Perhaps one of the most crucial lines in the original post was "GIVE ME MY CONTROL BACK ..." which is quite telling, because you never had that control to begin with in this game. That's why people are saying he's asking for a different game.

Would it be nice if there was a perfectly implemented tactical combat option that was optional in the game?
Of course it would be, and nobody would argue that as long as it was optional.

Would it be nice waiting for another year or so while they coded that part of the game?
Heck no.

Maybe in GalCiv3, so let's put in suggestions for that instead of complaining that it's not in a product that it was never supposed to be in

tactical combat is cool for games like heroes of might and magic...

here, it is fine to have computer play it for you, it does better than human ever could...

maybe it would be cool to have tactical combat because there is small number of ships, but then, the weapons should have range and such stuff... i didnt like it in moo because of the large number of units... bah, too complicated it would be for this game, maybe for the sequel...

Hmmm... so all I have to do to get people to answer my legit questions is scream and cry like a baby?

Ive got posts that go ignored that have real questions in them, maybe I should go scream and throw a tantrum so everyone will actualy look at those posts.

I only wish the battles were presented better. I like the way they are handled by the AI but i think the presentation could be so much better. The camera doesn't follow the action well and i eventually end up skipping most battles, the ships bump on each othre like toys and it doesn't look that good when they face one direction and fire on the other.
If only battleswere exciting to watch, like watching a SW movie or something......
Oh well, we can't have it all.

as far as I concern, There is a tactical map for tactical battle!
It is just blended in with the main strategy map.
(funny, how come no one complain Civ 4 has no “tactical” map?)

On the STRATEGY map you decide which STRATEGIC area to attack/defend, how many and what type ships needed. This is done by STRATEGICLY built-up your planets, producing ships, form them into a group, and send them there.

When they get there, the map “turns” into a TACTICAL map, where you TACTICALLY position/move your ships and initiate attacks while try to TACTICALLY create advantages (such as first strike, weapon/defense mismatch, strength in numbers, etc.) and avoid giving enemy any advantages. Then enemy does the same on his turn. Goes back and forth until one side gets eliminated or flees. Just like in MoO, except the map didn’t switch to a new one and it’ll take few turns to finish the battle… and this is confusing??

I really like the idea for general combat options. There are strategic-level decisions that could be done. No tactical map of any sort, but something akin to ground invasions as some have mentioned. Admittedly this is in a sense "tactical", but if it works for invasions then it would work for fleets, imho.

The game talks about how mass drivers are close-ranged weapons, and beam weapons are long ranged, but as far as I can tell this isn't implemented in any way. Adding this as part of the "how do you fight this battle?" attack plan would fit the game just fine. It might also allow certain fleet designs such as a large ship with mass drivers supported by small ships with beams. The large ship goes into the thick of things (being a rather unignorable threat), and perhaps takes the brunt of the attack. Now, maybe something this deep isn't possible, but something roughly like it, where you are given different options to choose from and that's the only decision you make (you would similarly get defensive options).

That's as much as I want and I think it fits the theme of the game just fine. It might also make battles more interesting, and "realistic" since it could be made to result in damage being spread more amongst the ships on a fleet. Of course, I realize such a thing would take quite a bit of work, since AI routines would need to be plugged in and the combat graphics attuned. On the other hand, it is far, far, far easier than trying to program some sort of crazy tactical battle system on a map. Choosing from among say 5-9 choices is a lot easier than from hundreds of combinations of moves.

It would also add another level of things to counter in the game. If the enemy has a fleet designed to use a particular (set of) tactic(s), then one thing you could do is try to design a fleet to take it out. It adds a bit more of an interesting dynamic to building a fleet and designing ships in the context of a fleet.

-Drachasor

In moo2 I didn't like tactical combat because of the large number of ships, here it could be cool to have tactical combat, but it is not so easy as it seams, because all of the units are ranged units, so basicly it would be like playing heroes of might and magic with ranged units only = no fun, no tactics, so the computer just plays it instead of you, he plays it better than you ever could, and that's it!

i would like to have combat like it's in star trek: starfleet comand III, with officers and everything, it would be soo cool!



but hey, you can't have everything, can you?

You guys, who the heck was crying like a baby, I stated my opinion. Dont like it, too bad. I was'nt asking, I was stating. If you all want to play a boring 1 dimensional game go ahead, I want more. And I want Stardock to hear me. I was'nt at the beta posts or whatever so I hav'nt heard the "same ol arguments". It seems shocking to me that they did not consider making a tactical level ship control system. And FYI, RTW would have sucked hard as a game without the tactical map just likr GC2 is mediocre as a game and limiting itself without the option....for you people who dont like the added fun and challenge of ship tactics, why, you could just turn it off and play your gal civ light version.

As for wanting a different game, I bought it on the premise that it was taking over the mantle from the vaunted M of O2. All the reviews touted it as the new improved M of O2 and without the tac-level ship to ship it aint....not even close......

And FYI, RTW would have sucked hard as a game without the tactical map just likr GC2 is mediocre as a game and limiting itself without the option....for you people who dont like the added fun and challenge of ship tactics, why, you could just turn it off and play your gal civ light version.

RTW would have sucked hard without the tactical battles because that's the core of the game. It's where the developers put 80% of their programmer man-hours, graphic design, debugging, and playtesting. The strategic side of RTW isn't all that great, as strategy games go. It's mainly just a way to get your armies in position for the cool 3D tactical battles. Check out the ads for RTW, and the upcoming sequel MTW2. See any shots of the strategic map? No... it's all 3D tactical battle eye candy.

Game companies have limited resources. They can't just magically double the size of their programming team, graphic designers, and QA teams so that both sides of a strategic/tactical game can be equally good. Some companies decide to scrap one side entirely (Civ4, GalCiv2), to make the other side as good as it can be.

As for wanting a different game, I bought it on the premise that it was taking over the mantle from the vaunted M of O2. All the reviews touted it as the new improved M of O2 and without the tac-level ship to ship it aint....not even close......

Funny, I read most of the previews before the game came out, and I didn't get that impression at all. They were all clear that it was a pure strategic game. I came here to the forum and read up on the game before buying it. There were many, many threads where the lead developer (Brad) made it clear that this was NEVER intended to be another "MOO." It's a different game, with different concepts and different goals.

If you don't enjoy a pure strategy game, there are other games out there now, or in the pipeline. There is one coming up called "Sword of the Stars" that you'll probably be interested in. It looks like the main focus is on 3D tactical battles.

Panzerboy..... I normally maintain a diplomatic approach towards people who have totally unrealistic expectations and attempt to make demands, then get shitty with people when they dont get what they want.... that's because I'm a teacher and children do that kind of thing.

You however are on a forum for a computer game and have basically just trolled your way through everything with no real thought to what your request entails. Arguments have been stated above as to why it is not a part of this strategy game. Re-read them... if you don't like them then just (insert swear word of choice) off please and leave people alone to appreciate this excellent game.

And Sephlock - really, it's not being a Fanboy that gives people contempt for posters like this. Well written, credible ideas get treated as such. Ignorant whines written in caps locks, unrealistic demands and shitty attitudes will be replied to accordingly.... it's got nothing to do with obsessive support of the game, just common sense and decorum.

I just realised that we need to add a Doom3-like subgame to the game when we board ships in the OBVIOUSLY missing tactical battle. By not putting this in, Stardock are showing how evil they are by missing out on the obvious and very simple feature! I paid a few $ for the game, and therefore now have the right to demand that they spend millions changing the game in to swometing that it isn't.

Oh, I also want another part where I play the commmander's spouse, and get to make his sandwiches he takes to work with him. We all know that you fight better on a full stomach, and demand the right to affect this missing part of the game.


...This 'issue' has been addressed by the devs several times, and while I don't agree with them on everything, this I agree 100% on. It would destroy the game.