI would sell his constructor I think.

I guess I see some abuse potential for buying up a minor races ships then conquering them with the same ships but that isn't really that great a strategy. I can generally get together the forces to conquer a minor race when I want to. I usually leave them be anyways or maybe relocate them to a lesser planet, but keeping another trading race in the game is generally beneficial.

about tactical combat I disagree - in 2005 I played a lot of MOO2 and more then once it got on my nerves - these long micromanagment things...

about the zero class planets - honestly organic growth is pretty much possible as each planet will grow in size and population.

What use is there - like MOO2 did - to crank out a colony on a formerly unhabitable planet ? Not use - besides from the strategical point of vue - but isn't this covered by star bases ?

About planets the only remark I have is that a lot of un-used planets are in the game and it would have been nice that each race has a different picking and might find a zero class planet (for humans liking) a paradise for their race. Like MOO3 did ... MOO2 has no added vaule here - just extra micromanagment...

As much as i liked MMO 2. It wasn't finish. It lack the 3d graphics, forget about the fact that when it was release, it wasn't really in. They could've always patched it. So I think they screwed up there already. Also, the AI was pretty lame. I tore a whole fleet with the Gyro destabilizer. Also, the ground combat sucked. They should've finished it by making the ground combat a First Person Shooter.

*ending sarcasm*

My point is, if a feature you wanted is not in the game and was never promised in the game, that does not make it an unfinished product. If you want a feature in the game, go add it yourself by modding it. I personally would love Heroes in the game like in MOO 2, but that does not make Galciv 2 unfinished.. Just lacking a cool feature.

All and all, this game is great. I give this game a .00001 percent edge on MOO 2.

Me too would like to see more terraforming possibilties, but with the rest of what the OP says I can't agree. I really like the game how it is. Not that there is no room for improvements on other aspects, but they are no major things.

Live long and prosper
Xiskio

You know what, I do wish there was some involvement in the tactical combat, turn based combat is silly (who’s going to stand there while your fleet is decimated while waiting for your turn) I do agree, and going full RTS would basically be another game within a game so it would obviously be too much work.

What’s left then? Take a look at the combat from Star Trek: Birth of the Federation and Star Wars: Rebellion. The tactical combat there was pretty straightforward, and I’d say the battle mechanic from SW:R was probably the better of the two. Though even here the battle seemed to come down to the two fleets just slugging it out, with the main benefit (aside from choosing a maneuver) was choosing to focus on the ship you wanted to (interdictor’s holding you so take it out and hope some ships can escape).

Though from the other side of the coin, look at Civ 1-3 (never played 4 yet cannot judge) no tactical combat at all, just an animation of two dudes hacking at one another and this amount of criticism was not leveled at them.

In my opinion on this issue both sides are right, and both are wrong.

I would like to see the planets rotate like Space Rangers 2 and like the do the moons around the planets already. That would be cool. Planets move one or two squares a turn in an orbit... I know with squares it wouldnt be exact but who cares.


I did love the tactical combat of Moo2 and if they had forums at that time like this It would have been raped.

Sigh another hater.. you like macro so much go play MOO3. hahahaa hahaha.. GC2 owns MOO not just 3 cause 3 was the worst.

I really disagree with the post at the start. Especially about scenarios and campaigns. So you prefer sandbox mode, thats not a reason to trash them or take them from everybody else. Campaigns and Scenarios add flavor, replayability... a little something new while still playing the same game.

Plus another tirade on AI cheating. You're not good enough to play at those levels anyway since you can make up for your strategic shortcomings with a superior tactical win. OH wait this isnt MOO 2.. that's why you went on and on..

You're entitled to an opinion, yes. We can also have an opinion about that (as in you're dead wrong )

Yeah, and those stars are useless too! We should be able to colonize the sun!

Actually, you CAN colonize the sun in Space EMpires It's pretty cool actually.

(lol. Needed to say it to be a troll. Not suggesting it belongs in GC2.)