I can't say I agree with the original post.

Starship combat? Well, maybe if it were something like Rome: Total War meets Homeworld. But even then, look at the compromises that R:TW makes. The strategic-level play is intensionally less strategic than it could be. Why? So that the player can spend 30+ minutes every now and then in a RTS-style battle.

Now, I'm all for R:TW; it's good stuff. However, I don't require every game to be like that. Sometimes I like that strategy/RTS mix; and sometimes I just want to take care of the high level decisions. In those times, I play Civ or something.

On having no multiplayer: take that elsewhere. Strategy games are about as multiplayer friendly as Myst-style games. I certainly don't want my 5-hour marathon session of strategy gaming interrupted because the 12 year old on the other end has to go to bed. Or that my playtime gets interrupted because the other guy is on the phone. Or whatever.

Give me decent AI any day of the week for this kind of game. If I want multiplayer gaming, I'll go play an FPS or RTS or something.

As to the AI cheating at higher levels... so? It anti-cheats at lower levels, and it has a level specifically reserved for "no cheating". If, after some time of playing the game, you find that the AI just isn't good enough, then you have a remedy; let it cheat.

I would suggest that they allow you to set the mechanism by which the AI cheats (and by how much), but allowing the AI to cheat doesn't invalidate the AI. It simply gives a skilled player options.

That is not realistic at all so why bother having a significant number of unusable planets?

You're right: that number isn't realistic at all.

Really, it should be 0.0000001 of 450 worlds are inhabitable.

Unless you consider people living in domes to be "inhabitable". Because such habitation is just not economically viable, despite how many SciFi books/TV shows/Movies talk about it. Unless the world is something like Mercury, which is a bastion of mineral wealth, and even then you need to be able to justify why it isn't easier to just dig that stuff out of Earth rather than deal with high temperatures and the complete impossibility of ever being self-sufficient.

And, in reality, few worlds are terraformable. Only those near the "life zones" of a star, and many starts just don't have good life zones.

Production at 100% leaves me with exactly 24-25 surplus. PATHETIC SYSTEM!.

I'm used to Civ, where production doesn't cost you anything. And I really don't care that, at full production, you're barely breaking even on money if that.

It's a strategic decision. It works well enough in the game. It makes you really consider whether you really need to go full-bore on production or not.

This is what the game is. You're free to like it or not. But you're going to need to do better than, "I can't play this game in a way that is in contravention to the way the game wants to be played" as a defense for your opinions.

Ah yes. MOO 2.

The game with the AI that cheated so badly that the most generous thing you could say about it is that it was playing a different game.

Despite the cheating, the tactical combat was so easy to cheese that anyone who wanted to be effective at the game had to manually fight out every battle.

The end game consisted of taking your fleets around form planet to planet orbital bombarding everyone to death. The race with the fastest ships won because they could wipe out all the planets first.

That game right? That is the game you say is "king"?

Moo 2 was a great game, I think we all agree on that but it's old now and dated. In some respects going back to playing Moo 2 after GC2 is like dusting off the old speccy and firing up a game of jetpac ( anyone remember that or am I showing my age?) it was a great game for it's time but now just looks ancient.

Nostalgia aside there are a couple of things I agree with in the original post, in particular the fact that the AI does cheat despite all assurances to the contrary. i had to be sure of this before I piped in with my 2 cents and a few test games later I am but here is the thing, until we get quantum computers with as much if not more processing power than the human brain then an AI has to take some license with the rules or it will lose, plain and simple. Of course it could be argued that an AI can be developed that is so advanced that it has no need to cheat, specialised chess computers etc. but I seriously doubt that stardock had a couple of hundred million dollars to spend on it.

On the whole GC2 actually hides it's cheating pretty well for the most part with it only becoming evident in certain situation ( swamped by battleships by turn 40 anyone?). Look at the original civilization (showing my age again) which was the very 1st game I bought with my very 1st pc, a 386. It cheated like crazy and made no effort to hide the fact. many were the times that my brave phalanx or unit of knights would charge headlong into battle with a sherman tank

One thing that really does annoy me with GC2 is the AI's ability to take apart your ships in orbit one at a time & I really wish that stardock would change this. If I have five ships in orbit then the AI should have to take on all five at once the same way the player does when attacking an AI owned planet.

The above not withstanding GC2 is a great game and I'm sure that it will only get better as the months and updates come and go, Moo 2 is a little like Elvis, dead for awhile but everything that comes after will always be compared to it.

GC2 is the AI's ability to take apart your ships in orbit one at a time & I really wish that stardock would change this. If I have five ships in orbit then the AI should have to take on all five at once the same way the player does when attacking an AI owned planet.

Good Idea !

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.

Wow, you just listed why this game is better!

Just thought I would point out in responce to post 29 that you need a fleet manager on your planet for the defending ships to be in a feet. The AI builds these things everywhere thats why most AI worlds pit you against a defence fleet.

One thing that really does annoy me with GC2 is the AI's ability to take apart your ships in orbit one at a time & I really wish that stardock would change this. If I have five ships in orbit then the AI should have to take on all five at once the same way the player does when attacking an AI owned planet.

Try building an Orbital Fleet Manager of your own then.

Holy nastalgia batman... take off those fancy rose coloured glasses! How can you compare GalCiv2 to a pretender like MoO2 when Star Control II is king!!! Hehe!

Anyway, I'd to see even more planets, so that the uninhabitable planets can be mined for resources. More unique techs to research to add more personality and unpredictability (maybe only at late stages of the game).

But tactical combat, no way! Any shmuck can eventually figure out a way to exploit it. But perhaps it could be allowed in multiplayer for player vs. player combat. So if Stardock makes an expansion pack, it's something to consider.

Personally, I think turn-based multiplayer draws out the game too much even with pvp tactical combat. IMHO, RTS games are much better suited for multiplayer affairs.

Quote from Brad Wardell, creator of Galciv:

"At the end of the day, we have our own ideas on what makes a fun game and want to pursue that. And I can sympathize with Master of Orion fans who, ten years after MOO 2's release, are still looking for what they see as a "true sequel". But please stop trying to push MOO on us. We don't see being different from MOO as a flaw. "

Eric1000 - the 'ability' of the AI to take on your ships one at a time is simply the lack of an orbital fleet manager (which you can build after researching planetary defences I think) on the planet in question. This works in exactly the same way for the AI - no fleet manager = ships getting picked off one by one.

Edit: I see I was a bit slow posting this!

Moo2 is good. It's a different game. Moo2 *gasp* has terrible weaknesses....yes yes I know blasphame, but it's true. Civ management was painfully annoying and cumbersom. Civ4 and Galciv2 and games before it , in factMost modern tbs games have overcome those weaknesses. Someday someone might make a moo2 clone since that seems to be what people want. A moo2 that runs on xp or vista with prettied up graphics. Until then either play moo2 for dos and enjoy what it is and play galciv2 for what it is and play Civ4 for what it is. They are all great games following different designs. They are ultimately all great 4x games.

You used your ships strateigcally and it could make a huge difference to a battle.

yes.. let me activate that device that will allow me to move twice a turn..

Starbases are still overpowered yet you make their construction arduous through lack of meaningful automation of constructors.

I don't get people that complains about the starbase in this sense. Omg, it's overpowered. Omg, it's so hard to build.

Isn't that kinda the point? Starbases can give you a very very very nice boost, but you have to work your way there. Don't even get me started on how people complain about they spend so long building up their starbases but only to have it blown up. That's part of the reason why starbase isn't really over-powered if you respond to them right. With that said, military resources really is over-powered.. that's why you gotta take them out fast.

TBS is about building from start, not coming in half way through.

and tactical bomat is about using the few resources you have and change tide even though you are at a disadvantage. It does NOT mean owning everyone with weapons 3 generations more advanced.

In MoO2 you don't have to play from the start, but I guess you will not pick that option because you would lose the technological edge over the AI.

the games become infuriatingly slow as you have to actually play a ballanced game of moderated expansion & defense.

I take it you just want to expand faster than everyone else, research faster than everyone else, then build up the strongest military with your superior technology and get mad when the AI attack you in between.
I can see why you would want tactical combat so badly. You don't want to play a strategy game. It is clear that you just want the feeling of superiority over the computer, hence you would complain about AI cheating because you can't just rush and expand. In a real strategy game, you need to consider about eery aspect. Thus, it is important to play a balanced game of moderated expansion and defense. If AI found out that you are weak legitmately and attack you, that's not cheating.

If you play against an AI that just expands and doesn't build up any defense, what would you do? naturally, you'd build some transports and take over the planets. That sounds just about what the AI is doing to you.

All I can say is that it sounds like you don't really care for the strategy part, which is what GC2 focuses on. You only want the strategy part so you can get out better ships in which you will use to decimate AI ships in a tactics mode.

Tactic combat is nice and all, but it is tactics for a reason.


All in all, that's what I deduce about your play style from MoO2. I could be very wrong.. in that case, enlighten me.

One thing that really does annoy me with GC2 is the AI's ability to take apart your ships in orbit one at a time & I really wish that stardock would change this. If I have five ships in orbit then the AI should have to take on all five at once the same way the player does when attacking an AI owned planet.

Um, this isn't an AI ability. You just have to build the oribital fleet manager that you get with planetary defense.

People are so quick to cry "CHEAT" rather than learn the game. Sigh.

it would be nice if you can keep a fleet based on your logistic ability around the planet though.. and have orbital fleet manager just increase it indefinitely.

GalCiv II's combat engine reminds me of statistical baseball games. (which I like), you build up a team of good players and then you auto calc the league out. Either in days, weeks, months or the entire season. Makes for fast and enjoyable seasons while the player concentrates on "building" and "improving" his team. I never was a big fan of baseball games where you threw every pitch or told every base runner what to do or all the infield positions. I just wanted to build the team and manage only the starting positions and pitcher rotations and sometimes relief pitchers (but not often) and watch my prospective minor leaguers make their way up the ladder.

So, that's why I enjoy the combat engine of GalCiv II. MOO II was nice and all, but, games took forever with all those tactical battles and many just ended up being the same thing over and over and over again. I sort of look at them this way. If I have a hankering for tactical space battle game I'll play MOO II, if I have a hankering for quick calc based on what I build and how well I build them only ships, then GalCiv II is the game. Both have their pluses and neither destroys the fun of either.

GalCiv II's AI hands down though is better than MOO II's and talk about cheating MOO II cheated just as well if not moreso on the higher difficulties. Professional reviewers have already stated GalCiv II's AI doesn't really cheat, it just plays and schemes better and when a player is losing they automatically think it's cheating. Nobody likes to admit a machine/computer out did them or out thought them. I myself have no problem with "advantages" for the computer AI as long as the game is "challenging". That's the most important thing to me "CHALLENGE", could care less how it gives it, cheat or no cheat as long as it gives it.

Go Away. Period. Play your MOO2, and leave us alone with your dribble. I've had it up to here with people that come to any game's main forum just to slant the game. You like it? good, play it. You don't? Return it and be quiet. I have no idea why the fans even bother to rationalize themselves to this kind of people. MOO2 rocks. GalCiv2 rocks. These are both very different games in their core. Now go away.

@shizzledizzle1

you really want this exploitable tactictal combat back? I remember a missile fleet which could fire and flee without any casualties. With some combination of weapons i killed enemy fleets with just 10-25% of their size.

Sorry, MoO2 was too easy for me and in GalCiv2 i only play on difficult levels where the AI gets some bonuses because i think i'm alwys better then the best programed AI.