wheres the ship tactics?

I think you want a different game. Go back to MoO 2.

OK. you've just created the same post twice, only in this one you are crying like a two year old that didn't get a lolipop.
Yelling gets you ignored.

This past week I've been playing a trial of Eve: Online.

I'm pretty sure if you don't like the combat in GalCivII, you won't like the combat in Eve: Online (and vice versa).

Personally, I like turning off the stats and just watching the battle.

(Camera controls could be improved a bit though. Scrolling is too slow on Free Camera mode.)

I agree with Crass_Monkey, he wants a differant game.

No, he doesn't want a different game. Panzerboy has a great suggestion.
This feature would not be impossible to make and would improve the gameplay experience immensely.
For those who want to bypass getting involved tactically in a battle they could still have the basic battle option to simply watch.
In Superpower 2, battles are fought using a system that is not too different from GalCiv 2. The only diffence is that there is a menu of battle options such as 'full assault' 'ranged attack' air superiority' 'sub hunting' and so on.
A good idea indeed.
The great thing about Stardock is that they listen to our suggestions.

OH MY GOD wasn't there the same whinning thread posted here a few minutes ago? For the love of God.

YES Panzerboy39 MOO2 IS BETTER GO BACK AND PLAY IT. GIVE ME BACK MY CONTROL OF THE FORUMZ. WITH THE INTELLIGENT POSTS THAT MAKE SENSE AND ARE ABOUT THE GAME AND STRATEGIES AND HOW TO BE BETTER AT IT. AND NOT SOME WHINNING POSTS ABOUT SOME MISSING FEATURES THAT WERE DISCUSSED MONTHS AGO IN BETA!

In Superpower 2, battles are fought using a system that is not too different from GalCiv 2. The only diffence is that there is a menu of battle options such as 'full assault' 'ranged attack' air superiority' 'sub hunting' and so on. A good idea indeed.

This here isn't a bad idea. It isn't tactical combat like MOO2, but rather a more strategic control of a battle, merely telling your forces what strategy to use.

Something like that could help define additional properties for the three weapon-types, such as range. This level of control would be appropriate and nice, I think.

If you would do some searching here, you would see the devs have said that tactical would be a huge project to program, especially for the AI. They prefer to keep refining the strategic aspect of the game.

Don't get me wrong, I would enjoy a well done tactical element as well, but I certainly understand and respect the reality of the issue.

Tony

In a way there is a tactical element, as ships are moved tile-by-tile and not simply to and from star systems. Choosing were to park your fleets to give them the optimum ability to strike first is tactical enough for me.

Personally, that would kill the game for me. I didn't buy an empire-building 4X strategy game to micromanage a bunch of battles. What kind of supreme leader hops into a ship and fights every battle personally anyway? I'd think a good one would have more important things to worry about...

Not a different game. Wanting to add 3-point shooting to basketball doesn't make it a different game. It adds to it. Currently the ships just kind of look like flies buzzing around shooting in every direction.

In this game the ship designer is the strongest part, followed by planet layout, but is currently lacking in every other area.

Tactical combat would add to this game like field goals, free throws, and stolen bases add to their respective sports.

While a huge undertaking, it still needed to be done. This game currently lacks a soul, which is what often happens to "engine" games. I reference Diablo II and Dungeon Siege.

NO!

It could be easily done but it will not be done just to tick you off. It was meant to tick you off from the beginning

tacitcal battle = lame

Fanboy dogpile!

Whats so wrong with wanting a little more?

sorry no tactical for me, from what i hear it was rather cheesy in moo2 anyway, the ai just couldnt cut it and the player would abuse it for easy wins. im sure there are tons of posts on that issue alone, i wont reference them for you. go find em and post in those dead threads.

nothing wrong with wanting more, just ask for stuff that makes the game better. espionage needs a big boost, diplomacy needs work. tactical combat = low on totem pole if at all.

WHAT THE HELL??!!! WTF is WRONG with you people?! This topic has been discussed since beta add infinum. Get off it and stop making whining post about it. Brad has already as many others have as well disscussed and explained why there is not tactical combat and why there WILL NEVER BE tactical combat.

Please stop wasting forum space with hundreds of the same posts whining about the same damn thing that is never going to change....sheesh!

Also, what gives you the idea that this is MOO4? Nobody made that claim. This is Galciv2, sucessor to Galciv1. Love it or leave it.

The best change you can hope for in the expansion pack on this subject is maybe some strategic options like the planetary assault has for battles, but this is probably unlikely.

The game was always intended to be a strategic STACK oriented combat model. Like Civ4 and such. It was never intended and nor should it be SPACE: TOTAL WAR. Thats a different game being handled by a different company.

The problem with tactical combat is that mnay people want it because they realize that it is an area of the AI that they can exploit to win when their strategic choices should have made them lose.

Hello....it's a strategy game.   If you want tactical, go to hps.com or battlefront.com.  It takes long enough now to play, think how much more time it would take to do all the skirmishes and a large fleet battle!!!

If this game had of had tactical combat I wouldn't have bought it. I grew so bored and tired of it in MOO 2. It just makes games long and tedius. The battles become repetitive and same ole same ole. If I want to play a tactical space game I will play Legionaire Interceptor by SSI. And I agree about exploiting the AI, it's just another way to exploit the AI. There's some tactical elements already in the strategic game, like shadowing enemy fleets, just out of attack range, but, close enough you can see them and where they are going, hiding your attack force just how of sensor range and then pouncing on them when the time is ripe.

Tactical combat WOULD make this a completely different game. You only need to look at a game like Rome - Total war to see how much tactical combat changes a game. In GC2, the warfare aspect of the game is about designing and building a fleet which exploits your enemies weaknesses strategically, through the 3 weapon / 3 defence type system, as well as range and speed considerations. In RTW, my armies were always a fraction of the size of everyone elses because they only needed to be that big - I would count a battle as a defeat if I hadn't taken on a force twice the size of mine and come away with 1/10th of the casualties they did. As a result, RTW got boring - even on VH/VH. No tactical combat in GC2 for me.

About combat tactic why not just choose a tactic at the begin of a fight :

Agressive : damage bonus, defense malus

Neutral : no change

Defensive : the opposite of agressive

And yeah tactical combat can be very lame especially when there will be a lots of combats.

I dont want to imagine the number of battles you would have to fight in a gigantic map I'm sure that even panzerboy will get bored and will not want to see another tactical combat.

And combat in Civ3 mabye civ4 are even more boring than in GavCiv2 these games dont have combat viewers

As a 4X game, I generally like the ship-to-ship combat how it is. If I want more tactical battles, I'll play Starfleet Command, or pull out dice and SSDs and play Starfleet Battles...

I think it might be intriguing to make a few changes to GalCiv2 ship-to-ship combat though:

1. Morale impacts on battles... Low morale could see ships attempting to flee, mutinees, defections...
2. Option to ATTEMPT to disengage from battle if not in orbit. This would only apply if you had available movement points prior to entering the battle.
3. I think the option to carry a ship-board-marines module so you could board and take-over enemy ships would be interesting. Have a requirement you to get that ship back to a home planet to repair it. This would all require an additional branch of tech to research for the offensive and defensive aspects of this.
4. Similar to #3, the idea of 'postures'. Could a defensive/peaceful ("Good"?) stance be set on ships so they focus on the destruction/disabling of enemy weapon systems. and/or engines? Make it so enemy ships don't/can't repair within 'x' parsecs of worlds they're at war with.

Anyway, nothing to say my ideas are any more valid than anyone else's but here's my 2 cents (1.7 cents US).

I think only general control would work. Tactical wouldn't. We have to remember, well at least to me, that one fighter does not represent one fighter. Sure, it could be a 1 for 1 deal with capital ships, but do you honestly think only ONE defender is covering the orbit of a planet?

Fanboy dogpile!

LOL The first post sounds like me in my first ship skirmishes. "If only I could directly control this 1 hitpoint, 1 laser ship again these 2 Drengin cruisers I could win this battle! I am the Hannibal and G.S. Patton of strategy games dammit!" MOO sounds like RTW in that with fast reflexes, you could win tactical battles no matter how unprepared you might be.