Does the Tactical Combat will be in expansion or update someday?

I don't think it's gonna happen. I mean, what do you want, turn-based combat? YECHHHHH!

I like it the way it is.

No, it won't.

Kinda defeat some of the purpose of ship weapons/defense research, doesn't it? Theres enough tactics in the game already.

I don't think it's gonna happen. I mean, what do you want, turn-based combat? YECHHHHH!

I don't want any certain. I just want to feel more influence for battle result. For now, it's just a movie, not the action. But I want to participate in the battle.

Besides of this, I want to see my personal designed ships in action under my control to play with them.

Well, I think you may need to find another game to satisfy that need to control your ships in battle. I think most folks like this the way it is.

Since Stardock correctly identifies MoO2 as basically a starship tactical game with research/colonisation tacked on, I doubt they'll implement it. Doesn't stop anyone else trying, I guess, although I really don't care either way. The AI would suck at it and the game would devolve into MoO2-style tactical pwnage pretty quickly. This way, your ships are stupid, but so are everyone elses.

if u want to control good looking ships just get homeworld 2 u cant design ur own ships but it looks like what ur looking for

I fully support FlyingAngels request.

Tactical ship combat would just be plain cool. And everyone who has ever played Master of Orion II (MoO2) knows: it rocks. Of course it will be difficult to have a good or even great AI in tactical combat. But hey: This is Stardock. Many reviews (e.g. Gamespot) found the AI in this game is the best they've ever seen in a TBS!

Besides: Citing a one of the reviews GalCiv2 IS the first "heir of the throne" of TBS space combat. So GalCiv2 has very much in common with MoO2 but we all know: It exdends it in many ways by far. I personally think that GalCiv2 is what MoO3 (does anyone remember THAT?) wanted to be. And I still long for tactical ship combat.

I wasn't going to buy GalCiv2 either for the same reason, since Space Empires V will have tactical combat. But I read that the two games have different gameplay so I thought what the heck, I'll buy them both

So could somebody tell me, does the Tactical Combat ever planned, as I hope so?

No, it won't be planned. And this subject has already beaten to death. In any case, you must consider the following:
- if you don't add new weapon kind, there isn't any reason to have a tactical human managed battle since the rules of engagement are nearly optimal: concentrate fire on the ship that have the greater attack/(defense + HP) ratio , ie the ship that could do the maximum damage and can be killed fastly.
- if you add new weapon kinds and a human managed tactical battle, then you must create an AI that can correctly fight these battles and design adequate ships.

You might consider also that some people are finding that the AI isn't good enough for attacking/designing efficient ships. I wonder what will happen if more options are available to the AI.

And don't forget that playing on a gigantic galaxy will mean lots of battles.

Now, consider that your wildest dreams come true and Stardock has successfully create a correct AI for tatical battle. You will have 3 possibities
- even if the AI is correct, you can regulary beat it if you handle tactical battles but you will loose if you use autoturn. So anyone that wanst to gain an edge over the AI will feel required to do all battles
- handling tactical battle or using autoturn give the same results. Some people will play the battle, other will use autoturn
- The AI is very impressive and handling manually tactical battles usually ends with worse results than autoturn. Nobody will play the tactical battle

So I don't really think that adding a tactical battle on GC2 will increase the fun factor for lots of people, if you consider the 3 cases I have stated. And I think that the ROI for tactical battle will be much more smaller than the ROI for implementing a full multiplayer aspect.

And I think that the ROI for tactical battle will be much more smaller than the ROI for implementing a full multiplayer aspect.

Frankly, no, I don’t think so. We’re talking about a TBS game here. You know, the kind of game that most of the time takes huge amounts of time to complete a single map…
I fear that only a very small group of hardcore gamers (Mostly unemployed youghts without any family and/or social life. Now don’t get me wrong. I was one of them ) will have sufficient time to play decent multiplayer games on the same scale most people enjoy their games right now (long campaigns on huge-ish maps).
I rather think that the number of people who will actually make use of an even poorly implemented tactical combat would vastly exceed the number of people who are able to play multi-hour-multi-player games.

So I don't really think that adding a tactical battle on GC2 will increase the fun factor for lots of people

Well, MOO2 and other similar games (here we go again) prove you wrong
That and the fact that, like you said yourself: "this subject has already beaten to death."

All the same I fear (regretfully) that Stardock won't include tactical combat until hell freezes over.... or possibly until GC3.

As mentioned, poorly-implemented tac would result in the game ending up like MoO2: an easy tactical game (made hard only by disgustingly cheating AI) tarted up with the trappings of an empire-builder. Further, since the game sensibly lacks the 'special weapons' from MoO2, there's no point to tactical combat. The battles concentrate fire on each target in turn, which is the best way to use them. Do people want the freedom to spread their fire and take more casualties? How does this make sense?

make use of an even poorly implemented tactical combat

????? Are you asking for a dumbed down AI?

Well, MOO2 and other similar games (here we go again) prove you wrong

If you think so. I guess it depends about what people consider things to be fun. And for the record, I have played MOO, MOM, MOO2, HOMM 2,3,4, Disciples II. And I find it boring to be forced to play tactical battles due to a bad tactical AI that can't handle the specificities of my armies. Sure, some battles are very rewarding. But that isn't the majority of the battles you must handle to ensure a correct outcome for your armies.

Frankly, no, I don’t think so. We’re talking about a TBS game here. You know, the kind of game that most of the time takes huge amounts of time to complete a single map…

Well, I think that there are more people on this forum that are requesting multiplayer support than tactical battle, but I could be wrong.

The most definitive answer you will get is in post#52 at this Link

GalCiv II weapons don't have a range component. Therefore, tactical combat in the way you're thinking ala MOO is meaningless.

But ultimately, for me it boils down to not wanting to feel like I had to manage the battles. The only way we would ever consider it is if we felt we could do the AI so good that it would perform the battles better than virtually any human player and even then it would only be less idea than the best person by a small percentage. And that would be non-trivial. It would also require the the combat system be more sophisticated starting with combat ranges, defense ranges, and special modules that had varying range effects as well. Without range for weapons, defenses, and modules in a tactical battle, controlling units is pretty meaningless and unnecessary.

????? Are you asking for a dumbed down AI?

No, not really. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Still struggling with the English I guess

What I was trying to say is that EVEN poorly implemented tactical combat (like MOO2 if you want) would please a lot of people. As long as there’s a choice whether to do the battles yourself or hand them over to the AI.

That doesn’t mean I want it to be poorly implemented. And knowing Stardock, they won’t release anything as long as they can’t do it top-notch.

As a matter of fact I believe that’s the real reason why they won’t include TC. They can’t!
And that’s not meant as unjustified criticism. I’m not a programmer, but even if I were I probably wouldn’t have a clue either about how to do it properly.

The problem boils down to tactical AI. It's pretty horrible in most games - look at Rome Total War. The more combat system, the harder to write AI that would understand it. And while game graphics and engines evolved a lot in the past years, AI remains virtually the same.

OK, but there is another point in this topic: Whether I have tactical combat or not, I want to see my (maybe perfectly designed!) ships
- moving
- fighting
- and shooting
in a way that really looks cool.

In my opinion that is even more important than a tactical combat. And of course somewhere has to be a button, where I can turn on and off this feature.

Whether I have tactical combat or not, I want to see my (maybe perfectly designed!) ships - moving - fighting - and shooting in a way that really looks cool.

Does the combat viewer correspond to your needs?

We're not against tactical combat on principle.  It's just that to do it well would require immense amounts of effort to make sure the computer AI did it well.

MOO2 had tactical combat but there was very little computer AI behind it. A decent player could win a battle that was ridiculously lopsided. As a result, many players felt they had to micro manage every significant battle which took away the "fun" from the rest of the game.

There won't be tactical battle in GalCiv II but in some future sequel it's something we would look at if there's time.

Does the combat viewer correspond to your needs?

Uh ... the ... yes, umh ... no ... err ... Fact is, I have to check out.

Does the combat viewer correspond to your needs?

Does the combat viewer correspond to your needs?

Uh ... the ... yes, umh ... no ... err ... Fact is, I have to check out.


Sorry for double post.

BTW, check carefully all combat viewer related options: one must be unchecked to have the combat viewer in all battles

The combat viewer needs improvment, to me it just loosk liek the ships arnt even flying but floating and bouncing off the edge of the screen.

Well, they are floating. It's space, flying is resisting gravity through force. In space you don't fly, you float in a direction until you produce the minimum thrust required to change your trajectory.

Blargh, geek rating +1 again.

There is a button that both side must be fleets, otherwise you dont have fleet battles and you have to choose full battles on length (or something like that).