Major problem w/game

from GalCiv2 Forums
just wanted to share my few major concerns with the game:

1: ship combat is just as one-dimensional as the ground combat, no tactics what-so-ever, just a ship design vs ship design movie shoot-out with no human input! The ship tactics of Master of Orion, ship facing, movement, launching fighters ect. was FAR superior. That was my fav part of the game and SADLY lacking here. The only way the game could ever challenge M of O is if they re-do ship combat to include human tactics.

2: The 2d game map is quite lacking, does not give a real "feel" of the infinate size or depth of space. Its just a game, yaya, a game I paid $40 bucks for, so I can complain.....;o)

3: tech tree really needs to show some info for informed decision making, way under developed.....

Over-all should be an 7(maybe 8) out of 10, dont see why all the game reviewers are being so un-critical....maybe they were paid off?
14,802 views 24 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Hah! StarDock's too small a company to be able to pay off reviewers.

Combat in this game is focused more on strategic decisions than anything else. Researching new weapons and defense, deciding on what to equip your ships with, maneuvering such that you're the one who initiates combat, etc. . . It is true that many people here would also like to see more depth, though.
Reply #2 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Master of Orion also had the strategic decisions and the micro-managed ship combat together. In short, it was everything Gal Civ 2 has plus the tactics.....They gotta change it for me to be happy (then it would get 10 outta 10 from me....)
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The reason Gal Civ combat is different? Because this is Gal Civ, not Masters of Orion.

MOO2 is still one of my top 10 favorite games. But I don't want every game to simply mimic it.

In the same vein, I enjoy the real time part of Total War, but I don't reduce my love of Civ IV because it doesn't switch to a real time mode for combat. Total War is designed with real time in mind, while Civ IV is designed to be a sweeping epic with simplified combat.

I really enjoy the point/counter point of the research tree and combat in Gal Civ. It requires you to keep an eye on your friends and enemies and steer your research towards defenses that counter their offense and offense that they haven't researched a defense towards. This is admittedly more high level than "launch fighters. Turn 45 degrees to bring ship within my firing arc". But for me, I don't want that type of control in a turn based game.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Your opinion is that tactical combat is necessary to make the game fun. Mine is that tactical combat in a turn based game is tedious, repetitive, and makes a long game a heck of a lot longer.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is NOT a 'Major problem' with the game - this is a PERSONAL preference on how a game is formulated. There is a huge difference.

I can see your preference, and I think that you may be right on a bit (adding a bit more tot he 'military campaigning' opportunities... however, that's personal preferences. Maybe, if Stardock can, we'll see some new 'military options' available - if possible..

Frogboy? thoughts?
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Greetings,

If you want a game with great ship to ship combat, try Space Empire IV Gold. This is WAYYYYYYY more complex than GalCIV2.

I am not putting down galCIV2, it is a very good game and I am waiting impatiently for the patch. But if you like the tactical point of view of combats, you will be server a lot better with SEIV Gold.

Thank you
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Halfway through this guys "Major Problem", i recognized his point, as someone who came onboard at the last second, and is comparing a good game to Moo2.

1: I would like to see Tactical combat as well, maybe it will be that way in the future. For now i am more than happy with the game i was supplied. I just turn off the Full Combat mode, and Play the game as if it is Galciv 1.

2: If Panzerboy misses the Moo series, I heard they made a Sequel, and they did a Great Job on the Tactical Combat.

3: As much as i want this game to be Moo3, it ain't. The Moo series let me down. I just want my space bearing barbar chick race ( hence my handle ), and i can be happy. I don't want this game to be too Like Moo2.

4: If you look at this game critically, i think this game has all that moo was, and MORE !! Eventually you get tired of tactical Combat in Moo2, and just hit the turn button anyway, and let your superior weapons choices decide the game for you !!!.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I like it the way it is, but it'd be nice if there were a mod that switched to tactical combat, if people so wanted to play that way. Maybe someone or Stardock will make it happen?
Reply #9 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Tactical combat = lame
Reply #10 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I thought this was a strategy game? I would be pissed if I had to babysit every battle. I play Starcraft for that.
Reply #11 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Eventually you get tired of tactical Combat in Moo2, and just hit the turn button anyway...


Point!

(At least, I know I would certainly get to that point. Not everyone is me though. )
Reply #12 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
This is no Civ IV. It's also not Warcraft III. It currently lacks flavor. The fact that a good 1/3 of the technology tree centers around smaller versions of existing ideas (size - 1) or simply better versions of existing buildings (hammers + 1) makes me sad. When they said the tech tree was bad in the late game, what they really meant is it was bad all around. These kinds of things really make me feel as if tech is a necessary evil in this game. You have to research it, but it adds nothing. Oh yeah, Lasers III. If you find yourself naming a technology the same as a previous one, but with a II; you've done something wrong.

Currently, this game has a couple of things that separate it from the pack (namely the ship designer), but currently these are the only things that made me not toss it out in disgust after playing it the first time.

So what I'm asking for is to give the game life. Give it something more that an "I Win" button (abstract enough for you).

The tech tree needs flair and interconnectedness and to affect things in more than a +1 manner.

The battles need something too. Mind you one of the best franchises of it's time was Heroes of Might and Magic which had both strategy on the map and strategy on the battlefield, but you could always just skip the battles. But battlefield strategy gave the game its crucial factor.

Also look at the genre in television and movies. In them, we have a vast array of weaponry which all do different things and the fact that it's partially represented is good, but it could be better. Also we also have the concept of fixed weaponry (think Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5). A big part of the genre is this concept -- something sorely lacking when everything is really just a # versus another #.

That said, adding this capability to the current game would help give it something it's sorely missing.

Carriers. I want them, and I will not live without them. They are my favorite ship type even when they stink. Starcraft, Pax Imperia: Eminent Domain, and others. They create a unique problem and solution and fill out a niche in simple attack/defense games. But much has already been said on this. Also mines, but again, same thing.

The second thing this game sorely lacks is planetary defense and while I understand it has some, it comes far too late. I find planets in this game far too easy to take. I've often taken vast areas all in a couple of turns and zero losses.

The game also lacks planetary bombardment without trying to take the planet out. That's something I loved about Pax Imperia. Idealy it should take a few turns to overtake a planet; that way you can come to the rescue. Bigger imbalances would take shorter amounts of times.

And lastly, a feature sorely missing that again Pax Imperia had was that different races could use different planets and they had different capabilities. This makes for some interesting issues to address, it allows additional race abilities and it reflects real differences in the species.
Reply #13 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I saw this and I was like "Oh good grief, what's with all the whining today?" And then I saw this was by the same guy who made the other thread about practically the same thing within twenty minutes of this one.

Why would someone feel the need to make multiple threads that? Is attention that hard to come by?

Over-all should be an 7(maybe 8) out of 10, dont see why all the game reviewers are being so un-critical....maybe they were paid off?


Oh, he's a troll, that explains it.
Reply #14 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think the main point that many people miss is that they were not FORCED to buy this game. No one made you spend your hard-earned money on Galactic Civilizations II. All of these "Major Problems w/ Game" are design decisions that you could easily have found out BEFORE you bought the game. If you don't like the way the game handles certain aspects, then don't buy it. Granted, Stardock is ALWAYS open to suggestions, but no one has any right to declare design decisions as "Major Problems". If you have a suggestion or have discovered a bug, then there are appropriate places and ways to bring these to Stardock's attention. This post is not the way to do it.
Reply #15 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually, while I disagree with him on the specific issues he mentioned, the original poster does have a point; GalCiv II needs a lot of improvements.

For instance, I'm disappointed that I can't pick wallpaper and furniture for the inside of my ships. Also, I can't manage the crew member's individual happiness, or watch them interact with each other and their surroundings in amusing ways. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM with the game, Stardock, and you'll need to fix it if you want to make me happy.
Reply #16 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Paid off the reviewers? C'mon... Just because these reviewers have taste and you don't does not make them wrong. Seriously, maybe you have bad taste.

Just kidding, don't go crying now. Anyways, have you played Master of Orion 3? You can't even compare that to this game.
Reply #17 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually, while I disagree with him on the specific issues he mentioned, the original poster does have a point; GalCiv II needs a lot of improvements.

For instance, I'm disappointed that I can't pick wallpaper and furniture for the inside of my ships. Also, I can't manage the crew member's individual happiness, or watch them interact with each other and their surroundings in amusing ways. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM with the game, Stardock, and you'll need to fix it if you want to make me happy.


All I can say is:
Reply #18 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The fact is, it's extremely difficult to have a game that adequately handles both the tactical and strategic levels.

And it's typically not worth it anyway, if you want a tactical game find a game that focuses on that, because odds are any strategic model they put into the game will be extremely simplistic.

And while I liked the fact that there were "tactical" battles in MoO2, and I love the game - they were a joke when it came to the idea of being at all tactically deep.
Reply #19 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I think you are over rating the tactical battles in MOO2. MOO2 was a great game, but they werent exactly all that complicated.

The thing with the tech tree is that it is, as you pointed out, very monotone. Honestly I think the presentation has a lot to do with it and stardock could pretty much avoid this complaint better if they had "Laser" and renamed "Laser II" to something like "Synthatic Heat Beam". The same thing, different name, and everyones like, look at all the techs! It would be *nice* to have different techs that do something different that version 1x and more effective and/or smaller. But I dont think the combat system is built for that kind of differentiation. Since it is not built for that kind of differentiation, then a tactical battle mode really does not make sense anyway.

Tool tips, information, etc are way underworked here. Stardock has said they are trying to improve, but you are right, we could use a lot more information about everything in the game available.

As for paying for good reviews ... I dont think so. I think everyone played MOO3 and after that game any space strategy game is going to get good reviews. MOO3 was so disappointing on so many levels, fans of the genre were just waiting for something to let MOO live on, spiratually at least.
Reply #20 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Actually, I agree that adding a bit more depth to the combat aspect would have been great. That said, the game does deliver a whole lot of strategy the right way so as to make things that are missing insignificant (I bought the game so obviously I think it's worth the money).

Yeh, it would have been great to have tactical battles with carriers, escorts and fighters duking it out, but balancing it and making it work would have been a significant effort, especially for a small developer like Stardock.

Can it be done? Sure, all it takes is a lot of development time/testing time and $$$.

That said, maybe they will develop tactical battles next time around (from what I read GalCiv II is a financial success so maybe their budget will be expanded) or add it as an expansion to the game (I would definitely spend money on it. if available).

Here's hoping
Reply #21 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Um, Moo2 tactical battles......OH, you mean the click on this ship, then go click on that enemy ship to attack it. yep, lots of tactical know-how needed there. Granted it would be a nice addition for awhile to the game, but I think the game was designed more as a thinking mans game, then a clickfest battle scenario game. Don't get me wrong I loved MOO2 also, but all-in-all this game DOES rock in it's own light, sure it's had bugs at first, but since the latest patch, it has yet to crash once ( I just doomed myself ) on me. I love the fact that the company behind the game has taken one heckofa interest in feedback with the community AND actually implementing alot of the suggestions we've asked for. As a bad example look at Dungeon Lords....nuf said.
Reply #22 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
#12 Orion Adrian said: It currently lacks flavor.



This game got more flavour than any other game released in the last months (imho in the last years).

So what I'm asking for is to give the game life.


It's so full of life.

Carriers. I want them, and I will not live without them


You forgot to say please.
Reply #23 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
That's odd. I didn't realize that scientists were known for their poetic flourish when naming an improvement on an existing technology. I thought they dedicated all of their brainpower toward analysis, research and...well...science. Perhaps what you need is to create a new galactic improvement: Hollywood Script Writer. This the scientists can tap the Hollowood Script Writer and see if they can get some really cool names for Lasers II.
Reply #24 from Stardock Forums Top
That's odd. I didn't realize that scientists were known for their poetic flourish when naming an improvement on an existing technology. I thought they dedicated all of their brainpower toward analysis, research and...well...science. Perhaps what you need is to create a new galactic improvement: Hollywood Script Writer. This the scientists can tap the Hollowood Script Writer and see if they can get some really cool names for Lasers II.


Funny. I was pointing out a way for the game to seem more diverse in its tech tree that would be "cheap and easy". Personally, I dont really care about laser 1-5, plasma 1-5, shield 1-5, etc. Its bland, but it doesnt really affect gameplay.